Ponder this question about Barack Hussein Obama

Philip J. Berg, a former University of Toledo law student, is suing Sen. Barack Obama, asking questions about the Democratic presidential nominee's citizenship. Berg doesn't believe he was born in the United States and if the Illinois senator is elected, it would cause a crisis within the U.S. Constitution. Obama's campaign contends he was born in Hawaii. FOX Toledo's Kristi Leigh investigates.




Updated: Information added to expose the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural US citizen

If this is true maybe Barack Hussein Obama does have a Hawaiian Birth Certificate but as this article states under any law it is not valid which would mean Obama is not and never has been a US citizen!
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Understand, the Hawaiian Authorities may be able to Issue a Hawaiian Birth Certificate under these circumstances but they cannot make you a US Citizen. A child born in Kenya to and underage US Female and a UK and Colonies Citizen in 1961 was not born a US Citizen under any US Federal Law, under British Law, or International Law. The only way such an Individual could be a US Citizen in terms of the XIVth Amendment, or any Statute, or Code of US Federal Law is by Naturalization.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another bomb shell shocker could be comming
Michelle Obama tried trawling the “very single mother” canard. Were he illegitimate there is precedent and Statute that says if his parents were unmarried at the time of his birth he would have become a Citizen of the USA at Birth under Title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act Section 309. [8 U.S.C. 1409]. However, as Miller v Albright, 523 US 420 (1998) demonstrates there is, and was, a split in the Supreme Court as to whether this Law is in fact Constitutional under the XIVth Amendment. A new case might change the precedent. For now it stands.

(Under this law one of the unmarried parents must be a US Citizen and Obama's mother at the time of birth had not met the legal requirement)

**********************************************************************************
**********************************************************************************
The article below is explosive and exposes the Obama FRAUD!
**********************************************************************************

Barack Hussein Obama II

By Judah Benjamin, Guest Author

It has been asserted by a number of sources, including Andy Martin, that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya and not in Hawaii. Philip Berg’s Latest Motion to the Court is more explicit since it gives an exact Place of Birth. I must assume that Berg did not simply pluck the Location out of thin air, Mombasa has more than one Hospital, though Coast Provincial General was the best in 1961.

British Birth Certificates have a Standard Format which has been more or less the same since 1837 and they can only be challenged in a British Court. Kenyan Law is explicit and can only be challenged in a Kenyan Court. Indonesian Law is explicit and can only be challenged in an Indonesian Court. Be clear, if Obama was born in Kenya this is not simply a matter for the US Courts, or US Law.

If he was born in Kenya, and his parents were Legally Married [which on the Preponderance of Evidence they were, his father's first "Marriage" being a Tribal, or Village, Marriage, which was not Legally Recognized] due to the age of his mother he would NOT have been a US Citizen. The Immigration and Nationality Act 1952, 8 U.S.C. 1401. Sec. 301 (g) [Effective November 14, 1986] does not apply, nor does Title III, Immigration and Nationality Act Section 309. [8 U.S.C. 1409].

Unless he has taken the Oath of Allegiance as a Naturalized Citizen since he was 18 years old, and if he was born in Mombasa, Kenya, Barack Hussein Obama II would not be a US Citizen, period. The issue of whether or not he was Natural Born under Article II of the Constitution of the United States would cease to matter and he would need to be Deported as an Illegal Alien.

Impeachment as a Senator would seem not to be necessary since he would never Legally have been one, but Diane Feinstein and the members of the Senate Ethics and Rules Committee would be liable to Impeachment. So would their opposite numbers in the Illinois Senate and the appropriate officials of the Illinois State Supreme Court and Bar, so far as I can see.

If Senator Barack Hussein Obama II was born in The Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombasa in Kenya at 7.24 PM on August 4th 1961, or at any other time, he is not a Natural Born Citizen of these United States and he never was. Philip J Berg, Esq, is correct, under the Nationality Act of 1940, as Revised June 1952 and in accord with United States of America vs Cervantes-Nava 281 F 3d 501 (2002) and Drozd vs INS, 155 F 3d 81, 85-88 (2d Circuit 1998) Senator Barack Hussein Obama II would not ever have been a Legal US Citizen at all, unless he was Naturalized.

If he was born in The Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombasa in Kenya any Certificate, or Certification of Live Birth, issued for him by the State of Hawaii is a Fraudulent and Illegal Document. At Birth he would have been a UK and Colonies Citizen and in accord with the Kenyan Constitution he would have become a Kenyan Citizen in December 1963. He would not have been a US Citizen.

Alternatively, his UK and Colonies Birth Certificate issued in Mombasa in August 1961 could be a Fraudulent and Illegal Document. The two BCs would need to be compared. By this I mean the Original Vault Copy of the Hawaiian Birth Certificate and not the Amended, Post Adoption, Copy, Legally available to the Senator, assuming he was, as indicated by the Preponderance of Evidence, Adopted by Lolo Soetoro. This case might also need to go through the UK and Kenyan Courts and becomes a Matter of International Law and Controversy.

If Barack Hussein Obama II was born at The Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombasa in Kenya at 7:24 PM on August 4th 1961, or at any other time, it is certain that he is not Eligible to hold the Offices of POTUS or VPOTUS and highly probable that he is not Legally entitled to hold the Office of Senator either and that he was not Eligible to be an Illinois State Senator.

In that event the Senate Ethics and Rules Committee, Chair Diane Feinstein, have a problem because they are responsible for the Certification of a Candidate’s Compliance with Constitutional Requirements, a job they would have conspicuously failed to do. Should he be Elected the poisoned Chalice would pass to Nancy Pelosi because as Speaker of the House she, and the House, have the Responsibility to ensure that the President Elect can Effectively be Sworn In and Legally Assume the Office and Duties of the President.

Be very clear here, if Barack Hussein Obama II was born at The Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombasa in Kenya at 7:24 PM on August 4th 1961, or at any other time, Diane Feinstein’s Committee have already failed in their Duty, as has every Secretary of State in the Union.

Let me repeat myself, if Barack Hussein Obama II was born in The Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombasa in Kenya at 7:24 PM on August 4th 1961, or at any other time, he is not a Natural Born Citizen of these United States and he never was, he is not even a Citizen by Birth. I had assumed ab initio that Obama was born in Hawaii and that his Hawaiian Paperwork was basically “on the up and up”, I could not conceive that a lie of this magnitude was possible, I thought that the INS would have caught on long since. If he is a US Citizen under these circumstances his Oath of Allegiance must be on Record somewhere. If it isn’t he is not a US Citizen.

Hawaii may Legally be able to Issue a Birth Certificate under these circumstances, according to their own Code, but it would breach of International and Federal Law if they have. It would breach Hawaiian Law if the Place of Birth is spurious.

“[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.”

So by that section he could get a certificate claiming Hawaiian birth even if he was physically born outside the US but the Place of Birth would need to be correctly recorded.

Understand, the Hawaiian Authorities may be able to Issue a Hawaiian Birth Certificate under these circumstances but they cannot make you a US Citizen. A child born in Kenya to and underage US Female and a UK and Colonies Citizen in 1961 was not born a US Citizen under any US Federal Law, under British Law, or International Law. The only way such an Individual could be a US Citizen in terms of the XIVth Amendment, or any Statute, or Code of US Federal Law is by Naturalization.

Under Common Law no Person can Testify as to their own Place of Birth, this is established Law upheld by stare decisis. Therefore it would be possible, even given the he was born in Kenya, for Obama to claim that he believed a Hawaiian Birth Certificate made him a US Citizen under the XIVth Amendment and that therefore he was acting in Good Faith running for an Office which he was Constitutionally Incapable of Holding. Unfortunately for him, his actions in regard to the Admission of his UK & Colonies and Kenyan Citizenships and his Indonesian Citizenship by Adoption, his frequent apparent Breaches of the Logan Act, his probable breaches of the Hobbs Act, the Hatch Act, USC Title 18 Part One Chapter 63 § 1346 and the RICO Statute make this Defense wholly Untenable, especially when one considers the fact that he holds a JD from Harvard Law. One may throw in the Misprision Statute for good measure. It is difficult to find any action or statement of Obama’s since 1992 that could be used to suggest Good Faith could be used as a Defense in this Case. I am not saying that Obama is Guilty of any of these Felonies or High Misdemeanors, only that his actions and pronouncements are such as to lead to a reasonable suspicion that he may be.

Under INA §349 “2. taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof after having attained the age of eighteen years.” This is an “Expatriating Clause”, if you hold Dual Citizenship and do this you void your US Citizenship. Well Obama campaigned actively for Odinga in Kenya and apparently also took some kind of Luo Tribal Loyalty Oath. He may also have joined Odinga’s party. Of course his Dual Nationality lapsed in 1982 but INA §349 could, perhaps, still apply here, if he was born in Mombasa. It might even be concluded that Obama was providing grounds to restore his Kenyan Citizenship by Prime Ministerial Decree, which is Legal under the Kenyan Constitution. That would certainly look Expatriating to me, but I do not know how a Court would react.



