As Ann Coulter writes, our present economic turmoil originated in the attempt to vanquish “racism” by handing out free money. I know that won’t surprise you.

Under Clinton, the entire federal government put massive pressure on banks to grant more mortgages to the poor and minorities. Clinton’s secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Andrew Cuomo, investigated Fannie Mae for racial discrimination and proposed that 50 percent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low- to moderate-income borrowers by the year 2001.

Instead of looking at “outdated criteria,” such as the mortgage applicant’s credit history and ability to make a down payment, banks were encouraged to consider nontraditional measures of credit-worthiness, such as having a good jump shot or having a missing child named “Caylee.”

Threatening lawsuits, Clinton’s Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage. That isn’t a joke – it’s a fact.

When Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches, political correctness was given a veto over sound business practices.

Here’s a Fannie Mae publication called “Reaching the Immigrant Market.” And you remember the big Je$$e Jackson shakedown in 1998. “Even though Fannie Mae goes back to President Roosevelt’s New Deal, it is commonly known that the present focus of both Fannie and Freddie are ‘creations of the congressional Democrats (particularly the Congressional Black Caucus) and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people,’ meaning minorities.”

Here’s how Bush, in 2002, exacerbated an already disastrous ploy to force banks to revitalize the hood, as Jack Kemp always used to say:

Two-thirds of all Americans own their homes, yet we have a problem here in America because fewer than half of the Hispanics and half the African Americans own the home. That’s a homeownership gap. It’s a – it’s a gap that we’ve got to work together to close for the good of our country, for the sake of a more hopeful future.

We’ve got to work to knock down the barriers that have created a homeownership gap… [Knock down barriers? He's sounding like a preacher.] To open up the doors of homeownership there are some barriers, and I want to talk about four that need to be overcome. First, down payments. A lot of folks can’t make a down payment… And one way to address that is to have the federal government participate… And you can imagine somebody newly arrived from Peru looking at all that print, and saying, I’m not sure I can possibly understand that…

I’m also going to encourage the lending industry to develop a mortgage market so that this script, these vouchers, can regularly be used as a source of payment to provide more capital to lenders, who can then help more families move from rental housing into houses of their own…

Six years later, we’re nearly bankrupt, and his futile war coincided, which has drained trillions more. Most people have short memories, but I clearly remember that Judeochristians were rapturous over Bush because they hoped he would finally put an end to abortion (the only thing they care about). And just like Palin, much of his appeal rested in the fact that he was almost completely unknown. They never learn. They’re now pouring the same false hope and irrational exuberance into a holy-roller, Jew-worshiping feminist and willfully overlooking the white-hatred and Christ-hatred of her running mate. They make me sick.

“The Christian Right wants a halfway house between democracy and theocracy. It also wants a halfway house between theonomy and autonomy, revelation and rationalism, creationism and evolutionism. It wants equal time for Jesus, which means equal time for Satan.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony

The triumph of feminism.

“By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband; under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert, foemina viro co-operta; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of a union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage… For this reason, a man cannot grant anything to his wife, or enter into covenant with her: for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence; and to covenant with her, would be only to covenant with himself…” ~ William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765

“[T]he preaching of women and the demand of all masculine political rights are so synchronous, and are so often seen in the same persons, that their affinity cannot be disguised. They are two parts of one common impulse… According to that doctrine, every human being is naturally independent, owes no duties to civil or ecclesiastical society save those freely conceded in the ‘social contract’; is the natural equal of every other human except as he or she has forfeited liberty by crime… If these propositions were true, then, indeed, their application to women would be indisputable. And it would be hard for the radical politician to explain why it was right to apply them in favor of ignorant negroes and deny their application to intelligent ladies… Hence false principles once firmly fixed are very apt to bring after them their appropriate corollaries in the course of time, however distasteful to the promulgators of the parent errors. [Think of how Equality becomes progressively more degenerate.] To the radical mind, possessed with these false politics, the perpetual demand of these obvious corollaries by pertinacious women must apply a stress which is like the ‘continual dripping that weareth away a stone’… [The fathers of 1776] meant to teach that in one very important respect all are naturally equal. This is the equality which Job recognized (ch. 31:15) as existing between him and his slave; the equality of a common origin, a common humanity and immortality. It is the equality of the golden rule. By this right, that human being whom the laws endow with the smallest franchises in society has the same kind of moral right to have that small franchise respected by his fellows, as the man who justly possesses the largest franchise. It is the equality, embodied in the great maxim of the British Constitution, ‘that before the law all are equal’ … The woman is not designed by God, nor entitled to all the franchises in society to which the male is entitled… And as she has no right to assume the masculine franchises, so she will find in the attempt to do so only ruin to her own character and to society. For instance, the very traits of emotion and character which make woman man’s cherished and invaluable ‘helpmeet,’ the traits which she must have in order to fulfil the purpose of her being, would ensure her unfitness to meet the peculiar temptations of publicity and power. The attempt would debauch all these lovelier traits, while it would leave her still, as the rival of man, ‘the weaker vessel.’ She would lose all and gain nothing. One consequence of this revolution would be so certain and so terrible, that it cannot be passed over. It must result in the abolition of all permanent marriage ties. Indeed, the bolder advocates do not scruple to avow it… This common movement for ‘women’s rights,’ and women’s preaching, must be regarded, then, as simply infidel.” ~ Robert Lewis Dabney, The Public Preaching of Women

“Believing that the intelligent, refined, modest Christian women of the United States were the real custodians of national purity, and the sole agents who could successfully arrest the tide of demoralization breaking over the land, she addressed herself to the wives, mothers, and daughters of America; calling upon them to smite their false gods, and purify the shrines at which they worshipped. Jealously she contended for every woman’s right which God and nature had decreed the sex. The right to be learned, wise, noble, useful, in woman’s divinely limited sphere; the right to influence and exalt the circle in which she moved; the right to mount the sanctified bema of her own quiet hearthstone; the right to modify and direct her husband’s opinions, if he considered her worthy and competent to guide him; the right to make her children ornaments to their nation, and a crown of glory to their race; the right to advise, to plead, to pray; the right to make her desk a Delphi, if God so permitted; the right to be all that the phrase ‘noble, Christian woman’ means. But not the right to vote; to harangue from the hustings; to trail her heaven-born purity through the dust and mire of political strife; to ascend the rostra of statesmen, whither she may send a worthy husband, son, or brother, but whither she can never go, without disgracing all womanhood.” ~ Augusta Jane Evans, St. Elmo

Evans was a Kinist, of course, as all Southern women used to be. “Good blood doesn’t lie,” she said. Her novel St. Elmo sold one million copies in four months, in 1866! Anything you know which bears this name came from the title of her book. Her novel Macaria was written by candlelight while nursing the Confederate wounded. It was so pro-Confederate that it had to be bootlegged in the North, and Union General Thomas banned it among his troops in Tennessee and burned any copies that he found. Its profits sustained her family through the period of Destruction, commonly known as Reconstruction.

You learn more about Yankees in history books because Yankees wrote them. Yankee Noah Webster even took it upon himself to spurn and eventually annihilate lovely Southern speech. As for female authors of the 19th century, you will read about Alcott, Howe, Stowe, and Dickenson, but never Evans or other forgotten Southerners, and this is yet more evidence of what we have lost.