US house votes on bailout

[Legato]

THE FORBIDDEN " SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE" SKIT!!!!!
THE FORBIDDEN " SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE" SKIT

http://msunderestimated.com/SNLBailoutSkit.wmv


SNL did a " Bailout" skit, which created some incredible problems for NBC because it exposed people in Congress who made FannieMae & FreddieMac their own personal piggy banks, then pointed their fingers at others. Now, NBC has tried to pull the video, almost successfully, because the video has all but disappeared from YouTube (Google-owned) off the internet. It was up on multiple sites and virtually all the copies are gone now. There are a few new "highly edited" copies on the net. How much power would you have to have to pull something from the entire internet?

This is the ONLY unedited copy still on the Net. Pass it on. Let the whole world see what's happening in this country & who's responsible for this financial crisis. If clowns & writers for SNL know what's up, anybody is privvy to the information!

[BullNBear52]

In McCain's own words, "You don't have to be scared of Obama."

ROTF!

[mick]

sounds like black belt stuff. one gent at town meeting

i'm mad as hell and i don't like socialism mr mccain/sarah.

[mick]

me again, thanx.

re;
new hussein obeama video http://www.johnmccain.com/Home2.htm

[dec212012]

new hussein obeama video http://www.johnmccain.com/Home2.htm

[lrice]

Root Problem: 10x100 "Financial Leverage" Creative Accounting

FRE & FNM used up to 100x leverage, AIG & LEH used up to 30X leverage; and that's after the banks used up to 10X Leverage on financial debt. This has to be stopped. The root problem going back to 1912 has to be fixed.

WWW.GrandfatherReport.Us

Richard Fuld, CEO of LEH, admitted to 30x leverage contributing to the problem.

Now I read on seekingalpha.com about FRE and FNM doing 100:01 leverage on their debt insurance.

Most investment banks were leveraged by a ratio of 30 to 1, and they were dealing with billions of dollars instead of thousands. Government sponsored mortgage giants Freddie (FRE) and Fannie were using leverage closer to 100 to 1, because of their supposedly stricter lending standards and implicit government backing.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/97299-leverage-101-the-real-cause-of-the-financial-crisis

How can "we the people" know the root cause is being "fixed" if we don't know about the root cause. Most of the news is telling us the root cause is a lack of confidence about all those mortgages being paid as agreed.

And are we sure we understand what happens when 100:01 leverage is applied after the fractional banking reserve requirement is applied? Maybe if this subject needs a spotlight to get people's attention. Then maybe the "lack of confidence" could be better understood.

www.GrandfatherReport.Us

[mick]

reading about socialism.

Obama's International Socialist Connections

1 - 10 of 22,500,000 for OBAMA SOCIALIST (About) - 0.43 s |
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=OBAMA+SOCIALIST&fr=yfp-t-104&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

[mick]

little more this socialist ideas.

Obama’s International Socialist ConnectionsFeb 14, 2008 ... Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of ...
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-international-socialist-connections/ - 44k - Cached - Similar pages
PoliGazette » Obama, SocialistOct 9, 2008 ... In the comment section of my post about Barack Obama having been a member of the socialist New Party, some argued that, perhaps, ...
http://www.poligazette.com/2008/10/09/obama-socialist/ - 35k - Cached - Similar pages

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=OBAMA+SOCIALIST&aq=f&oq

[mick]

hi dec, good afternoon. good reads here.

Media Matters - KSFO's Rodgers suggested Obama is a socialist, co ...Sep 3, 2008 ... KSFO's Rodgers suggested Obama is a socialist, co-host Benner offered up Holocaust allusion. On the September 3 broadcast of San Francisco ...
mediamatters.org/items/200809030018 - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=OBAMA+SOCIALIST&aq=f&oq

[dec212012]

well personally i'd like to see a tie ball game....decide it in the octagon...i have mccain by ko on the first upper cut....vbg although i might enjoy a more prolonged damaging fight playout with the same outcome but after the 100th upper cut and 67th knee to the head of mr liberal socialist.....lol.....knock a few teeth outta dat pretty head......lololololol.....vbg....i can dream cant i?????