Text of S. Res. 511: A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen
There is indirect reason to believe that this may be true. “2d Session S. RES. 511: Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.: In the Senate of the United States.” was Sponsored by Senator McCaskill and co-sponsored by Senators Leahy, Obama, Coburn, Clinton and Webb. Why? Why were Democratic Senators trying to pass a Resolution making Senator McCain undoubtedly Legally Eligible when this issue had already been cleared up in 2000 and again in 2004? And why did Senators McCaskill and Obama reportedly insert the following Clause?

“Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President;”

This Clause has no particular relevance to McCain and the following Clause, which it is reported McCaskill and Obama attempted to REMOVE shows that:

“; and Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:”

It seems clear that McCaskill and Obama were attempting to create a blanket Resolution covering ALL Foreign Born candidates. Why do that if not to benefit a Foreign Born Democratic Candidate, who did not have a US Military background?

McCain did not need this resolution, Richardson did not need this Resolution, so far as I can see nobody needed this Resolution unless somebody in the race was born outside the USA and was “Covering his/her Ass” and the only individual in the race that that could apply to was Senator Obama! This in turn would show that the Senator is a liar who has been peddling untruths about his birth for at least 16 years!

Likewise it would explain why Michelle Obama tried trawling the “very single mother” canard. Were he illegitimate there is precedent and Statute that says if his parents were unmarried at the time of his birth he would have become a Citizen of the USA at Birth under Title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act Section 309. [8 U.S.C. 1409]. However, as Miller v Albright, 523 US 420 (1998) demonstrates there is, and was, a split in the Supreme Court as to whether this Law is in fact Constitutional under the XIVth Amendment. A new case might change the precedent. For now it stands.

I do not insist that any of this is true and to me it makes little difference if it is, I hold him Ineligible anyway and have seen no solid Legal Rebuttal of my view from any source, but if he was born in Kenya he has, and can have, no defense of any description and any Document he has from Hawaii is Fraudulent on several levels. To hold the Office of POTUS one must be a Natural Born United States Citizen, if he was born in Mombasa Obama probably isn’t even a United States Citizen much less Natural Born. He would be guilty of Fraud and a list of other offenses and any and all persons who had aided him would be guilty of Misprision, in all probability.

..................................................................................
..................................................................................
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE CONGRESS AND THE CONSTITUITION
..................................................................................
..................................................................................
Congress is the place to challenge McCain’s or Obama’s qualifications to be President

The New York Times has twice ran articles questioning whether John McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone would disqualify him to be President based on Article II of the U.S. Constitution: “No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President”. “Natural born” is not defined. The blogosphere is ripe with speculation that Obama may also fail to meet the qualification, since his supporters posted online an inauthentic copy of a birth certificate purporting to be for Barack Obama. The allegations have raised the specter of a challenge to either candidates’ eligibility to be President. Congress, not the courts are the constitutionally correct place to determine whether a President elect meets all of the qualifications to hold the Office of President.

Both Article II Section 1 and Amendment XII of the US Constitution call for President of the Senate to count the electors votes. There are procedures for Congress to make the choice if no one has a majority. Amendment XX has procedures for dealing with a situation where “the President elect shall have failed to qualify”. While it is not spelled out who judges the President's qualification the constitutionally correct place would be in Congress since all the duties surrounding the issue are designated to Congress and no one else is given the authority.

It is not spelled out but if a challenge were made at the time the electors’ votes are counted Congress would have to deal with the issue. Evidence could be presented and testimony heard, then a decision would have to be made. There is nothing in the Constitution giving the courts authority to make the decision; lawyers think the courts are always the place for making decisions so they don’t think of other options that fit better with the structure of the Constitution. It does not matter whether the challenge is to the election of McCain, Obama or anyone else, the process would be the same.

If the defect in the President’s qualifications were to come to light after the President was sworn in then the procedures for impeachment would be appropriate, since running for office in violation of the constitutional requirement for being a “natural born Citizen” would be high Crime or Misdemeanor.

The Senate has already expressed the opinion that McCain is a "natural born Citizen" and eligible for the Office of the President. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) introduced the resolution during April of this year after the first New York Times article. Obama might be required to present a Birth Certificate if his qualifications were challenged and then the issue would be resolved. Since all of the authority for counting the electors and dealing with a President elect who fails to qualify rest with Congress, Congress is also the appropriate place to determine the President’s qualifications.

From the Constitution of The United States of America, Amendment XX, Section 3:
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or [if the President elect shall have failed to qualify], then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

***********************************************************************************
HERE IS WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO DO. Write, call, email the congress to demand that Barack Hussein Obama presents a valid birth certificate that verifies he is a natural born US citizen at the time the electors' votes are counted!

Amendment XX has procedures for dealing with a situation where “the President elect shall have failed to qualify”. All the duties surrounding the issue of counting the electors ballots and selecting the President if no clear winner exits are designated to Congress, the courts have no role to play.

It is not spelled out but if a challenge to a President’s qualifications were made at the time the electors’ votes are counted, Congress would have to deal with the issue.

Evidence could be presented and testimony heard, then a decision would have to be made. There is nothing in the Constitution giving the courts authority to make the decision; lawyers think the courts are always the place for making decisions so they don’t think of other options that fit better with the structure of the Constitution.

It does not matter whether the challenge is to the election of McCain, Obama or anyone else, the process would be the same.

If the defect in the President’s qualifications were to come to light after the President was sworn in then the procedures for impeachment would be appropriate, since running for office in violation of the constitutional requirement for being a “natural born Citizen” would be high Crime or Misdemeanor.
The Senate has already expressed the opinion that McCain is a “natural born Citizen” and eligible for the Office of the President. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) introduced the resolution during April of this year after the first New York Times article. Obama was also a sponsor?

There is no way that Congress is going to deny parents serving overseas the possibility that their children can become President so John McCain is safe.

Obama might be required to present a Birth Certificate if his qualifications were challenged and then the issue could be resolved.

All of the authority for counting the electors and dealing with a President elect who fails to qualify rest with Congress. Congress is the appropriate place to determine the President’s qualifications.

....................................................................................
I also think it is the duty of every US citizen to question the qualifications of persons claiming to be US citizens and asking for your vote to be president of the United States. Philip J. Berg is doing us all a great service by trying to expose the fraud of Barack Hussein Obama if he is not a US citizen!
Lawsuit exposing Obama is not a US citizen

#####################################################################################
#####################################################################################
#####################################################################################
Here is the answer to why Barack Hussein Obama is not an cannot be a US Citizen nor President of the United States!

NATURALIZED CITIZEN CAN NOT BECOME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

***This is the law that protects us, from every person getting in here to have babies, just for citizenship.

Barack Obama is not a legal U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between December 24, 1952, to November 13, 1986. Federal Law requires that the office of President requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. Citizen parents. This is what exempts John McCain, though he was born in the US Panama Canal Zone.

US Law very clearly states:
‘ If only one parent is a U.S. Citizen at the time of one’s birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of 18.’

Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen is a fact.

Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born. This means even though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen of Hawaii being a territory), his mother fails the test for at-least-5-years- prior-to Barack Obama’s birth, but-after-age-16.

In essence, Mother alone is not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. At most, 2 years elapsed from his mother turning 16 to the time of Barack Obama’s birth when she was 18. His mother would have needed to have been 16 + 5 = 21 years old at the time of Barack Obama’s birth for him to be a natural-born citizen. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at the time his mother would have needed to be to allow him natural citizenship from his only U.S. Citizen parent. Obama should have been naturalized as a citizen . . but that would disqualify him from holding the office.

THE CONSTITUTION CLEARLY DECLARES:

Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President. Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, any other information does not matter because his mother is the one who must fulfill the requirement to be a U.S. Citzen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16.

Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the USA for some time frame to protect any citizenship he might have had, rather than living in Indonesia. This is very clear cut and a glaring violation of U.S. Election law.


It is one of the requirements of the U.S. Constitution that the U.S. President be born in the U.S. (See the fourth paragraph of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.) Here's a link to the transcript of the Constitution on the National Archives website:Article II


"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;..."

Plus, all the birthplaces of the (to date) 43 presidents are known. See this list:

Birth Places Of The Presidents Note ALL of the Presidents were natural born in the US as required by the Constitution!


“2d Session S. RES. 511: Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.: In the Senate of the United States.”

It says “Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President;”

It is odd that this was added to the senate resolution

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

It is interesting to note that another previous presidential candidate, George Romney, was also born outside of the United States. He was widely understood to be eligible to be President. Senator Barry Goldwater was born in a U.S territory that later became the State of Arizona so some even questioned his eligibility. Certainly the millions of Americans who voted for these two Republican candidates believed that they were eligible to assume the office of the President. The same is
true today. U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY

No Senator Leahy the same is not true today for Barack Hussein Obama because the previous presidential candidates you cite were born to parents who were both US citizens. Barack Hussein Obama's parents were not both US citizens at the time of his birth. His mother was not old enough according to US law and his father was a citizen of Kenya So this is a bold face LIE that is in the senate resolution. Why?

Why hasn't the US Senate produced a resolution recognizing that Barack Hussein Obama is a natural born citizen?

