Government report to UN drafted by Hillary Clinton and coconspirators lies about the recession her party fails to end

Even as Americans wrestle with the after-effects of one of the most hare-brained social enngineering projects ever devised, subprime mortgages on a mass scale, the government refuses to face reality.

In a new report to the World's Worst Man-made Catastrophe, the United Nations, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and some of her co-conspirators write this:

"The recession in the United States was fueled largely by a housing crisis, which coincided with some discriminatory lending practices." Those practices, the report strongly implies, resulted in a market where "fewer than half of African-American and Hispanic families own homes while three quarters of white families do."

So, it wasn't the mortgages-for-everybody scheme devised by Washington politicians and the Federal Reserve that caused the housing bubble and subsequent collapse. It was the antecedent to those policies, also known as a policy of mortgages only for those who could afford them, that was the problem.

Being an organization run by liberals and radicals, some from the third world, the UN demands victims. Being Democrats, Clinton and her coconspirators are willing to supply victims, even if the supporting story line boggles the mind.

Writing in American Thinker, Jack Cashill notes that "the U.N.'s 192 Member States assess their respective human rights performance over the preceding four years and submit a report on the same to the HRC, the U.N. Human Rights Council.


"During this past year, under the guidance of our HRC, Hillary Rodham Clinton, "senior representatives" from "more than a dozen" federal entities wandered the country listening to the self-serving laments of various liberal pressure groups. At the end of the process, they compiled these gripes into a 29-page report and sent it to the U.N. HRC for review.


"Among the reviewing states of the HRC are human rights luminaries like Cuba, Russia, Red China, Saudi Arabia, and -- when not busy sending "emergency transaction" e-mails -- Nigeria.


"Our State Department calls the UPR process "a unique avenue for the global community to discuss human rights around the world." Any sane person would call it a self-deluding boondoggle and, if its recommendations are followed, a self-destructive one as well.


"I could write a book on the various absurdities of the report we submitted -- e.g., a soulful plea for the rights of the transgendered and not a word on those of the unborn -- but let me focus on one that has the potential to wreak havoc anew on the world's economy: the call for "fairness and equality in housing."


"The recession in the United States," the report insists, "was fueled largely by a housing crisis, which coincided with some discriminatory lending practices." Those practices, the report strongly implies, resulted in a market where "fewer than half of African-American and Hispanic families own homes while three quarters of white families do."



"To prevent similar crises in the future," the report continues in its smugly accusatory way, "the federal government has focused resources and efforts to determine whether and where discrimination took place, as well as to ensure greater oversight going forward." As proof of the administration's eagerness to solve the problem, the report cites its "major financial reform legislation."


"I wish I were making this up, but our official 2010 UPR submission to the United Nation argues that discrimination against minorities in the housing market somehow caused the economic crisis and that the misbegotten Dodd-Frank act will somehow repair it. It is no wonder that the authors of this report oppose capital punishment. Upon reading it, even Sister Helen Prejean would want them taken out and shot.


"While the Obama apparatchiks were busy compiling this report, I was busy writing a book -- Popes and Bankers -- on the real causes of the economic crisis. What they see as the solution I see as the cause, and I can prove my point.


"To make the accusation of discrimination work, the report writers had to ignore the most telling set of data, namely default rates. In 2004, the Department of Housing and Urban Development did a comprehensive study of FHA loans that originated in 1992. The sample size was substantial -- nearly 250,000 loans.


"Given that the FHA insures only modest loans for low- and moderate-income people, the cross-racial comparisons were for comparable properties. What the study revealed, among other results, was that after the seven prosperous years from 1992 to 1999, blacks were defaulting on their loans more than twice as frequently as whites, and Hispanics were defaulting three times more frequently.


"Here is the crucial point: if minorities had been held to a higher standard than whites, their default rates should have been lower than whites, not higher. These numbers suggest the opposite and the obvious: blacks and Hispanics were held to lower standards and have been for at least the last forty years. Chinese-Americans, by the way, actually did have lower default rates than whites.


