Governors Criticize Obama's Border Security Plan

(Every time I see this guy I want to reach into the TV and choke him)

Juan Williams

"It's a civil rights issue."

This is not the reincarnation of the civil rights movement here. We're talking about illegals Juan. You brain dead dumb ass! 

PHOENIX -- The Texas and Arizona governors criticized the Obama administration's border security plans Monday, saying not enough National Guard troops are being deployed to their states.

"What we heard wasn't anything what we hoped to hear," Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer told reporters after a 90-minute briefing by federal officials sent by President Obama.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican like Brewer, said the deployment to his state was "insufficient to meet the needs of securing the Texas-Mexico border."

A White House statement said plans to deploy 1,200 additional National Guard soldiers along the U.S.-Mexico border would "complement the unprecedented resources and additional efforts already devoted by this administration to securing the Southwest border."

Arizona would get 524 National Guard troops, Texas would get 250, California 224 and New Mexico 72, officials said. Another 130 would be at a national liaison office.

Brewer has said the deployment should total 6,000, including 3,000 in Arizona, the state with the most illegal border crossings. Perry asked in January 2009 for 1,000 National Guard troops to help with border security in Texas alone.

The White House statement said the extra Guard troops would be used to provide intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance support as well as backup to counternarcotics enforcement until more civilian officers are trained and stationed at the border.

The federal officials briefed Brewer, her senior aides and several state agency heads after an hourslong meeting in Tucson earlier Monday with Attorney General Terry Goddard, U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and dozens of local law enforcement officials. Goddard and Giffords are Democrats.

The federal team was led by John Brennan, a national security adviser whom Goddard said has the job of evaluating "the whole picture."
"He never said this is all," Goddard said. "He said this is what we're going to do right now."

The meeting with Brewer resulted from her June 3 visit to the White House, where she and Obama discussed border security and immigration. Brewer asked for specifics on plans for Arizona.

The president previously announced plans to send 1,200 troops to the border, and he asked Congress for $600 million to pay for 1,000 more Border Patrol agents, 160 new federal immigration officers and two unmanned aircraft. The figure includes $500 million in new spending and $100 million of redirected spending.

Brewer said after the June 3 meeting that Obama gave assurances that the majority of the 1,200 troops would go to Arizona. She sought them to help stem the flow of illegal immigrants and drug smugglers across the border, and she reacted to Obama's initial announcement by saying 1,200 wouldn't be enough. She also urged Obama to send National Guard helicopters and surveillance drones to the border.
Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada, whose county abuts on the border, called the federal effort "long overdue."

"We've never had the attention, and we've never had the response or resources along the border that we have had recently," Estrada said after the Tucson meeting. "And once we have the right match, the right combination, I think we'll be able to claim some victories. It's not going to stop, the border will never be sealed. It will be safer, maybe more secure, but it will always be active."

The meetings follow months of heated debate over illegal immigration sparked by the passage of a new Arizona law in April. The law generally requires police investigating another incident or crime to ask people about their immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally.

The meetings were held as Arizona officials awaited word on a widely anticipated federal legal challenge to the measure. Obama has called the law "misguided." Brewer has called its enactment necessary due to federal inaction on border enforcement.
Goddard said the federal officials clammed up when asked during the Tucson meeting about a possible challenge. Brewer said the subject didn't come up during the Phoenix meeting.

Governors Criticize Obama's Border Security Plan

A tale of two presidents

A tale of two presidents

Now... I have seen it all

Remember... our government actually paid for this advertisement. 

Your tax dollars at work!

They could care less about securing the border. But they do care if illegals get a fair wage? What the f---!


The people of AZ have finally woken up. Now is the time for the rest of us. If this video does not bring to bear, this worthless president has any resemblance to a real president, then you should have your head examined. 

This doesn't cross the line... it leaps over it!

(I had to listen to it twice. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.)


Hilda Solis--- I wonder if she is here legally?

Now... I have seen it all

Here we go again

Update on my previous post

Once again the Democrats want to re-instate the NINJA rule that created our current fiscal problem under the CRA act. NO INCOME NO JOB APPROVED for the mortgage.

Democrats Vote Down 5 Percent Rule

In a bid to stem taxpayer losses for bad loans guaranteed by federal housing agencies Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn) proposed that borrowers be required to make a 5% down payment in order to qualify. His proposal was rejected 57-42 on a party-line vote because, as Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) explained, "passage of such a requirement would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it." 

What a novel idea!