[dec212012]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=OBAMA+SOCIALIST&aq=f&oq=

[mick]

the free market system fails today again. bailout money is to released as needed.

none so far as of today and congress is on vacation to campaign for their seats.

but listening to fox and the congressman from florida said he didn't want the bailout.

predicting a socialism ticket in nov. should OBAMA and nancy control the oval.

so it looks like investors are rebelling in the investment field
by pulling money from the markets.

they can read between da lines socialism is very near.
socialism nationalizes companies, etc.

so if mccain can close some gap here "looks like market will keep tumbling." imho.

[mick]

i feel you have hit a home run on a lot of your thoughts that i read so far.

[dec212012]

they all sold the public up the river of turds.....heads must roll...and i mean roll.....

[mick]

you are welcome. lot of comments here. i wonder if OBAMA
can be impeached?

the bailout was done due to miss use of money by, FRE FNM
ACORN <> wallstreet cronies <> gov't cronies.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=13109

[dec212012]

great work mick...thanks

[mick]

hi dec, good morning. BHS gave me this link.

http://thetop10reasons.com/the-top-10-reasons-to-not-vote-for-barack-obama

so stop OBAMA!!!!!

plus these new ones.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=13109
#1378 Explosive Audio Found Obama arguing against BAIPA

Blue_Horseshoe 10/9/2008 3:20:33 AM
#1377 listen to every word in these speeches very carefully..... Blue_Horseshoe 10/9/2008 3:18:50 AM
#1376 Dear Barack..... Blue_Horseshoe 10/9/2008 3:11:13 AM
#1375 prepare to vomit:

Blue_Horseshoe 10/9/2008 3:05:39 AM
#1374 Do you have some kind of problem with overachiever 10/9/2008 2:36:22 AM
#1373 Actually .. it's the 7th time you have StephanieVanbryce 10/9/2008 2:22:45 AM
#1372 This is the 6th time you have posted StephanieVanbryce 10/9/2008 2:21:15 AM
#1371 I just hope we don''t have to change Blue_Horseshoe 10/9/2008 2:01:32 AM
#1370 Thinking of stocking up the grocery cabinets, closets, larice 10/9/2008 1:51:34 AM
#1369 The IAVA Action Fund is the foremost nonprofit, overachiever 10/9/2008 1:51:13 AM
#1368 Checking the Fact-Checkers Blue_Horseshoe 10/9/2008 1:30:39 AM
#1367 this site is a bit radical for me...but Blue_Horseshoe 10/9/2008 1:27:30 AM
#1366 http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/05/does-barack-obama-understand-evil.ht Blue_Horseshoe 10/9/2008 1:24:36 AM
#1365 http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52998 Blue_Horseshoe 10/9/2008 1:22:44 AM
#1364 http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/msgsearchbymember.asp?SearchStr=obama&Searc Blue_Horseshoe 10/9/2008 1:19:43 AM
#1363 http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2008/04/elect-obama-destroy-america.html Blue_Horseshoe 10/9/2008 1:18:40 AM
#1362 http://www.mixx.com/stories/1925477/reasons_to_not_vote_for_barack_obama Blue_Horseshoe 10/9/2008 1:18:06 AM
#1361 MUST READ: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA EXPOSED! Blue_Horseshoe 10/9/2008 1:17:42 AM
#1360 not to be racist or anything, but the Blue_Horseshoe 10/9/2008 12:59:26 AM
#1359 No End Of Bile From Obama's Bully Pulpits Obi_Trend_Kenobi 10/9/2008 12:20:48 AM
#1358 keep the faith my fellow conservatives!!!!!! Blue_Horseshoe 10/9/2008 12:07:29 AM
#1357 Barack Hussein Obama's Radical Connections Diagram Obi_Trend_Kenobi 10/8/2008 11:47:50 PM
#1356 Another Obama Radical Connection Obi_Trend_Kenobi 10/8/2008 11:32:05 PM
#1355 Obama's Radical Pastor for 20 years! Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Obi_Trend_Kenobi 10/8/2008 11:25:21 PM
#1354 I hope so Blue. Obi_Trend_Kenobi 10/8/2008 11:21:02 PM
#1353 I'm sure if Obama gets his way, he Obi_Trend_Kenobi 10/8/2008 11:20:13 PM
#1352 Just recently in Washington State: ACorn Voter Fraud! Obi_Trend_Kenobi 10/8/2008 11:17:58 PM
#1351 you got that right joseywalestx 10/8/2008 11:15:25 PM
#1350 It don't matter if obama gets elected... he Blue_Horseshoe 10/8/2008 11:11:05 PM
#1349 the McMILF campaign will pull it out in Blue_Horseshoe 10/8/2008 11:08:43 PM
#1348 A vote for Obama is a vote for Blue_Horseshoe 10/8/2008 11:07:39 PM
#1347 The Obama-Ayers Top Ten: Highlights of the 20 Obi_Trend_Kenobi 10/8/2008 11:06:35 PM
#1346 The media are all bleeding heart liberal socialists Blue_Horseshoe 10/8/2008 11:05:34 PM
#1345 Acorn + Obama = fraudulent election Blue_Horseshoe 10/8/2008 11:04:24 PM
#1344 FBI raids Obama friend's office Obi_Trend_Kenobi 10/8/2008 11:02:20 PM
#1343 It's unreal, and the media is giving him Obi_Trend_Kenobi 10/8/2008 11:01:02 PM
#1342 This guy Barack Hussein has more ties to Blue_Horseshoe 10/8/2008 10:57:38 PM
#1341 Barack Obama ally Tony Rezko convicted of fraud, Obi_Trend_Kenobi 10/8/2008 10:53:57 PM
#1340 Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it Obi_Trend_Kenobi 10/8/2008 10:49:21 PM
#1339 Obama''s Radical-Left Ties Broad And Deep Obi_Trend_Kenobi 10/8/2008 10:39:57 PM
#1338 Evil Paulson ex-Goldman helping Goldman which contributed large __1Best__ 10/8/2008


