Obama Spending $313 Mil on Palestinian Mortgages


Financing mortgages for Muslim terrorists combines two of Obama’s interests into one horrible black hole.

The valiant search for the best way to throw money into a giant metaphorical hole continues. So far Palestinian Home Mortgages is running neck and neck with Carbon Credits and Lesbian Duck Studies.

Palestinian mortgages unlike Lesbian duck studies however help funnel money to Palestinian construction companies which tend to be run by terrorists and their supporters for added destructiveness making this a sure winner.

The U.S. government will fund $313 million in home mortgages for Palestinians living on the West Bank, according to a Government Accountability Office report released Monday.

The U.S. will also guarantee $110 million in loans to small- and medium-sized businesses located on the West Bank.

The mortgage and business-loan activities will be conducted by the federal Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). “OPIC is the U.S. Government’s development finance institution,” says OPIC’s website. “

“U.S. agencies and implementing partners participate in various programs with the Palestine Investment Fund (PIF) or PIF-owned entities that include home mortgage financing, loan guarantees, and educational initiatives,” says the report. “First, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) along with PIF and other entities have committed to lend $485 million to the Affordable Mortgage and Loan Company (AMAL) to support mortgages for low- and medium-income borrowers in the West Bank.

Americans being evicted from their homes could use some of that money, but they’re not Muslim terrorists do they don’t get a taste. Not unless they can think of an even better and more destructive way to waste money than financing mortgages for Muslim terrorists.

  • Softly Bob


    Is it not clear by now that Obama is NOT an incompetent and weak leader, but a knowing traitor who is DELIBERATELY trying to destroy the United States and bring Islamic terror to the World?

    Nobody, not even the most hapless and mentally retarded buffoon could keep making the foolish errors that he is making!

    This is all calculated and carefully planned scheming, and the more that the American people allow him to get away with this, the more the narcissistic S.O.B. will keep making these deliberate mistakes.

    He’s not even trying to cover them up any more. He is insane with power. He is throwing away billions of dollars to help the enemy at a time when the U.S. is in deep financial trouble, he consistently sides with terrorists, he is intentionally trying to destroy the morale of the armed forces and he is blatantly interfering with United States intelligence and security forces. The entire bunch of snakes from Hillary to Kerry to Holder are the enemy within your nation.
    Please America, fight this and fight this now!

  • Gee

    Odumba has pumped over $1 billion extra in aid to Jordanian colonists in Israel this year alone. All without any Congressional approval or oversight

    • Raymond_in_DC

      Obama is just doing what he’s always done… spend other people’s money on projects that fit *his* agenda. And where is Congress in all this? I don’t recall the Constitution giving *him* the power of the purse.

      • defcon 4

        Welcome to the new lieberal fascism.

  • CowboyUp

    That way the palis can spend their money on rockets and explosives. I bet that $313,000,000 is safe from the sequester.

    • ThaTruth

      The same sequester that was brought on by many republicans who would not compromise because it would mean raising taxes on the millionaires and oil companies that support them.

      • CowboyUp

        They could confiscate every dime of every millionaires’ wealth and it wouldn’t cover three months of the dp’s annual deficit (and they would kill the host they depend on doing it). There’s no level of taxation that will cover their spending. If the last five years of $1.3 TRILLION deficits haven’t proven that to you, nothing will.

        Millionaires are already overtaxed anyway, God Almighty Himself only asks 10%. I notice they aren’t talking about reinstating those deductions they did away with to get those lower rates. Wrong is wrong. If their wealth isn’t safe from being looted, mine sure isn’t.

        The federal government makes nearly three times as much money off a gallon of gas than the oil companies, right off the top. Now when I hear the word greed, I know who I’m talking about, and it ain’t rich people or the oil companies. They can’t compel, only government can legally do that.

        But we’re getting off topic, you were trying to
        defend the administration’s spending priorities?

        • MistaEast

          No, i wasn’t. i was responding to your comment about the sequester. The sequester was brought on by the lack of bipartisanship. or both parties refusing to agree. I then proceeded to attack the republican’s reason for refusing to agree based on the fact that it’s because they wont re-raise taxes that were lowered for them. There are better ways that money couldve been spent. I for one am angry beyond belief by the cuts to NASA, and to all science research. I’m justattacking the fact that we let the sequester happen.

          • CowboyUp

            My comment on the sequester was referring to the administration’s spending priorities. You’re off on a tangent to wrongly blame the GOP, millionaires, and the oil companies for the sequester, which was a democrat policy the GOP supported. It’s funny that the people who came up with the policy get none of the blame for it from you.

            The democrat party traded lower rates for eliminated deductions, and now they want to raise the rates without reinstating the deductions. The GOP is right to oppose tax increases, because they’re already too high, and raising them more won’t address, much less solve the problem. The government doesn’t have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem.

            My problem with the sequester is that half the cuts come from defense even though it accounts for less than a quarter of federal spending, and the spending cuts are nowhere near deep enough to have a serious effect on the deficit. The GOP shouldn’t have gone along with that, but they did, and the spending cuts are its’ only saving grace. They’re too small, but they and their implementation do highlight the democrat party’s absurd priorities and crass political calculation.