"As to why black homeownership rates are lower, only the willfully blind can fail to see the problem: namely, the government-induced collapse of the two-parent black family. In 1993, the average income for households headed by divorced women was 40 percent that of married couples; for unmarried women, it was only 20 percent. As the numbers suggest, many of these women could not manage homes of their own. Homeownership rates for female-headed households have struggled to stay above 50 percent. For married couples, by contrast, the rates have hovered consistently in the 80th-percentile range.


"With blacks vastly overrepresented among single-parent families -- by 1993, 57 percent of black children were growing up in a single-parent household, as compared 21 percent of white children -- white homeownership rates inevitably outstripped those for black homeownership. By the early 1990s that gap was at least 25 percentage points, around 70 percent for whites and in the low 40s for blacks.


"The writers of the UPR report, however, refuse to acknowledge family breakdown as a problem, let alone as an explanation for the disparity in homeownership rates. Their preferred explanation for every unequal outcome in every endeavor is the inevitable "discrimination."


"Worse, the report writers -- and indeed, the Obama White House -- seems unaware that the forced march of unqualified buyers into the homeownership field was the single most explosive variable in the subprime blow-up.


"They seem unaware that the Clinton administration demanded that banks quantify -- under duress -- the progress they were making in giving loans to "LMIs," people of low and moderate income.


"They seem unaware that the government encouraged banks to use "innovative or flexible" lending practices -- aka "predatory loans" -- to reach their LMI numbers.


"They seem unaware that HUD, which Congress had made the regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992, began to pressure these agencies to set numerical goals for "affordable housing" even if that meant buying subprime mortgages.


"In 2004, under extreme government pressure, homeownership rate reached a new peak. "'Stop! We're at 69 percent homeownership. We should go no further. These are people who should remain renters,'" former HUD secretary Henry Cisneros wished someone would have said at the time.


"Cisneros added that it was "impossible to know in the beginning that the federal push to increase homeownership would end so badly."


"In 2010, everyone knows how badly the push ended -- everyone, that is, save the clowns who wrote the UPR report and the jokers who approved it."

Hapless Harry patronizes hispanics, but his words get in the way

On behalf of all Hispanics, let me just say this: Muchas gracias, Harry Reid.

These days, many Americans are pressed for time. So I was glad to hear that the Senate majority leader is willing to relieve me and every other Hispanic in the United States of the crushing burden of having to think for ourselves and make our own political decisions. No more slogging through the mundane work of reading up on issues, attending candidates' debates and having to reach our own conclusions. Reid is kindly offering to do all the heavy lifting for America's largest minority and decide whether we should vote Republican or Democrat.

And, to make things easier, as far as the Nevada Democrat is concerned, there is only one choice for Hispanics. Guess who? The Democratic leader of the Senate is trying to win re-election by courting Hispanics in his home state. But instead of flowers and chocolates, Reid showed up at their door offering only insults and condescension.

I'm not surprised. While other members of Congress are busy trying to learn social media, Reid still hasn't mastered social skills. He has an unrivaled gift for saying the wrong thing when it comes to race or ethnicity.

According to the book "Game Change" by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, Reid said privately during the 2008 election that Barack Obama could win because he is "light-skinned" and speaks "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." A year later, Reid accused Republicans of being on the wrong side of health care reform - just as they were "when this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery." (Actually, it was Democrats - particularly Southern Democrats - who were on the wrong side of the slavery debate.)

No doubt about it, Harry needs a filter. And he proved it again recently when addressing Hispanic supporters in Las Vegas. Declaring that Hispanic immigrants should not be treated any differently than previous waves of newcomers from Europe just because "their skin's a tone darker than ours," Reid criticized Republicans for being hostile to Hispanic concerns.

"I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK," Reid said. "Do I need to say more?"

Yeah, Harry. Actually, I think you should. Those patronizing remarks sound as if they came from the overseer of a hacienda. And while you're at it, you might try doing something that you seem to have trouble doing: telling the truth.

Racial politics doesn't seem to be working well for Obama

From vdare.com

Here are Obama’s Gallup Poll approval ratings every week since his Inauguration:

Black support for the black President remains almost rock solid, standing at 89 percent through the week ending July 11, 2010—slightly higher than in his first week in office.