re;
and now has spread to 10 states and counting...
answer
none of this gets said by mccain in debates. this is his key but doesn't use it.



re:

ACORN offices raided nevada, now to find da real files.

should have timed all offices in all states.

mccain still didn't get the job done last night.

just refuses to turn in the other side of the office to public
side of business.

sarah started but way too late.

[dec212012]

and now has spread to 10 states and counting...

[mick]

ACORN offices raided nevada, now to find da real files.

should have timed all offices in all states.

mccain still didn't get the job done last night.

just refuses to turn in the other side of the office to public
side of business.

sarah started but way too late.

[dec212012]

rezko has been added to the list.....

[dec212012]

Obama and ACORN: You Can Run But You Can’t Hide

Monday, October 6, 2008 7:26 PM

By: Lowell Ponte Article Font Size









Barack Obama is running as fast and as far away (run away from the truth liberal commie puke) from his association with the radical group ACORN as he can, but he can’t hide from the facts of his close relationship with the organization.


ACORN, or Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, describes itself as a “non-partisan” group devoted to helping the poor and to registering millions to vote. Critics accuse ACORN of involvement vote fraud, voter intimidation, shakedowns against businesses, and the promotion of socialist class hatred and class warfare.



Apparently worried by the connection between Obama and the group, his campaign has put claims of his ties to ACORN as the lead item on its “Fight The Smears” Web site — a site the Obama campaign created to counter what they claim are partisan lies made up against their candidate.

The release on the Obama site reads: “When Obama met with ACORN leaders in November, he reminded them of his history with ACORN and his beginnings in Illinois as a Project Vote organizer, a nonprofit focused on voter rights and education. Senator Obama said, ‘I come out of a grassroots organizing background. That's what I did for three and half years before I went to law school. That's the reason I moved to Chicago was to organize.


“So this is something that I know personally, the work you do, the importance of it. I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”


Indeed, Obama was being far too modest. The 2008 Democratic presidential nominee had worked not just alongside ACORN, but also as a key operative for the organization.


He was its lawyer in several pivotal ACORN cases.


Obama funded a number of its activities, as well. When he sat on the board of the prestigious Woods Fund for Chicago alongside former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, he oversaw and approved many grants for ACORN.