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
It is very important to understand this:

Cases in other courts relating specifically to the "natural born citizen" clause

Two United States District Courts have ruled that private citizens do not have standing to challenge the eligibility of candidates to appear on a presidential election ballot. Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Hollander v. McCain, 2008WL2853250 (D.N.H. 2008). In dicta in each of these cases, it was also opined that if the plaintiffs did have standing, the likelihood of success on the merits (which is part of the legal test for the issuance of a preliminary injunction) would be low. The opinion in one of the cases also cited to a statutory method[15] by which the eligibility of the President-elect to take office may be challenged in Congress.

Demand that Barack Hussein Obama presents a valid birth certificate that verifies he is a natural born US citizen at the time the electors' votes are counted! US citizens do have standing in the congress.

Natural-born citizen

Court case that is trying to expose the fraud that Obama is a natural born citizen

Send a Freedom Of Information Act Letter To Hawaii

Yes I can and you can do something to expose the fraud of Barack Hussein Obama. What if thousands send letters to Hawaii requesting his birth certificate?

He was born in Kenya because his mother was not allowed to board a plane to Hawaii when she was about to give birth. The plane trip was aborted. The facts point to the conclusion Obama cannot produce a valid birth certificate and will fight in court to hide his true citizenship. I believe he is not a US citizen. Why will he not provide the requested proof of citizenship? Why fight in court to hide the birth certificate? It is obvious, he is a fraud. Obama is a fraud

Below is an example of a letter to send to the Attorney General Department of the Attorney General State of Hawaii Email the Department of the Attorney General to request an answer under the Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C. § 552.
Email The state dept of health also for a copy that does not exist
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Mark Bennett, Attorney General
Department of the Attorney General
State of Hawaii
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Dear Mr. Bennett:

Barack Obama, as U.S. Senator of Illinois and the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States, is a public person, and his citizenship status is a matter of significant public concern and is subject to legitimate public scrutiny. The public interest in access to the requested information under the Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C. § 552 should be noted and honored.

This is a freedom of information act request for the birth certificate of Barack Obama, born August 4, 1961. Because Mr. Obama is a public figure and because of the importance of this information to the public welfare the ordinary rules of confidentiality do not apply.

Sincerely,

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Janice Okubo
Department of Health
State of Hawaii
1250 Punchbowl Street Room 326
Honolulu, Hawaii, 96813

Dear Ms. Okubo:

Barack Obama, as U.S. Senator of Illinois and the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States, is a public person, and his citizenship status is a matter of significant public concern and is subject to legitimate public scrutiny. The public interest in access to the requested information under the Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C. § 552 should be noted and honored.


This is a freedom of information act request for the birth certificate of Barack Obama, born August 4, 1961. Because Mr. Obama is a public figure and because of the importance of this information to the public welfare the ordinary rules of confidentiality do not apply.

Sincerely,

Obama plants seeds of disaster with acorn

Who can we blame for the manufactured financial crisis that is affecting the election? Planting Seeds of Disaster ACORN, Barack Obama, and the Democratic party ACORN and Barack Hussein Obama have in affect manufactured this financial crisis.

(ACORN lobbied, extorted, bought, threatened and played the race card) In all of this mess there is a recurring theme of the 'race card' played or threatened to be played. ACORN is like a jessie jackson or al sharpton super shakedown organization. Over and over again you hear the race card being played or threatened to be played.

If you don't believe me read the story below and you will clearly see why this mess has been created.

Let me list the names as documented in the story below who are to blame for America losing Billions:


Comrade Barack Hussein Obama
Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy
Senator Allan Dixon
House Democrat Henry Gonzales
ACORN Housing Corporation president, George Butts
Clinton Housing Secretary Henry Cisnersos
Fannie Mae’s chairman, chief executive officer, and now prominent Obama adviser James A. Johnson
Vice President Gore
Barney Frank
Senator Chris Dodd
Franklin Raines



////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
In June of 1995, President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and Secretary Cisneros announced the administration’s comprehensive new strategy for raising home-ownership in America to an all-time high. Representatives from ACORN were guests of honor at the ceremony. In his remarks, Clinton emphasized that: “Out homeownership strategy will not cost the taxpayers one extra cent. It will not require legislation.” Clinton meant that informal partnerships between Fannie and Freddie and groups like ACORN would make mortgages available to customers “who have historically been excluded from homeownership.”

Disaster

In the end of course, Clinton’s plan cost taxpayers an almost unimaginable amount of money. And it was just around the time of his 1995 announcement that the Chicago papers started encouraging bad-credit customers with “dog-food” wages, little money in the bank, and even histories of bankruptcy to apply for home loans with the help of ACORN. At both the local and national levels, then, ACORN served as the critical catalyst, levering pressure created by the Community Reinvestment Act and pull with Democratic politicians to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into a pattern of high-risk loans.

Up to now, conventional wisdom on the financial meltdown has relegated ACORN and the CRA to bit parts. The real problem, we’ve been told, lay with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, however, ACORN is at the base of the whole mess. ACORN used the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act and Democratic sympathizers to entangle Fannie and Freddie and the entire financial system in a disastrous disregard of the most basic financial standards. And Barack Obama cut his teeth as an organizer and politician backing up ACORN’s economic madness every step of the way.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
THE FULL STORY STARTS HERE

Planting Seeds of Disaster
ACORN, Barack Obama, and the Democratic party.

By Stanley Kurtz

‘You’ve got only a couple thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays you dog-food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don’t despair: You can still buy a house.” So began an April 1995 article in the Chicago Sun-Times that went on to direct prospective home-buyers fitting this profile to a group of far-left “community organizers” called ACORN, for assistance. In retrospect, of course, encouraging customers like this to buy homes seems little short of madness.

Militant ACORN
At the time, however, that 1995 Chicago newspaper article represented something of a triumph for Barack Obama. That same year, as a director at Chicago’s Woods Fund, Obama was successfully pushing for a major expansion of assistance to ACORN, and sending still more money ACORN’s way from his post as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Through both funding and personal-leadership training, Obama supported ACORN. And ACORN, far more than we’ve recognized up to now, had a major role in precipitating the subprime crisis.

I’ve already told the story of Obama’s close ties to ACORN leader Madeline Talbott, who personally led Chicago ACORN’s campaign to intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to low-credit customers. Using provisions of a 1977 law called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Chicago ACORN was able to delay and halt the efforts of banks to merge or expand until they had agreed to lower their credit standards — and to fill ACORN’s coffers to finance “counseling” operations like the one touted in that Sun-Times article. This much we’ve known. Yet these local, CRA-based pressure-campaigns fit into a broader, more disturbing, and still under-appreciated national picture. Far more than we’ve recognized, ACORN’s local, CRA-enabled pressure tactics served to entangle the financial system as a whole in the subprime mess. ACORN was no side-show. On the contrary, using CRA and ties to sympathetic congressional Democrats, ACORN succeeded in drawing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the very policies that led to the current disaster.

In one of the first book-length scholarly studies of ACORN, Organizing Urban America, Rutgers University political scientist Heidi Swarts describes this group, so dear to Barack Obama, as “oppositional outlaws.” Swarts, a strong supporter of ACORN, has no qualms about stating that its members think of themselves as “militants unafraid to confront the powers that be.” “This identity as a uniquely militant organization,” says Swarts, “is reinforced by contentious action.” ACORN protesters will break into private offices, show up at a banker’s home to intimidate his family, or pour protesters into bank lobbies to scare away customers, all in an effort to force a lowering of credit standards for poor and minority customers. According to Swarts, long-term ACORN organizers “tend to see the organization as a solitary vanguard of principled leftists...the only truly radical community organization.”

ACORN’s Inside Strategy
Yet ACORN’s entirely deserved reputation for militance is balanced by its less-well-known “inside strategy.” ACORN has long employed Washington-based lobbyists who understand very well how the legislative game is played. ACORN’s national lobbyists may encourage and benefit from the militant tactics of their base, but in the halls of congress they play the game with smooth sophistication. The untold story of ACORN’s central role in the financial meltdown is about the one-two punch to the banking system administered by this outside/inside strategy.

Critics of the notion that CRA had a major impact on the subprime crisis ask how a law passed in 1977 could have caused a crisis in 2008? The answer has a lot to do with ACORN — and the critical years of 1990-1995. While the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act did call on banks to increase lending in poor and minority neighborhoods, its exact requirements were vague, and therefore open to a good deal of regulatory interpretation. Banks merger or expansion plans were rarely held up under CRA until the late 1980s, when ACORN perfected its technique of filing CRA complaints in tandem with the sort of intimidation tactics perfected by that original “community organizer” (and Obama idol), Saul Alinsky.

At first, ACORN’s anti-bank actions were relatively few in number. However, under a provision of the 1989 savings and loan bailout pushed by liberal Democratic legislators, like Massachusetts Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy, lenders were required to compile public records of mortgage applicants by race, gender, and income. Although the statistics produced by these studies were presented in highly misleading ways, groups like ACORN were able to use them to embarrass banks into lowering credit standards. At the same time, a wave of banking mergers in the early 1990's provided an opening for ACORN to use CRA to force lending changes. Any merger could be blocked under CRA, and once ACORN began systematically filing protests over minority lending, a formerly toothless set of regulations began to bite.