But Obama’s approval rating among whites is now only 38 percent—51 points below the black level. The white approval rating has fallen 25 points since January 2009.

It’s important to note that the white approval rating was as high as 60 percent as late as the week of May 10, 2009. The subsequent sharp fall-off is usually blamed on the economy.

But an alternative explanation is that white disenchantment with Obama appears to have set in during the warm weather months of 2009—about the time of Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court (May 26, 2009); the Supreme Court’s rebuke of Sotomayor’s ruling in the Ricci case (June 29, 2009); and the ludicrous damage-controlling “Beer Summit” featuring Professor Henry Louis Gates and an Obama-dissed Cambridge, MA police officer, James Crowley (July 22-30, 2009).

Since the end of summer 2009, Obama’s staffers, such as the cynical Chicagoan Rahm Emanuel, have worked diligently to keep their boss from alarming whites with obvious racial gaffes—as when he responded frankly to the Henry Louis Gates question at one of his rare press conferences. Obama’s rating among whites has continued to trickle downward, but at a less catastrophic rate.

Come November, Dems will need all the illegal voters they can get

(Reuters) - Hispanics and Democratic lawmakers furious over Arizona's harsh crackdown on illegal immigrants expect huge weekend rallies across the United States, piling pressure on President Barack Obama to overhaul immigration laws in this election year.

Alternative lede:

(TheRightFieldLine) - Egged on by a flailing U.S. president in search of a comeback, hispanics, illegal immigrants and Democrat leaders are planning a weekend of street theater, hoping to open the gates to millions of new voters who might rescue Barack Obama from the dreaded likelihood of a one-term presidency.

Obama is about to roll out the welcome mat for immigrants once more; here's why

Although high immigration may work against Democratic policy goals, such as raising wages for the poor and protecting the environment, it does improve Democratic electoral prospects. In contrast, immigration may help Republican business interests hold down wages, but it also undermines the party’s political fortunes. Future levels of immigration are likely to be a key determinant of Republicans’ political prospects moving forward.

•The electoral impact of immigration has been greatest in counties with large populations, where most immigrants settle. In these locations, Republicans have lost 0.58 percentage points in presidential elections for every one percentage-point increase in the size of the local immigrant population. On average the immigrant share has increased 9.5 percent in these counties.

•In counties of at least 50,000, where the immigrant share increased by at least two percentage points from 1980 to 2008, 62 percent saw a decline in the Republican percentage. In counties with at least a four percentage-point increase, 74 percent saw a decline in the GOP vote. In counties with at least a six percentage-point gain in the immigrant share, 83 percent saw a decline in the GOP vote share.

•Republicans have remained competitive in presidential elections because losses in high-immigration counties have been offset by steady gains in low-immigration counties.

•Even in Texas and Florida, often thought to be an exception, the rising immigrant population across counties is associated with sharply diminished support for Republican candidates.

•In Texas, for example, the estimate shows that for every one percentage-point increase in the immigrant population in a county, the Republican vote share dropped by 0.67 percentage points, which is more than the decline nationally association with immigration.

•The decline does not seem to be associated with the local Republican Party’s position on illegal immigration.

Buchanan: Hispanics gain jobs as whites lose jobs.

"Ed Rubenstein, who has written for Forbes, National Review and the Wall Street Journal, blogs on VDARE.com that if one uses the household survey of job losses for June-July, Hispanics gained 150,000 positions, while non-Hispanics lost 679,000. Guess who got the stimulus jobs.

Going back to the beginning of the Bush presidency, Rubenstein says that "for every 100 Hispanics employed in January 2001, there are now 122.5. ... (But) for every 100 non-Hispanics employed in January 2001, there are now 98.9."

Since 2001, Hispanic employment has increased by 3,627,000 positions, while non-Hispanic positions have fallen by 1,362,000. For black and white America, the Bush decade did not begin well or end well, and it has gotten worse under Obama.

African-Americans remain loyal, but among white folks, where Obama ran stronger than John Kerry or Al Gore, he is hemorrhaging.

According to the latest Quinnipiac poll, which showed him falling to 50 percent approval, whites, by 54 percent to 27 percent, felt Obama behaved "stupidly" in the Sgt. Crowley-professor Gates dustup.