          • MistaEast

            Yet it was the republicans who backed up the sequester ever so strongly in the house. Even the republicans’ John McCain stated that it was their fault. They let it happen. You’re right though, it was a bipartisan effort and so the Democrat’s are partially to blame. Either way, it is time for the rich to pay even more. I remember studying about a “trickle down” theory that we tried in which the rich got even more money under the assumption that their gains will equate to gains for those below them. That didn’t work. So we should try the converse in which we tax the rich. It was Warren Buffett who stated that the rich should be taxed even more simply because of how many of them make money. Making money off investing isn’t taxed as much as income is so a working man might pay more as a percentage of gains simply because of how it was earned. meanwhile, the rich use their money, get richer, and are taxed less on those gains. and im sorry that the defense budget is being cut so much. maybe we should complain to NASA who in the total 50 years of its existence got less than was allocated to defense in just the last year. and still got cut

          • CowboyUp

            Apparently you studied what was put in front of your nose by an education establishment run by leftists, and nothing else. Otherwise you would know that upward mobility increased from top to bottom along with tax revenue. You should have looked into it on your own, and you still should (I’d recommend you start with “Basic Economics,” by Dr. Thomas Sowell). All of this has happened before, over and over, going back over 3000 years, and the results will be no different this time.
            Enjoy your 1.8% growth ‘boom years,’ high unemployment, low upward mobility, steadily declining standard of living, and national bankruptcy. You won’t ever have to experience that ‘awful’ 7-10% growth we had, or hear the democrat party worry that the economy might “overheat”.

          • MistaEast

            But wasn’t it during Reagan’s term where his “Reaganomics” idea of cutting taxes caused the national debt to double or so? yes, the recession ended because more people had money but debt increased like crazy. That’s almost exactly where we’re at now, except they are trying to turn it around and decrease that debt. Also, a panel of economists were asked, and no one agreed with the idea that lower taxes = greater tax revenue. (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/economists-tax-cuts-lose-money-and-its-as-obvious-as-evolution/259051/ ) That’s what my economics teacher taught me and he claimed to be independent. meanwhile, I did learn trickle down theory from a lefty but from what I’ve seen, it wasn’t good. I think a lot of economics is opinion. There are too many variables and everything works depending on the situation. We learned about Keynesian and Classical economics and how, although they disagree on some things, they both work. Idk, im not a fan of Economics as you can see because the people that do this for a living can barely agree.

          • CowboyUp

            Cutting taxes didn’t cause the national debt to rise in the 80s, the $700 billion dollar increase in spending did. Revenue increased by over $200 billion (which went a lot further then than it does today) a year, and Reagan insisted on adding about $100 billion a year(avg over his 8 years) to defense spending. That collapsed the Warsaw Pact and won the Cold War, which the left, and even many Republicans said was impossible.

            That left the democrat party over $100 billion a year extra to blow buying votes and donations with domestic spending. They blew that, and added another $500 billion in deficit domestic spending, which Reagan opposed. But they sent it to Reagan in huge “continuing resolutions,” encompassing almost all federal spending, including the defense spending authorization, for him to veto or sign. Yet somehow it’s Reagan’s deficit and debt, and the left claimed social spending cuts made old people eat dog food and kicked children out into the street. I’m not surprised your textbooks didn’t have any picture or reference of President Reagan standing behind the podium, pointing at those impressive stacks of papers that made up the continuing resolution, and basically saying, “This is ridiculous.” There would have to be a lot left out, or democrat pols and leftist professors couldn’t con young people with the same lines today.

            “Reaganomics” didn’t originate with Reagan either, it’s simple free enterprise. Democrat JFK did much the same thing, with the same result of increased economic activity and increased revenue. Free people interacting freely generates more commerce and wealth creation than anything any government has ever been able to plan. Wealth can be created or destroyed, and it has to be created for sustainable revenue. The boom began when the money caught up with the money supply, and the investment risks encouraged by the tax cuts started bearing fruit, and was reinvested instead of being confiscated by the government.

          • MistaEast

            Can you definitely attribute the increased revenue to decreased taxes? The spending that the government did including (Especially?) the domestic deficit spending might have caused an increase in money flow. I will say I have a fairly amateur understanding of this type of economics but the increased money flow could increase faith in the dollar and caused everyone to spend more. If everyone’s spending more, then the people receiving have to pay taxes on that new income, and whatever they have they might spend again creating a never ending flow. The decreased taxes might have caused a decrease in the possible revenue. although it was an increase, it could’ve been greater.

            My economics teacher stated that this was the idea behind economic stimulus packages. The last one failed because people didn’t use that money and spend it, but rather many people saved it for fear of the future and the fall of the dollar. Little did they know that while saving is a good thing individually short term, it’s bad long term for the economy. The spending, was good.

            The investment risks may have happened to be good a few times, but I fondly remember a More Than Average (some might even say “Great”) Depression that stemmed from risky investments that fell through. Although the main problem was that the money that was being risked wasn’t real, the idea that the money would still be lost still exists.

            Also, didn’t Obama fight to extend many of the Bush tax cuts while the Republican Presidential Candidates opposed it because all it would do was increase debt? I find it hard to argue either side simply because both can happen. I agreed with the republicans, but my question to you (you seem intelligent enough, and willing to educate me) is, why would republicans not encourage tax cuts seeing as Reagan encouraged them and not only do people (especially republicans) love Reagan, but they supposedly worked.

  • glpage

    The Republicans in the House need to get a pair and write up articles of impeachment. Wasting taxpayer money without Congress’ consent is not a power given to the President. The man is doing his best to trash the Constitution. So much for his claim that this is a nation of laws.