As the National Review’s Stanley Kurtz reported, one Woods committee report boasted that the fund’s “non-ideological” public image “enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government ‘establishments’ without undue risk of being accused of partisanship.”


Obama was the Illinois director of ACORN’s controversial voter registration operation, and he trained the group’s leaders in the ways of radical, sometimes illegal, confrontational politics.


He also paid ACORN affiliates during his recent Democratic primary contest. For example, leading up to the 2008 Ohio Democratic Primary, Obama’s campaign between Feb. 25 and March 17 paid Citizens Services, Inc., a subsidiary of ACORN, $832,598, apparently for get-out-the-vote activities.


Obama’s mysterious, shrouded past as a “community organizer” is closely tied to ACORN, a group that supplies a large share of the Democratic Party political shock troops responsible for the party’s recapture of Congress in 2006.


ACORN has at least 350,000 dues-paying member families, and more than 800 chapters spread among at least 104 U.S. cities as well as in Canada, Mexico, Argentina, and Peru.


To outsiders, Obama’s “long service with ACORN led many of its members to serve as the voluntary shock troops of Obama’s early political campaigns — his initial 1996 State Senate campaign, and his failed bid for Congress in 2000,” wrote Kurtz. “With Obama having personally helped train a new cadre of Chicago ACORN leaders, by the time of Obama’s 2004 U.S. Senate campaign, Obama and ACORN were ‘old friends.’”



ACORN’S Radical Roots


ACORN’s four co-founders were 1960s New Leftists. One was George Wiley, whose National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) members practiced confrontation politics, e.g., swarming into welfare offices and bullying social workers. The second ACORN co-founder was NWRO organizer Gary Delgado.


Wiley made no secret that he followed the radical tactics proposed in the far-left The Nation Magazine by socialist Columbia University scholars Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who argued that American capitalism could be bankrupted and destroyed by overloading our system with ever-rising costs and bureaucratic demands. (In 1996, President Bill Clinton invited Cloward and Piven to the White House as honored guests.)


ACORN’s other founders and longtime bosses were former Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) activist Wade Rathke, a close NWRO ally, and his brother Dale.


“We are the majority, forged from all minorities,” proclaimed ACORN’s founding 1970 “People’s Platform” manifesto. “We are the masses of many, not the forces of few…. We will wait no longer for the crumbs at America’s door. We will not be meek, but mighty.”


In ACORN, the Rathkes replaced Cloward-Piven tactics designed to overthrow capitalist America with the confrontational-but-compromising tactics of Chicago socialist Saul Alinsky.


“Instead of trying to overturn ‘the system — to blow it up, as Wiley wanted to do, ACORN burrows deep within the system,” wrote Manhattan Institute scholar Sol Stern, adding, “taking over its power and using its institutions for its own purposes, like a political ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers.’”


The Rathkes first established ACORN as the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now and struck a personal deal with that state’s liberal Republican then-Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller, who reportedly paid the newly-sprouted ACORN $5,000 in cash to register voters. “Of course, they thought we were going to register Republicans,” Delgado later boasted. “We did not register a single Republican voter in that election. However, we did use those resources early on to build the organization.”



Obama, ACORN, and Vote Fraud


Selectively adding millions of Democratic names to the voter rolls remains one of ACORN’s most lucrative activities, for which this organization has been given millions of dollars by organized labor, non-profit foundations, and Democratic-controlled government agencies.


Because Obama had worked closely with one of its leaders, Madeline Talbott, ACORN, in 1995, specifically sought out this radical young lawyer to help craft its lawsuit to impose President Bill Clinton’s 1993 National Voter Registration Act, nicknamed “Motor Voter,” according to Chicago ACORN leader Toni Foulkes.


Obama’s ACORN lawsuit won, thereby slapping aside state officials who resisted Motor Voter because of what it soon proved to be: a 12-lane superhighway to massive vote fraud.


The Motor Voter law required bureaucrats at welfare offices, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and other government offices to register as voters those who used their services. “Examiners were under orders not to ask anyone for identification or proof of citizenship,” wrote Wall Street Journal reporter John Fund in his book “Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy.” “States also had to permit mail-in voter registrations, which allowed anyone to register without any personal contact with a registrar or election official.”