Fifteen straight months of job losses by non-Hispanics explains the anger..."

In Anti-American America, hispanic immigrant employment rises even as citizen employment falls

"So gargantuan is America’s post-1965 immigration disaster that there is now an immigration dimension to every public issue. Nowhere is this more so than in employment—and nowhere is the phenomenon more pressing, given that unemployment has now reached a level (8.5 percent) not seen since 1983—and is projected to reach double digits by year end.

As usual, the federal government’s statistics on immigration’s impact of on employment are so fragmentary that it almost appears someone doesn’t want to know. Specifically, it does not release monthly data on immigrant vs. native-born American employment.

Because of this malfeasance, in 2004 we unveiled our proprietary effort to track American worker displacement: the VDARE.com American Worker Displacement Index (VDAWDI). We tracked monthly growth of Hispanic versus non-Hispanic employment, expressing both as an index number of 100 as of the start of the Bush Administration in January 2001. We used Hispanics as a proxy for immigrant employment because such a high fraction of working age Hispancs (54 percent) a are immigrants.

VDAWDI rose dramatically from January 2001 to late 2007, when it reached 124.1.. Then it stalled and finally declined when employment collapsed in late 2008.

But despite the recent decline, Hispanic (= immigrant) employment is still (as of March 2009) up a whopping 22 percent. In contrast, non-Hispanic (= American) employment was actually lower than it was at the start of the Bush administration."

http://www.vdare.com/pb/090423_vdawdi.htm

Hispanics call for census boycott...Huh?

If this news report is accurate, the United States should immediately slam the door on immigration from hispanic countries, whether legal or illegal, on grounds something has gone seriously wrong with the hispanic gene pool.

"Some Hispanic advocacy groups are calling for illegal immigrants to boycott the 2010Census unless immigration laws are changed. The move puts them at odds with leading immigrant rights advocates and creates another hurdle in the Census Bureau's quest to count everyone in the USA.

The National Coalition of Latino Clergy & Christian Leaders, a group that says it represents 20,000 evangelical churches in 34 states, issued a statement this week urging undocumented immigrants not to fill out Census forms unless Congress passes 'genuine immigration reform.'"

Huh? Wouldn't a boycott mean that hispanics would be under-counted? Or even uncounted? Isn't this obvious, even to immigration champions who regularly stamp their feet and threaten to wreak havoc in their adopted country if their adopted country doesn't cater to their every whim?

But then, my perspective may be all wrong. I am assuming that hispanics want to follow the traditional path of immigrants: grow in numerical strength, elect sympathetic politicians, eventually run immigrants for office.

Perhaps, in the era of Obama, with Chicago's Daly political machine operating out of a branch office in Washington, this is ancient history. From now on, perhaps ACORN's thugs will see to elections, while immigrant pressure groups supply the foot soldiers.

Back to the news report in USA Today:

"Similar grass-roots campaigns are unfolding in Arizona and New Mexico to protest state and local crackdowns on illegal immigrants. Asking immigrants to be counted without giving them a chance to become legal residents counters church teachings, says the Rev. Miguel Rivera, president of the Latino religious coalition.

When the Census counts growing numbers of Hispanics, the counts are often used to support crackdowns on illegal immigrants, he says. About 38% of the churches' 3.4 million members are undocumented, he says. The Census Bureau does not ask people if they are here illegally.

"Our job is to count every single person," says Raul Cisneros, Census spokesman. "We are disappointed that any organization would urge anyone to not participate in the 2010 Census."

No one dares speak of the recession's root cause

"There was overlending going on all over the world—yet the collapse started in a few rapidly Hispanicizing states in the U.S. Why?

You have to look at both sides of the equation: lending and repayment. In California and Company, not only was too much money being lent relative to past rates (which was happening in lots of other places, too), but, also, the earning capacity of the new homebuyers to pay back their loans was declining—as Americans moved out and Latin Americans moved in.
That double whammy in the Sand States of increasing lending and decreasing human capital is what blew the gasket on the world economy.

Of course, we also needed a third element—political correctness—to keep investors from noticing what was happening."

http://www.vdare.com/