ACORN’s efforts to undermine credit standards in the late 1980s taught it a valuable lesson. However much pressure ACORN put on banks to lower credit standards, tough requirements in the “secondary market” run by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac served as a barrier to change. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy up mortgages en masse, bundle them, and sell them to investors on the world market. Back then, Fannie and Freddie refused to buy loans that failed to meet high credit standards. If, for example, a local bank buckled to ACORN pressure and agreed to offer poor or minority applicants a 5-percent down-payment rate, instead of the normal 10-20 percent, Fannie and Freddie would refuse to buy up those mortgages. That would leave all the risk of these shaky loans with the local bank. So again and again, local banks would tell ACORN that, because of standards imposed by Fannie and Freddie, they could lower their credit standards by only a little.

So the eighties taught ACORN that a high-pressure, Alinskyite outside strategy wouldn’t be enough. Their Washington lobbyists would have to bring inside pressure on the government to undercut credit standards at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Only then would local banks consider making loans available to customers with bad credit histories, low wages, virtually nothing in the bank, and even bankruptcies on record.

Democrats and ACORN
As early as 1987, ACORN began pressuring Fannie and Freddie to review their standards, with modest results. By 1989, ACORN had lured Fannie Mae into the first of many “pilot projects” designed to help local banks lower credit standards. But it was all small potatoes until the serious pressure began in early 1991. At that point, Democratic Senator Allan Dixon convened a Senate subcommittee hearing at which an ACORN representative gave key testimony. It’s probably not a coincidence that Dixon, like Obama, was an Illinois Democrat, since Chicago has long been a stronghold of ACORN influence.

Dixon gave credibility to ACORN’s accusations of loan bias, although these claims of racism were disputed by Missouri Republican, Christopher Bond. ACORN’s spokesman strenuously complained that his organization’s efforts to relax local credit standards were being blocked by requirements set by the secondary market. Dixon responded by pressing Fannie and Freddie to do more to relax those standards — and by promising to introduce legislation that would ensure it. At this early stage, Fannie and Freddie walked a fine line between promising to do more, while protesting any wholesale reduction of credit requirements.

By July of 1991, ACORN’s legislative campaign began to bear fruit. As the Chicago Tribune put it, “Housing activists have been pushing hard to improve housing for the poor by extracting greater financial support from the country’s two highly profitable secondary mortgage-market companies. Thanks to the help of sympathetic lawmakers, it appeared...that they may succeed.” The Tribune went on to explain that House Democrat Henry Gonzales had announced that Fannie and Freddie had agreed to commit $3.5 billion to low-income housing in 1992 and 1993, in addition to a just-announced $10 billion “affordable housing loan program” by Fannie Mae. The article emphasizes ACORN pressure and notes that Fannie and Freddie had been fighting against the plan as recently as a week before agreement was reached. Fannie and Freddie gave in only to stave off even more restrictive legislation floated by congressional Democrats.

A mere month later, ACORN Housing Corporation president, George Butts made news by complaining to a House Banking subcommittee that ACORN’s efforts to pressure banks using CRA were still being hamstrung by Fannie and Freddie. Butts also demanded still more data on the race, gender, and income of loan applicants. Many news reports over the ensuing months point to ACORN as the key source of pressure on congress for a further reduction of credit standards at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As a result of this pressure, ACORN was eventually permitted to redraft many of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s loan guideline.

Clinton and ACORN
ACORN’s progress through 1992 depended on its Democratic allies. Whatever ACORN managed to squeeze out of the George H. W. Bush administration came under congressional pressure. With the advent of the Clinton administration, however, ACORN’s fortunes took a positive turn. Clinton Housing Secretary Henry Cisnersos pledged to meet monthly with ACORN representatives. For ACORN, those meetings bore fruit.

Another factor working in ACORN’s favor was that its increasing success with local banks turned those banks into allies in the battle with Fannie and Freddie. Precisely because ACORN’s local pressure tactics were working, banks themselves now wanted Fannie and Freddie to loosen their standards still further, so as to buy up still more of the high-risk loans they’d made at ACORN’s insistence. So by the 1993, a grand alliance of ACORN, national Democrats, and local bankers looking for someone to lessen the risks imposed on them by CRA and ACORN were uniting to pressure Fannie and Freddie to loosen credit standards still further.

At this point, both ACORN and the Clinton administration were working together to impose large numerical targets or “set asides” (really a sort of poor and minority loan quota system) on Fannie and Freddie. ACORN called for at least half of Fannie and Freddie loans to go to low-income customers. At first the Clinton administration offered a set-aside of 30 percent. But eventually ACORN got what it wanted. In early 1994, the Clinton administration floated plans for committing $1 trillion in loans to low- and moderate-income home-buyers, which would amount to about half of Fannie Mae’s business by the end of the decade. Wall Street Analysts attributed Fannie Mae’s willingness to go along with the change to the need to protect itself against still more severe “congressional attack.” News reports also highlighted praise for the change from ACORN’s head lobbyist, Deepak Bhargava.

This sweeping debasement of credit standards was touted by Fannie Mae’s chairman, chief executive officer, and now prominent Obama adviser James A. Johnson. This is also the period when Fannie Mae ramped up its pilot programs and local partnerships with ACORN, all of which became precedents and models for the pattern of risky subprime mortgages at the root of today’s crisis. During these years, Obama’s Chicago ACORN ally, Madeline Talbott, was at the forefront of participation in those pilot programs, and her activities were consistently supported by Obama through both foundation funding and personal leadership training for her top organizers.

Finally, in June of 1995, President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and Secretary Cisneros announced the administration’s comprehensive new strategy for raising home-ownership in America to an all-time high. Representatives from ACORN were guests of honor at the ceremony. In his remarks, Clinton emphasized that: “Out homeownership strategy will not cost the taxpayers one extra cent. It will not require legislation.” Clinton meant that informal partnerships between Fannie and Freddie and groups like ACORN would make mortgages available to customers “who have historically been excluded from homeownership.”

Disaster
In the end of course, Clinton’s plan cost taxpayers an almost unimaginable amount of money. And it was just around the time of his 1995 announcement that the Chicago papers started encouraging bad-credit customers with “dog-food” wages, little money in the bank, and even histories of bankruptcy to apply for home loans with the help of ACORN. At both the local and national levels, then, ACORN served as the critical catalyst, levering pressure created by the Community Reinvestment Act and pull with Democratic politicians to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into a pattern of high-risk loans.

Up to now, conventional wisdom on the financial meltdown has relegated ACORN and the CRA to bit parts. The real problem, we’ve been told, lay with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, however, ACORN is at the base of the whole mess. ACORN used CRA and Democratic sympathizers to entangle Fannie and Freddie and the entire financial system in a disastrous disregard of the most basic financial standards. And Barack Obama cut his teeth as an organizer and politician backing up ACORN’s economic madness every step of the way.

— Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Institute.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Barack Hussein Obama was a member of the democratic socialists of America or "New Party".

I am not surprised.

Barack Hussein Obama was a member of the democratic socialists of America or "New Party".

Butt buddies cause financial crisis

Can you believe this barney frank and herb moses, 2 butt buddies have caused the present financial crisis...a couple of queers it figures.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The Chairman of the US House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, is responsible for oversight of the US mortgage markets administered by government created entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Barney's partner and lover, Herb Moses was a senior executive at Fannie Mae:Lawmaker Accused of Fannie Mae Conflict of Interest


"C’mon, he writes housing and banking laws and his boyfriend is a top exec at a firm that stands to gain from those laws?" A GOP aide told FOX News. "No media ever takes note? Imagine what would happen if Frank’s political affiliation was R instead of D? Imagine what the media would say if [GOP former] Chairman [Mike] Oxley’s wife or [GOP presidential nominee John] McCain’s wife was a top exec at Fannie for a decade while they wrote the nation’s housing and banking laws."

Frank met Moses in 1987, the same year he became the first openly gay member of Congress. "I am the only member of the congressional gay spouse caucus," Moses wrote in the Washington Post in 1991. "On Capitol Hill, Barney always introduces me as his lover." According to National Mortgage News, Moses "helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs."

Of course, such programs led to the mortgage meltdown that prompted last month’s government takeover of Fannie Mae and its financial cousin, Freddie Mac. The giant firms are blamed for spreading bad mortgages throughout the private financial sector and putting the country on the brink of financial meltdown.

The two lived together in a Washington home until they broke up in 1998, a few months after Moses ended his seven-year tenure at Fannie Mae, where he was the assistant director of product initiatives. According to National Mortgage News, Moses "helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs."