Those who took advantage of government services such as welfare were disproportionately likely to vote for the Big Government party. Motor Voter also made it more difficult to purge voter rolls of fraudulent registrations.


Motor Voter, wrote Fund, “fueled an explosion of phantom voters.” But in Barack Obama’s Democrat-ruled Chicago, phantom voters and voting graveyards are nothing new.


Motor Voter was the Clinton administration’s attempt permanently to tilt voter rolls in favor of the Democratic Party. And Obama, working for ACORN, played a key role in imposing this law.


Perhaps thanks to ACORN’s and Motor Voter’s influence, of the 19 foreign terrorists who attacked America on 9/11, at least six were registered to vote.


In 1992, Obama took time off as a lawyer to direct Project Vote, ACORN’s voter mobilization entity, statewide in Illinois. Project Vote added an estimated 125,000 names to voter rolls, which helped propel Democrat Carol Moseley Braun into the same U.S. Senate seat Obama now holds.


Nationwide, ACORN’s Project Vote claims to have helped register more than 4 million voters in low-income and minority neighborhoods. Project Vote’s tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status prohibits its involvement in partisan political activity, but one of its leaders told Foundation Watch that “lots of grass-roots members” are assisting the 2008 Obama presidential campaign.


ACORN, wrote Foundation Watch investigators Elias Crim and Matthew Vadum last June, has a “record of highly-publicized voter fraud allegations” lodged against it “in Ohio (2004), Wisconsin (2004), Florida (2004), New Mexico (2004), Colorado (2005), Missouri (2006), and Washington State (2007).” They could have named other states as well.


In 2006, in Missouri’s U.S. Senate race, Republican incumbent James Talent lost by about 50,000 votes to Democrat Claire McCaskill.


“A sizeable portion of that margin,” wrote columnist Carl Horowitz, “was attributable to ACORN organizers submitting phony or at least suspicious voter-registration cards to election officials in the St. Louis and Kansas City metro areas. Several ACORN members in Kansas City were indicted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office just prior to Election Day, and eventually pleaded guilty. [Wade] Rathke, not one for subtlety, called City of St. Louis election officials ‘slop buckets’ when they questioned the veracity of ACORN-submitted forms.”


And who was Missouri state auditor during 2006, responsible at a statewide level for overseeing the honesty of voter registration? “That,” wrote Horowitz, “would be Claire McCaskill.” And Sen. McCaskill is one of Obama’s most ardent supporters.


In Florida, ACORN’s 2004 Miami-Dade field director, Mac Stuart, according to David Horowitz’s DiscoverTheNetworks.org investigation, “has testified that fraud is standard procedure for ACORN/Project Vote canvassers — behavior that is not only tolerated, but encouraged by supervisors.” Stuart reportedly told investigators: “[T]he voter registration project has been operating illegally since it started.”


In 2005, Virginia authorities sampled Project Vote registrations and rejected 83 percent of them for containing false or questionable information.


In Washington state, five ACORN employees were convicted in 2007 in what its Secretary of State Sam Reed called “the worst case of election fraud in our state’s history. It was an outrage.”


In this state the current Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire was elected literally by a handful of votes, but 450 apparently fictitious names were found registered to vote as Democrats at a single address. At least 1,700 ACORN voter registrations — using the names of Harry Reid, Dennis Hastert, and movie and sports stars — were later revoked in just one county of the state.


In Nevada, the state most likely to decide the 2008 presidential election, the Las Vegas Review-Journal last July 7 reported that a Clark County official “sees rampant fraud in the 2,000 to 3,000 registrations ACORN turns in every week.”


ACORN, of course, blames a handful of overzealous activists or mercenaries for acts of voter registration fraud. ACORN denies that it condones or encourages any illegal behavior.



Intimidation Politics


Incidentally, Obama’s ACORN comrade Madeline Talbott, according to Kurtz, “was so impressed by Obama’s organizing skills that she invited him to help train her own staff.” In 1997, notes Kurtz, Talbott was “a key leader” of 200 ACORN protestors who on July 31 tried to storm a Chicago City Council session.


