BloggeRhythms

Love him or hate him, when all’s said and done, although he might be somewhat extreme in his approach, Rush usually knows what he’s talking about. And, most importantly, he always does his homework, which is why there’s so much confirming data to be found in his ever present “stack of stuff.” 

In that regard, whereas Trump’s a businessman, the left, including the major media have already begun an assault on his business practices as being ruthless, selfish and anti everything that’s good, wholesome or benevolent. Which is why Trump’s being attacked for having stated in 2008 that there might be gainful opportunity’s created for him by the housing market crash.  

The Clinton campaign has already begun promoting an ad that Trump recorded in 2006 for his Trump University venture in which he comments on a "bubble burst," saying "I sort of hope that happens because then people like me would go in and buy" property and "make a lot of money." 

Considering that real estate was his primary business, however, he was absolutely correct in his analysis of  the major negative aspects of that government forced situation. And, as a businessman, it was perfectly logical to see the opportunity created when funding is provided to borrowers who have no capability whatsoever to repay loans they’ve never should have been given in the first place. Somebody was going to have to step to begin buying the assets that were defaulted on, so why not him?  

And that’s why Rush believes that, sooner or later, the Democrat attacks on Trump are going to expose the huge mistakes those same Democrats themselves made by pressuring lenders to advance mortgage loans to countless numbers of undeserving borrowers.   

Rush put it this way, yesterday: “I'm gonna tell you something else here, folks.  I think on this whole, whatever you call it -- the Great Recession, the housing crisis, and Trump (throw Trump in there)... I have a suspicion that a bunch of Democrats are gonna be hearing things for the first time, and they're not going to know how to deal with it.  Such is the safety of the cocoon that has been built by them, for them.  I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but there are numerous ones that we pointed out just in recent months.   

“We'd be watching a cable news show, and some subject like the housing crisis will come up -- or something where it's automatically assumed it's George W. Bush's fault -- that the left and the media have successfully woven deep tentacles of deceit throughout, so that everybody thinks... Including Democrats, everybody thinks that whatever it is we're talking about is directly attributable to Bush, and all of a sudden somebody comes on saying, "No, no, no, no, no! That's Bill Clinton." 

To help prove his point, regarding the Clinton administration helping cause the housing bubble, Rush referred to an article from the New York Times published back on September 29, 1999, as follows: 

“In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. 

“The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring. 

“Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. 

“In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans. 

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.'' 

So, by their absolutely inane actions, for purely political purposes the Clinton administration literally forced financially sound institutions to advance credit to those who by the administration's own definition were, “individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans.”  

Thus, in an overall sense, Trump’s rise in the Republican party is a clear indication of public awareness that the nation cannot survive if its leaders continue irrational fiscal policy. Which is seemingly confirmed by Republican turnout in primary's to date.   

According to Jim Hoft @thegatewaypundit.com: “The Republican Party has set a party record this year in pre-convention state election turnout with over 28 million votes to date which is 136% of the record high voter turnout in 2008.  That’s four million more votes than the Democratic primary race this year. 

“There are five states left to vote including California. 

“This increase in votes can be attributed to Donald Trump.” 

Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

Once again, while an article opens to question the veracity of Bill’s Clinton’s wife, the text may be less important than the authors who wrote it: The Editorial Board of the New York Times who are usually her most ardent supporters without question.  

Titled "Hillary Clinton, Drowning in Email," The piece begins: “Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the presidency just got harder with the release of the State Department inspector general’s finding that “significant security risks” were posed by her decision to use a private email server for personal and official business while she was secretary of state. Contrary to Mrs. Clinton’s claims that the department had “allowed” the arrangement, the inspector general also found that she had not sought or received approval to use the server. 

“So far, no security breaches have been reported; a separate F.B.I. investigation is looking into that. But above and beyond security questions, the inspector general’s report is certain to fuel doubts about Mrs. Clinton’s trustworthiness, lately measured as a significant problem for her in public polls.” 

Then, after recapping details of the case, most of which is well known by now, the Board sums the current situation up this way: “Even now, it seems a stretch to say that Mrs. Clinton’s email mishaps should disqualify her for the White House, particularly considering the alternative of Mr. Trump with his manifold evasions — not least his refusal to release tax returns that could shed light on his claims to great wealth, his charitable contributions and other deductions and possible conflicts of interest. 

“But the nation should not be judging leadership as a measure of who is less untrustworthy. Mrs. Clinton has to answer questions about the report thoroughly and candidly. That is her best path back to the larger task of campaigning for the presidency.” 

Now, it would be more than reasonable to assume that the Board, above all others, should certainly know that the chances of Bill’s wife coming clean in the matter are likely less than zero. Which means that this this article may be their first step in warming up the bus. And then, in time, they’ll simply toss her under it.  

Bringing up the ongoing question again: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?  

That’s it for today folks.      

Adios