Obama & DNC Hide Behind Legal Issues While Betraying Public in not Producing a Certified Copy of Obama’s “Vault” Birth Certificate

Obama's birth certificate lawsuit
This is amazing. I am amazed the American public is being duped into thinking Obama is an American citizen. Why does the dnc and obama not produce an answer to Mr Philp Berg's question. Is Obama an American citizen or not? Mr Berg says prove it. I say prove it Barack Husain Obama and don't hide behind the dnc and delay the answer. If you are an American citizen answer Mr Berg's lawsuit. Because you and the dnc are stalling and not producing a real birth certificate it leads me to believe you are hiding something. The dnc sends 40 or so lawyers etc to Alaska to dig up dirt on Sara Palin yet they can't or won't produce a valid birth certificate for Barack HUSAIN Obama. The dnc sends lawyers to court to stop the lawsuit that will reveal obama is a fraud and not a US citizen.
Obama "birth certificate" a "horrible forgery"
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Faked Birth Certificate
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Obama & DNC Hide Behind Legal Issues While Betraying Public in not Producing a Certified Copy of Obama’s “Vault” Birth Certificate and Oath of Allegiance

Country is Headed to a Constitutional Crisis

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 09/24/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and Democratic National Committee [DNC] filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss on the last day to file a response, for the obvious purpose of delaying Court action in the case of Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Their joint motion indicates a concerted effort to avoid the truth by delaying the judicial process, although legal, by not resolving the issue presented: that is, whether Barack Obama was “natural born.”

It is obvious that Obama was born in Kenya and does not meet the “qualifications” to be President of the United States pursuant to our United States Constitution. Obama cannot produce a certified copy of his “Vault” [original long version] Birth Certificate from Hawaii because it does not exist.

An example of a Dumb Ass

Here we have a record of a dumb ass sending
and receiving text messages while on the job. The records obtained from Sanchez's cell phone provider also show that he sent 24 text messages and received 21 over a two-hour period during his morning shift. During his afternoon shift, he received seven messages and sent five. Sanchez sent his last text message at 4:22:01 p.m. According to the freight train's on-board recorder, the accident occurred at 4:22:23 p.m. This idiot might as well been asleep. Because of this the dumb ass missed the yellow then red stop signals just before the accident. Sanchez was too busy on his cell phone to realize he was about to crash.
************************************************************************************
In the case of congress we have a record also. The dumb asses missed the warning in several hearings about freddie mae and fannie mac about to go bust because of accounting procedures. Suck boy barney frank was denying anything was wrong, just like he denied having his butt buddies in his basement but paid their parking tickets outside of his queer house. While ole barney was having his butt buddy parties fannie and freddie were going bust. We have a butt buddy party going on in congress also. They are to busy covering their own butts to fix the real problem, which was caused by congress in the first place. The wrong regulation and too much regulation.
***********************************************************************************


A Los Angeles train driver sent a text message on his mobile phone 22 seconds before his train crashed, killing 25 people, investigators say.

Robert Sanchez, who was among the dead, sent 29 messages while on duty on the day of the crash, phone records show.

The National Transportation Safety Board says it is pursuing "many avenues of inquiry" into the accident's cause.

The Metrolink passenger train missed a red signal just before ploughing into a freight train on 12 September.

It was the deadliest rail crash in the US for 15 years.

"I am pleased with the progress of this major investigation to date," said acting safety board chairman Mark Rosenker.

Teenagers' claims

Mr Sanchez's phone records show that he sent his last text message at 1622:01. The accident occurred at 1622:23, according to the freight train's on-board recorder.

Investigators said they were continuing to correlate times from Mr Sanchez's mobile phone, the train recorders and data from the rail signalling system.

Investigators assess train crash in Los Angeles on 16/09/08
More than 130 people were hurt in the collision

Since the crash, train drivers in California have been banned from using mobile phones while they are on duty.

Anyone found guilty of violating the new order could now be fined up to $20,000 (£11,000).

The Metrolink passenger train was carrying 222 passengers between Los Angeles and Moorpark, north-west of the city, when the crash happened.

Rail investigators have concluded that Mr Sanchez failed to brake at a red signal and smashed into the freight train.

The force of the impact drove the passenger train's engine back inside the first carriage.

Mr Sanchez was among 25 people killed and more than 130 were injured.

The board requested his mobile phone records after two teenage train enthusiasts who befriended the driver told a local TV station they received a text message from Mr Sanchez just before the crash.

In the days after the crash, several teenage train enthusiasts told a reporter that Sanchez sent them a text message just before the collision. Federal investigators spurred by the media reports interviewed two 14-year-old boys, who they said cooperated in the investigation and provided their cell phone data.

One of the teens showed KCBS-TV a message from Sanchez, which had a 4:22 p.m. time stamp. The message read: "Yea ... usually (at) north Camarillo." The Metrolink 111 train he was operating stops in Camarillo, northwest of Chatsworth.

The collision, which also injured more than 130 people, occurred on a track shared by both freight and commuter trains.

Investigators said Sanchez was supposed to stop and allow the approaching freight train to switch onto a parallel track, but instead went past the red signal and crossed the closed switch, putting the commuter train on a collision course.

The Metrolink train was coming around a curve at 42 mph (68 kph) and the freight train was coming out of a tunnel at 41 mph (66 kph).

Federal investigators said the engineers of each train had no more than four or five seconds to react before the crash. The freight engineer activated the emergency brake two seconds before impact, but brakes were never applied on the Metrolink train.

Given the speed of the trains and the time each engineer had to see the other, a collision at that point could not have been prevented.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me equate this to what is about to happen in the election. The man who never was,Barack Husain Obama, Mr Empty Suit to you is about to be elected because of the failure of congress to regulate fannie mae, freddie mac and creation of idot legislation to regulate business. Democrates and the mass media have created a crisis just before the election to insure Barack Husain Obama, a socialist
will get elected. This idiot is exactly like the dumb ass texting while operating a train. Obama will miss the signals to execute a critical step because he too will be text messaging to us about his proposed action or missed opportunity, making excuses as he does when he studders.The mass media will cover for him. America is passing the stop signal now. Americans have texted congress to stop but the butt buddies continue texting to barack husain obama. We are about to crash for the next four years into socialism or worse.

Have you noticed how many people are text messaging,
oblivious to their surroundings.
If the polls are near correct Americans are oblivious to their surroundings.The mass media is text messaging America about the empty suit, butt buddy mass media creations, and the majority of Americans are oblivious to the fact we are about to crash and burn!!!!!

ass
1. Any of several hoofed mammals of the genus Equus, resembling and closely related to the horses but having a smaller build and longer ears, and including the domesticated donkey.
2. A vain, self-important, silly, or aggressively stupid person.

Definition 2, defines barack husain obama and the democrate congress.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another Race Card Played

Like Obama, Ifill, who is black, is quick to play the race card at the first sign of criticism. In an interview with the Washington Post a few weeks ago, she carped: “[N]o one’s ever assumed a white reporter can’t cover a white candidate.”

It’s not the color of your skin, sweetie. It’s the color of your politics. Perhaps Ifill will be able to conceal it this week. But if the “stunning” “Breakthrough” she’s rooting for comes to pass on January 20, 2009, nobody will be fooled.

When they get caught, they squeel and play the race card. This is racist. She is a racist and has played the race card. If A black person plays the race card they are racist. Look what she said, it is obvious. She is biased,ok, it figures, but look at the race card she plays, this exposes her for what she really is.

Mr goodwill and dodad pro contribute to Obama

Barack Husain Obama is taking money from arab states and hiding this fact as mr goodwill, dodad pro etc. He has not required proof of US citizenship until recently and has done this illegally. This is documented evidence of corruption. He is a radical socialist and will destroy this country.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign

Monday, September 29, 2008 9:23 PM

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman


More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.

And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.

Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report.

But because of Obama’s high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage — at least, not yet.

The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

The McCain camp and the Republican National Committee had $94 million, because of an influx of $84 million in public money.

But Obama easily could outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret.

Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).

Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.

Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.

“Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”

The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.

It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.

Biersack would not comment on whether the FEC was investigating the huge amount of cash that has come into Obama’s coffers with no public reporting.

But Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for CRP, a campaign-finance watchdog group, dismissed the scale of the unreported money.

“We feel comfortable that it isn’t the $20 donations that are corrupting a campaign,” he told Newsmax.

But those small donations have added up to more than $200 million, all of it from unknown and unreported donors.

Ritsch acknowledges that there is skepticism about all the unreported money, especially in the Obama campaign coffers.

“We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors,” he said. “The Obama campaign never responded,” whereas the McCain campaign “makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online.”

The rise of the Internet as a campaign funding tool raises new questions about the adequacy of FEC requirements on disclosure. In pre-Internet fundraising, almost all political donations, even small ones, were made by bank check, leaving a paper trail and limiting the amount of fraud.

But credit cards used to make donations on the Internet have allowed for far more abuse.

“While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center.

Already, the FEC has noted unusual patterns in Obama campaign donations among donors who have been disclosed because they have gone beyond the $200 minimum.

FEC and Mr. Doodad Pro

When FEC auditors have questions about contributions, they send letters to the campaign’s finance committee requesting additional information, such as the complete address or employment status of the donor.

Many of the FEC letters that Newsmax reviewed instructed the Obama campaign to “redesignate” contributions in excess of the finance limits.

Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a candidate for federal office in both the primary and general election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in the primary, the campaign can “redesignate” the contribution to the general election on its books.

In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.

Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”

A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.

In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.

Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit.

There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama’s Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.

In an e-mailed response to a query from Newsmax, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pledged that the campaign would return the donations. But given the slowness with which the campaign has responded to earlier FEC queries, there’s no guarantee that the money will be returned before the Nov. 4 election.

Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You,” just as Good Will had done.

But in some of them, he didn’t even go this far, apparently picking letters at random to fill in the blanks on the credit card donation form. In these cases, he said he was employed by “VCX” and that his profession was “VCVC.”

Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net total of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600.

Here again, LaBolt pledged that the contributions would be returned but gave no date.

In February, after just 93 donations, Doodad Pro had already gone over the $2,300 limit for the primary. He was over the $4,600 limit for the general election one month later.

In response to FEC complaints, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro even before he reached these limits. But his credit card was the gift that kept on giving. His most recent un-refunded contributions were on July 7, when he made 14 separate donations, apparently by credit card, of $25 each.

Just as with Mr. Good Will, there can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed the contributions, since its Sept. 20 report specified that Doodad’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $10,965.

Foreign Donations

And then there are the overseas donations — at least, the ones that we know about.

The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their “state” as “IR,” often an abbreviation for Iran. Another 63 listed it as “UK,” the United Kingdom.

More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680.

But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France.

Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.

With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners.

In July and August, the head of the Nigeria’s stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners.

At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000.

The sponsors said the fundraisers were held to help Nigerians attend the Democratic convention in Denver. But the Nigerian press expressed skepticism of that claim, and the Nigerian public anti-fraud commission is now investigating the matter.

Concerns about foreign fundraising have been raised by other anecdotal accounts of illegal activities.

In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign.

“All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man,” the Libyan leader said. “They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency..."

Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were “legitimate,” the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign.

The rise of the Internet and use of credit cards have made it easier for foreign nationals to donate to American campaigns, especially if they claim their donation is less than $200.

Campaign spokesman LaBolt cited several measures that the campaign has adopted to “root out fraud,” including a requirement that anyone attending an Obama fundraising event overseas present a valid U.S. passport, and a new requirement that overseas contributors must provide a passport number when donating online.

One new measure that might not appear obvious at first could be frustrating to foreigners wanting to buy campaign paraphernalia such as T-shirts or bumper stickers through the online store.

In response to an investigation conducted by blogger Pamela Geller, who runs the blog Atlas Shrugs, the Obama campaign has locked down the store.

Geller first revealed on July 31 that donors from the Gaza strip had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign through bulk purchases of T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza.

The online campaign store allows buyers to complete their purchases by making an additional donation to the Obama campaign.

A pair of Palestinian brothers named Hosam and Monir Edwan contributed more than $31,300 to the Obama campaign in October and November 2007, FEC records show.

Their largesse attracted the attention of the FEC almost immediately. In an April 15, 2008, report that examined the Obama campaign’s year-end figures for 2007, the FEC asked that some of these contributions be reassigned.

The Obama camp complied sluggishly, prompting a more detailed admonishment form the FEC on July 30.

The Edwan brothers listed their address as “GA,” as in Georgia, although they entered “Gaza” or “Rafah Refugee camp” as their city of residence on most of the online contribution forms.

According to the Obama campaign, they wrongly identified themselves as U.S. citizens, via a voluntary check-off box at the time the donations were made.

Many of the Edwan brothers’ contributions have been purged from the FEC database, but they still can be found in archived versions available for CRP and other watchdog groups.

The latest Obama campaign filing shows that $891.11 still has not been refunded to the Edwan brothers, despite repeated FEC warnings and campaign claims that all the money was refunded in December.

A Newsmax review of the Obama campaign finance filings found that the FEC had asked for the redesignation or refund of 53,828 donations, totaling just under $30 million.

But none involves the donors who never appear in the Obama campaign reports, which the CRP estimates at nearly half the $426.8 million the Obama campaign has raised to date.

Many of the small donors participated in online “matching” programs, which allows them to hook up with other Obama supporters and eventually share e-mail addresses and blogs.

The Obama Web site described the matching contribution program as similar to a public radio fundraising drive.

“Our goal is to bring 50,000 new donors into our movement by Friday at midnight,” campaign manager David Plouffe e-mailed supporters on Sept. 15. “And if you make your first online donation today, your gift will go twice as far. A previous donor has promised to match every dollar you donate.”

FEC spokesman Biersack said he was unfamiliar with the matching donation drive. But he said that if donations from another donor were going to be reassigned to a new donor, as the campaign suggested, “the two people must agree” to do so.

This type of matching drive probably would be legal as long as the matching donor had not exceeded the $2,300 per-election limit, he said.

Obama campaign spokesman LaBolt said, “We have more than 2.5 million donors overall, hundreds of thousands of which have participated in this program.”

Until now, the names of those donors and where they live have remained anonymous — and the federal watchdog agency in charge of ensuring that the presidential campaigns play by the same rules has no tools to find out.

Regulation and “Mark to Market” Accounting Rules

The odd thing is that nobody seems to understand that it is not the markets that caused the current credit crisis, but rather accounting rules (some of which were enacted after Enron) that require firms to value their assets according to market value rather than according to performance, with some measure of risk that is realistically heavy tailed.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Regulation and “Mark to Market” Accounting Rules

Few people realize how much of the present damage to markets is caused by the new regulations imposed by Sabannes Oxley and the “mark to market” rules imposed by FASB. How do you mark to market when there is no market? The market for troubled loans has dissolved for two reasons: no one knows what they are worth, and if an investment bank takes the loans into its portfolio it must mark them at the market price. The market is illiquid and facing not mere risk. They are facing uncertainty. No one knows what the values are or what the probabilities are.

My friend Axel Leijhonhufvud once told me a story about inflation in Latin America. No one knew what a dollar was going to be worth in a few hours. A day was a lifetime for the currency. So, when he tried to buy something a shop owner had in the window, the owner said “It is not for sale.” “Why,” asked Axel. The shop owner replied, “If I name a price and you buy it, I will feel like a fool and that I sold it for too little.” That is the situation investors face with sub prime mortgages (the equivalent of “junk” bonds). Right now only the US Treasury or the Mortgage Trust soon to be set up will buy them. But, the problem remains: how much are they worth? No one knows. They are worth more than the “mark to market” rule implies because they can be held and sold later when the market regains its liquidity.

But, the fact remains that most of these investment banks would not be bankrupt if they could price their mortgage portfolios according to a more realistic standard. Regulation seems to be forcing the bankruptcies.

Dr. Rimmer has a few salient observations to make on the current frenzy to regulate financial markets.

Nobody alive can remember as much regulation of financial markets in the U.S. as what is being proposed to Congress next week. The job will be rushed through, by the most inept Congress in recent memory. The players proposing the rules also have very little understanding of how markets work. The best we can hope for is that some of them have read Nassim’s book. For every new regulation enacted, there will be thousands of people immediatly set to work figuring out how to profit from the regulation, and the seeds for the next disaster will sprout. The odd thing is that nobody seems to understand that it is not the markets that caused the current credit crisis, but rather accounting rules (some of which were enacted after Enron) that require firms to value their assets according to market value rather than according to performance, with some measure of risk that is realistically heavy tailed. Current markets are in fact less volatile than markets ten years ago. This graph illustrates that point.

Auction markets are cruel and predatory. When hardly anybody wants an asset, the market value can quickly become close to zero, at which point someone who has lots of capital will snap it up for huge profit. The problem is not the market, but that many people were encouraged to speculate with extreme leverage, without understanding the risk. How many bank CEOs know enough math to understand stable distributions? Probably none. Does Paulson, unlikely. Does Bernanke, we would hope so, but we can’t be too sure.

Anybody who has mastered seventh grade arithmetic can figure out that no bank or money market can sustain a run. In order to earn a return, liquid assets must be invested in assets that cannot immediately be liquidated, and if many similar assets are liquidated simultaneously in a market the value will fall precipitously. Yet no one ever proposes that bank depositors or money market depositors shouldn’t all have immediate access to all of their deposits, why? How can the government guarantee money market and bank deposits through the FDIC or other agency without creating enormous “moral hazard?”

No regulation of markets will ever overcome such moral hazaard, we should be regulating depositors rather than the market. Depositors should have the expectation that they can receive some portion of their deposit immediately, but if they ask for it all they will have to wait some period of time, that increases proportionately to the size of the amount they want to withdraw AND the number of current withdrawal requests.

This will never happen. Instead we will have recurrent bail outs. The interesting thing is the false concept that the tax payer ultimately foots the bill for these things. That is not true, it is the government bond holder who first pays; he in turn demands higher rates (getting his money back), forcing inflation which pays the interest with inflated dollars. The inflation is paid for mostly by people who are not taxed; it is the ultimate tax the poor scheme — even illegal immigrants pay. I guess this will go on as long as most people cannot understand arithmetic. And the Teacher’s Union makes sure that will never happen.