Here we go again

What happens after a government injection of $145 billion

The government can't digest this simple principle... when you can't afford a home...you can't afford a home. Owning a home is an American dream... not an indelible right! 

If this video does not convince you; I don't know what the hell would!

Question. How in the hell do these bastards remain in office?

Franklin Raines

Why is this guy not in jail?

Update: Fannie, Freddie Delisting Signals Firms Have No Value

By Jessica Holzer and Jacob Bunge
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The regulator for Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) ordered them to voluntarily delist their shares from U.S. stock exchanges Wednesday, underscoring that the once-mighty mortgage behemoths no longer have value as private firms.


The move comes as the Obama administration begins to shift its focus to the future of the companies, which were seized by the federal government in September 2008 and are on track to becoming the largest recipients of bailout dollars in the financial crisis.
The company's regulator, Federal Housing Finance Agency Acting Director Edward J. DeMarco, cited stock-exchange rules related to minimum share-price levels as the basis 
for his action. But his hand was not forced by such rules.


"This is a positive step," Phillip Swagel, a former Treasury Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy during the Bush administration, argued. "It signals that these guys are going to come out [of conservatorship] in a different form and that the existing shareholders are not going to get anything."


Facing criticism from Republicans for not spelling out the fate of Fannie and Freddie, administration officials have indicated they will turn to the matter once Congress wraps up work on financial-overhaul legislation. Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said Wednesday's action "does not imply any direction of any future reforms or preference of corporate form" for the companies.


Freddie Mac said it expects the delisting of its common and preferred stock will happen by July 8. Fannie Mae indicated it will be delisted in early July.


The companies' shares will now be traded in the over-the-counter market where they will be quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board, typically the domain of untested companies and more speculative stocks. They will still file disclosures with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


The companies' share prices plummeted on the morning announcement; Fannie's and Freddie's stock closed down nearly 40% to 56 cents and 76 cents, respectively, in Wednesday trading. Meanwhile, the roughly three dozen publicly-traded preferred securities issued by Fannie and Freddie were punished nearly as severely, posting declines of 14% to 46% in Wednesday afternoon trading.


Fannie's and Freddie's shares have limped along since the federal government seized them. The U.S. Treasury acquired ownership of 80% of each company's common stock and agreed to pump in capital as needed to keep the companies solvent. The government has so far injected $145 billion and losses at the company continue to mount. In exchange for the capital, the federal government has received preferred shares in the same amount carrying a 10% coupon.


Any money the companies make goes to paying the dividend on the government's shares.


Fannie's and Freddie's shares had become the province of day traders taking bets on the company's future after institutional investors fled the stocks and Wall Street equity analysts dropped them from their coverage. Trading has remained intense, however, with the shares often making the New York Stock Exchange daily list of most heavily-traded shares.


Since their federal takeover, Fannie and Freddie have functioned as tools of the administration's strategy to keep mortgage credit flowing and help homeowners avoid foreclosure. The Treasury's preferred stock agreements with Fannie and Freddie effectively guarantee the companies' debt.


The two mortgage giants have struggled mightily since the housing bust. In May, Fannie requested another $8.5 billion in government aid. Meanwhile, Freddie said it would need a $10.6 billion injection from the Treasury.


The shares of both companies first sank below the New York Stock Exchange's $1 30-day average price requirement in the fall of 2008. Companies that see their stock trade below that level for 30 consecutive days typically are given six months to correct the issue or face delisting.


When Fannie and Freddie slipped into the warning zone, they got a longer-than-usual period to buoy their stock price thanks to a temporary suspension of NYSE Euronext's listing standards in late February 2009. Those listing standards were reinstated in August 2009, but both companies traded above the minimum price at that time.


Over the past 30 days, Fannie Mae's average share price sank once again below NYSE's minimum requirement. Freddie's share price didn't violate the $1 minimum, however.
DeMarco, in a press release, said it "simply makes sense" for Freddie to delist because it "fits with the goal of a conservatorship to preserve and conserve assets."


Pulling their stocks off the NYSE will save the two companies $500,000 apiece in annual listing fees, as both companies paid the maximum amount due to the large number of 
shares outstanding, according to NYSE Euronext.


Fannie and Freddie watchers weren't surprised by the regulator's action. Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), the top Republican on the House Financial Services Committee, said in a press release the move confirmed Fannie and Freddie weren't real companies anymore.


"De-listing is the appropriate message: That these companies have no value and they shouldn't be traded as if they're real companies," said Bose George, an analyst for Keefe, Bruyette & Woods Inc.

What happens after a government injection of $145 billion