Suspend Mark-To-Market Now!

This is an immediate fix for the stupid democrate crisis!

Newt Gingrich 09.29.08, 6:05 PM ET

Today, Congress voted against passing the bailout package for Wall Street. The stock market reacted immediately, falling almost 800 points. It is clear that something needs to be done, and in the coming days, a new package must be constructed that has the support of the American people that both deals with the liquidity crisis and sets the stage for long-term economic growth.

However, there is an immediate step that could be taken right now that would calm the markets and dramatically reduce taxpayer risk in any future government intervention.

Today the Treasury secretary released the following statement: "I and my colleagues at the Fed and the SEC continue to address the market challenges we are facing on a daily basis. I am committed to continuing to work with my fellow regulators to use all the tools available to protect our financial system and our economy."

While Congress and the White House consider next steps, the Treasury and its fellow regulators should follow their own counsel and take without delay the one regulatory action within their discretion that can help immediately to calm markets and dramatically reduce the taxpayer risk in any necessary government intervention: suspend mark-to-market.

Chief economist Brian S. Wesbury and his colleague Bob Stein at First Trust Portfolios of Chicago estimate the impact of the "mark-to-market" accounting rule on the current crisis as follows:

"It is true that the root of this crisis is bad mortgage loans, but probably 70% of the real crisis that we face today is caused by mark-to-market accounting in an illiquid market. What's most fascinating is that the Treasury is selling its plan as a way to put a bottom in mortgage pool prices, tipping its hat to the problem of mark-to-market accounting without acknowledging it. It is a real shame that there is so little discussion of this reality." (Emphasis added.)

If regulators on their own--or Congress, if regulators fail to use their discretion--can fix 70% of the financial crisis by changing the mark-to-market accounting rule, we should change the rule first before attempting to pass another reevaluated bailout package.

"Mark-to-Market" Accounting and the Origins of the Financial Crisis: Mark-to-market accounting (also known as "fair value" accounting) means that companies must value the assets on their balance sheets based on the latest market indicators of the price that those assets could be sold for immediately. Under such a rule, declining housing prices don't just reduce the value of defaulting mortgages. They reduce the value of all mortgages and all mortgage-related securities because the housing collateral protecting them is worth less.

Moreover, when a company in financial distress begins fire sales of its assets to raise capital to meet regulatory requirements, the market-bottom prices it sells out for become the new standard for the valuation of all similar securities held by other companies under mark-to-market. This has begun a downward death spiral for financial companies large and small.

More foreclosures and home auctions continue to depress housing prices, further reducing the value of all mortgage-related securities. As capital values decline, firms must scramble to maintain the capital required by regulation. When they try to sell assets to raise that capital, the market values of those assets are driven down further. Under mark-to-market, the company must then mark down the value of all of its assets even more.

The credit agencies see declining capital margins, so they downgrade the company's credit ratings. That makes borrowing to meet capital requirements more difficult. Declining capital and credit ratings cause the company's stock prices to decline.

Panic sets in, and no one wants to buy mortgage-related securities, which drives their value under mark-to-market regulations down toward zero. Balance sheets under mark-to-market suddenly start to show insolvency. This downward spiral shuts down lending to these companies, so they lose all liquidity (cash on hand) needed to keep company operations going. Stockholders--realizing that they will be wiped out if the companies go into bankruptcy or get taken over by the government--start panic selling, even when they know the underlying business of the company is fine.

The end result for the company is stock prices driven toward zero and bankruptcy or government takeover. The criminal liabilities imposed under Sarbanes-Oxley have driven accountants to stricter and stricter accounting evaluations and interpretations and have prevented leading executives from resisting them.

The Problems with Mark-to-Market Accounting: William Isaac, chairman of the FDIC in the 1980s under President Reagan, recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal, "During the 1980s, our underlying economic problems were far more serious than the economic problems we're facing this time around. ... It could have been much worse. The country's 10 largest banks were loaded up with Third World debt that was valued in the markets at cents on the dollar. If we had marked those loans to market prices, virtually every one of them would have been insolvent."

Isaac continues, "But what do we do when the already thin market for those assets freezes up, and only a handful of transactions occur at extremely depressed prices? ... The accounting profession, scarred by decades of costly litigation, just keeps marking down the assets as fast as it can."

He concludes, "This is contrary to everything we know about bank regulation. When there are temporary impairments of asset values, due to economic and marketplace events, regulators must give institutions an opportunity to survive the temporary impairment. Assets should not be marked to unrealistic fire sale prices. Regulators must evaluate the assets on the basis of their true economic value (a discounted cash flow analysis). If we had followed today's approach during the 1980s, we would have nationalized all of the major banks in the country, and thousands of additional banks and thrifts would have failed. I have little doubt that the country would have gone from a serious recession into a depression."

Similarly, University of Chicago Law Professor Richard Epstein, among the best in the country at law and economics analysis, recently wrote about mark-to-market accounting for today's mortgage-related securities, "Unfortunately, there is no working market to mark this paper down to. To meet their bond covenants and their capital requirements, these firms have to sell their paper at distress prices that don't reflect the upbeat fact that the anticipated income streams from this paper might well keep the firm afloat."

Alex Pollock, former head of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago, explains that when the economy is in the midst of a severe downturn, the use of mark-to-market accounting "reinforces the downward cycle of panic-falling prices-losses-illiquidity-credit contraction-more panic-further falling prices-greater reported losses-no active markets. Fair value accounting adds momentum to a destructive downside overshoot."

Reform or Bust: Because existing rules requiring mark-to-market accounting are causing such turmoil on Wall Street, mark-to-market accounting should be suspended immediately so as to relieve the stress on banks and corporations. In the interim, we can use the economic value approach based on a discounted cash flow analysis of anticipated-income streams, as we did for decades before the new mark-to-market began to take hold. We can take the time to evaluate mark-to-market all over again. Perhaps a three-year rolling average to determine mark-to-market prices would be a workable permanent system.

It is not widely understood that the adoption of mark-to-market accounting rules is a major factor in the liquidity crisis which is leading companies to go bankrupt. But it is destructive to have artificial accounting rules ruin companies that would have otherwise survived under previous rules.

For companies like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers (nyse: LEH - news - people ) and American International Group (nyse: AIG - news - people ), suspending mark-to-market rules will come too late. But for the remaining vulnerable banks and corporations, doing away with the current mark-to-market accounting rules will safeguard against destructive pricing volatility, needless bankruptcies, job loss and huge taxpayer bailouts.

Suspending Mark-to-Market Only the First Step to Economic Recovery: In the wake of today's vote, suspending mark-to-market is an extremely important first step to take, but it is only a first step.

Congress should also consider a bold and dramatic program to restart economic growth and rebuild market efforts.

In particular, the Congress should look at the impact of the Irish 12% corporate income tax on attracting investment and jobs to Ireland and consider a dramatic cut in the U.S. corporate income tax (the highest in the world when combined with state taxes) as a step toward attracting high-value productive and desirable jobs back to the United States.

The Congress should look at the Chinese and Singapore growth patterns and match them by zeroing out the capital gains tax to induce massive flows of private capital to rebuild the market and minimize the need for a taxpayer-funded bailout.

The Congress should repeal Sarbanes-Oxley, which failed to warn of every single bankruptcy but provides a $3-million-a-year accounting and regulatory expense for every small company wishing to go public.

This is the kind of pro-growth, pro-entrepreneur program that would accelerate the American recovery and lead to the next economic period of real growth.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Emily Renwick is a research assistant at AEI and also contributed to this op-ed.

The 'bailout' is about people whose votes have been bought stay bought

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here it is in a nut shell and acorn nutshell. Rush Limbaugh has got it right!
Fannie mae and Freddie Mac were turned into some kind of wild west hedge funds by the democrates
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what got us here? Well, you can say "white guilt" got us here, political correctness got it here, or a combination of all those things. Democrats' desire to socialize the country got us here. Efforts to stop it failing -- and we're on the verge of even more of it, ladies and gentlemen. Stanley Kurtz has been researching Obama, and he has a great piece today. Let me just give you a couple excerpts. "What exactly does a 'community organizer' do?" and one thing a community organizer does, if he's Barack Obama, is pressure banks to make bad loans. Obama's fingerprints are over this, too, because his group ACORN is all involved. The Community Reinvestment Act "was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), and a group that is constantly engaged in illegal voter registration, among other things.

"That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN ... to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in 'subprime' loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers. Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with [these community redevelopment things] -- and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN. In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America's financial institutions." Think of ACORN as a thousand Jesse Jacksons, in terms of shaking down companies and institutions.

"Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets," and by the way, speaking of that, Obama did it again in the debate (which we're going to get to). He said that our reputation in the world, I think everybody would agree, is not what it once was. He said it in Berlin' he said it to a seven-year-old kid asking him why he wants to be president. Frankly, I am fed up with it. Because, folks, if you want to know our reputation around the world -- to the extent that it is -- is in disrepair, you might take a look at the fact that a bunch of foreign banks were lied to by US institutions who said these subprime loans were AAA paper. You can buy 'em up. Do you know where bailing out foreign banks that do business on the United States on this basis because they bought up some of these assets?

So all this talk about how our image in the world has been dinged or damaged, let me tell you: to the extent that that's true, people in financial institutions around the world are saying, "What have you done to us? You've made us take on this worthless garbage paper. What have you done to us? What are you doing to your financial system?" It ain't about Iraq. It ain't about the war on terror. So there is Obama running around talking about how we've lost our esteem. That aggravates me like you cannot believe. We're going to analyzed the debate as things shake out as the program unfolds before your very eyes. Of course Obama is as close to ACORN as anybody can be, closer to ACORN than anybody ever seeking the presidency. And ACORN went out and put their own pressure on these banks and lending institutions, political correctness pressure -- take it, you know, whatever it is -- to spread this misery far and wide under the terms and definitions of things like affordable housing.

I think there's something more devious than that going on. We know several things institutionally. We know that's left wants as large a government as possible. We also know the left wants as many citizens in this country depending on government, not just for their needs but for their wants as well, but particularly their needs. We also know that owning a home in this country has been one of the most desirable things people have had. Many people, most people work themselves to the bone to be able to save up for a down payment, to be able to qualify -- and all of a sudden, the Democrats and the Clinton administration came along and said, "Why make it so hard on people? It's unfair. Let's just get 'em into homes. Let's threaten the lending institutions to loan 'em money they can't pay back. As long as home prices keep going up, this is not going to be a problem. It will be fine." Well, everything goes up goes down eventually. It's galled gravity. It's called supply and demand. It's called economic cycles, and we're where we are. So now the bailout is about making sure that all these people whose votes have been bought stay bought.
***********************************************************************************
***********************************************************************************
House of Reps. Bailout Vote is TODAY -- Call Your Congressman NOW to Say NO BAILOUT:

1-202-224-3121

ALERT: Our Congressmen and Senators spent all weekend cooking up a "bipartisan compromise" BAILOUT bill -- and they want YOU AND ME to pay for it, for the next few DECADES!

WE MUST STOP THEM TODAY!!!

The Federal Reserve's ("Fed's") recent bailouts of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG have cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, and the price may ultimately be in the trillions.

The current economic turmoil is a direct result of the Federal Reserve's artificial lowering of interest rates -- which spurred major banks and other corporations to back bad mortgages.

Now, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (former CEO of Goldman Sachs) and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke want American taxpayers to take on $700 billion in these bad mortgage-related assets…

And our spineless, gutless, poor excuses for “leaders” on Capitol Hill are ready to SELL US OUT, and drive the U.S. economy into the dirt for YEARS to come --

Unless WE stop them, TODAY!

TAKE ACTION: The Federal Reserve's authority to use taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street must be revoked and the "Fed" must be held accountable. We, the people, need to let OUR REPRESENTATIVES in Washington know that it is time to END the Federal Reserve's stranglehold on our economic future!

THIS IS AN EMERGENCY. The House of Representatives is supposed to vote on this "Bailout Bill" TODAY. DEMAND that they reject the Paulson and Bernanke plan to prop up reckless banks at YOUR expense. Please call the Capitol Switchboard number below NOW to tell YOUR Representative to REJECT the Paulson and Bernanke plan to prop up reckless banks at your expense:

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I agree Mr Zimmer your comments about why the bill has failed makes good sense.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Shocked the Bailout Plan Failed? You Shouldn't Be.
Posted by Robert Zimmer on 09.29.2008

Common sense about the roots of the bailout's failure in Congress, and how to move forward.

Many in the media and political establishment are shocked that the economic bailout plan failed to pass the House of Representatives today. They shouldn't be. Pundits seem puzzled by what happened and I've heard precious little talk of how we salvage things and go forward. Anybody with a pulse on the wrist of the average person in this country senses why public opposition to the bailout is so overwhelming. Those that don't get it are failing on a basic level to understand the mood of the country. Here's why the bill failed:

1. A revolt among conservative ideologues. For this group, this bailout was dead on arrival as it represents a death blow against the principle of unregulated free market capitalism, in favor – as they see it – of out-and-out socialism. They are sick of Bush's runaway spending and his sellout of conservative principles. This group is composed of the far right wing of the Republican party, plus the few libertarians left in the party (the Ron Paul wing).

2. It failed the bullshit detector with blue-collar voters. Those who are living this tough economy every day in their lives, who don't own day trade or large investment portfolios, fail to see the connection between the abstraction of Wall Street and stock market troubles and the kitchen table economic issues framing their lives. All the bailout looks like to them is more idiotic government spending to bail out corrupt rich people who got themselves into this mess and want to stick the taxpayers with the bill. This group includes plenty of Republicans, Democrats, and independents, and it's the largest public constituency that opposed the bailout.

3. Revenge of the anti-Bush left. Some pure ideological leftists simply oppose on principle any expensive proposal, domestic or abroad, brought forth by President Bush and accompanied by the worn-out "just trust us" line from the White House. Bush is dead to them. These folks tend to be more affluent, and are less connected to the average blue-collar American. Anything that stinks of Bush, whether a good idea or not, causes violent opposition with these leftists.

Combine these three groups and it's easy to understand why members of Congress were deluged with phone calls, e-mails, and faxes opposing the bailout as voted upon. Without a doubt, political shenanigans within and between the two political parties had something to do with the bailout's failure, but in large part voter pressure on Congressional members up for re-election is behind what happened today.

Meanwhile, the stock market lost 777 points today, the largest loss in American history. In more concrete terms, this represents a loss of hundreds of billions of dollars in American investments. While not all Americans have stock portfolios, a large percentage do have 401(k) plans that took a huge hit today and lost significant value. Wachovia (my bank, incidentally) failed today. We will be in a deep recession by next year -- not a mental recession, but a very real one, bailout or not.

Congressional action is imperative and leaders of both parties need to set aside the partisan garbage and get legislation passed by the end of this week, no exceptions. What a disgraceful performance by the legislative branch over the past few days. Obama and McCain should both step up and lead, or get out of the way. If Congress at large doesn't pass a new bill, they should all lose their jobs. Members should pledge to their constituents back home that they will resign if a new plan, with overwhelming bipartisan support, isn't on the president's desk by Friday night.
But lets not leave out of the plan legislation to repeal the bad legeslation that congress has passed that brought about this fabricated crisis. Remember congress
is to blame for the mess. Fannie mae and freddie mac were turned into wild west hedge funds run by the democrates for votes. This is a fact and the truth.

1-202-224-3121

Congressman Mike Pence has a good answer for this crisis

PENCE OPPOSES BAILOUT
"There are no easy answers, but the American people deserve to know there are alternatives to massive federal spending

Congressman Pence was the first lawmaker to oppose the Bush Administration's proposed bailout plan and continues to maintain his opposition

Republican Study Committee Alternative Plan


Washington, Sep 29 - U.S. Congressman Mike Pence gave the following speech from the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives today regarding the bill to bailout the financial services sector:

“I rise in opposition to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, and urge my colleagues, respectfully, to oppose it.

“Our nation has been confronted by a crisis in our financial markets. The President and this Congress were right to act with all deliberate speed in addressing this crisis.

“And we now have a bill that promises to bring near-term stability to our financial turmoil, but at what price?

“Benjamin Franklin said in 1759: ‘They that can give up liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.’

“Economic freedom means the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail.

“The decision to give the federal government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupts this basic truth of our free market economy.

“It must be said, Republicans in this Congress improved this bill, but it remains the largest corporate bailout in American history, forever changes the relationship between government and the financial sector, and passes the cost along to the American people. I cannot support it.

“There are no easy answers, but the American people deserve to know there are alternatives to massive federal spending.

“The Bush Administration and this Congress have acted quickly but have largely ignored free market solutions to this crisis. The House Republican plan, as a solid alternative, would have set up an FDIC-style mandatory insurance program in which Wall Street firms would have paid to insure their mortgage-backed securities. Doing so would have made Wall Street pay the cost of this rescue, instead of Main Street.

“And while there is an option for an insurance plan in this bill, it falls far short of the substitute that Republicans desired.

“The House Republican plan would have injected liquidity into our markets through fast-acting tax strategies, releasing the economic power inherent in the American economy.

“Temporarily reducing the repatriation tax, as we did in 2005, would have brought hundreds of billions of dollars back into this economy, and the other business deductions would have helped the financial sector back on its feet.

“There were alternatives.

“So, I say to my colleagues, before you vote, ask yourselves why you came here, and vote with courage and integrity to those principles.

“If, like me, you came here because you believe in limited government and the freedom of the American marketplace, I urge you to vote in accordance with your convictions.

“Duty is ours, outcomes belong to God.

“The American people and our posterity deserve to know that there were men and women in this Congress who opposed the leviathan state in this hour.

“And if you do this, I promise you, I will stand with you and I believe with all my heart the American people will stand with you as well.

“Stand up for limited government and economic freedom. Stand up for the American taxpayer. Reject this bailout and vote ‘no’ on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.”

PENCE OPPOSES BAILOUT