These ACORN demonstrators, wrote Kurtz, reportedly “pushed over a metal detector and table used to screen visitors, backed police against the doors to the council chamber, and blocked late-arriving aldermen and city staff from entering the session….almost certainly a deliberate bit of what radicals call ‘direct action,’ orchestrated by ACORN’s Madeline Talbott,” who was “led away handcuffed, charged with mob action and disorderly conduct.”


Obama has never been led away in handcuffs for radical behavior. But, notes Kurtz, Obama has used groups of ominously angry activists to intimidate and pressure local officials.


A newspaper photo of Obama in his “community organizer” days shows him next to activist group the Developing Communities Project (DCP) posters that read: “It’s a power thing.” The ACORN organizer manual likewise declares, “This is a mass organization directed at political power where might makes right.”


Obama supporters in 2008 have angrily demonstrated against, and shared information intended to disrupt, a radio talk show in Chicago that has had Kurtz as a guest. This could be a foretaste of how intimidation might be used to stifle criticism of a President Obama administration.



Money-Hungry ACORN


By the 1980s, ACORN was expanding its horizons from voter registration to housing.


“In 1985, ACORN illegally seized 25 abandoned buildings owned by New York City and installed squatters as residents,” recounted a New York Post editorial. “A weak-kneed City Hall eventually gave the group title to the buildings — proving that crime can pay.”


In 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed the Community Redevelopment Act (CRA), which, in retrospect, was the opening wedge for what now threatens to become a government takeover of all housing in America. Under Carter’s administration, the domestic Peace Corps government entity VISTA, Volunteers in Service to America, gave a federal grant of $470,000 to ACORN to train volunteers to help low-income citizens.


A later congressional investigation found that ACORN illegally used this money for labor organizing.


According to ACORN co-founder Delgado, after two of “their own,” Sam Brown and Marjorie Tabankin, became directors of Carter’s ACTION agency and VISTA program, “over 3 million dollars was funneled directly to ACORN” and other left-wing organizations.


After the Clinton administration gave a grant worth more than $1 million to ACORN Housing Corp, an investigation by the inspector general of AmeriCorps found that AHC used government funds to register low-income persons for paid ACORN memberships, in violation of federal law.


Apparently this taxpayer money was given only to those poor people who agreed to pay $60 immediately back to ACORN.


By the infiltration of ideological comrades into positions of power at government agencies, ACORN became the recipient of a flood of taxpayer-funded grants, including some worth millions of dollars. AHC alone between 1997 and 2006 received more than $11,230,000 in public funds.



In 2005 alone, according to Department of Labor disclosure statements, labor leaders reportedly paid more than $2.4 million to ACORN in gifts, grants, and fees for organizing work.



Mandatory family membership dues bring ACORN another $3 million or so per year.


But foundations and churches, boasted Wade Rathke in 2004, account for less than half the revenue ACORN pockets from corporations that had been the targets of successful ACORN protest campaigns.



ACORN and Today’s Credit Crisis


President Carter’s CRA and related laws were repeatedly expanded to require lending institutions to avoid “redlining” policies that denied home loans to those in minority neighborhoods.


Obama was one of many lawyers who profited from successfully suing on grounds that discrimination was the reason an African-American was denied a home loan.


Banks and other lenders needed not only public good will but also the cooperation of government regulators to approve mergers and other business activities. Expanding laws such as CRA meant that if ACORN accused a bank of racial discrimination and unleashed protestors against it, however unjustly, that bank might suddenly face very unfriendly government regulators. Banks were thus set up to be easy victims for ACORN shakedowns, and paying protection money became necessary for bank survival.


“The same corporations that pay ransom to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton pay ransom to ACORN,” said Robert L. Woodson, President of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise.


“The 2000 tax return for the ACORN Housing Corporation,” reported the Employment Policies Institute (EPI), “disclosed grants from Bank of America, Fleet Services Corporation, Fannie Mae Foundation, Chase Manhattan Foundation, and Well Fargo Foundation totaling $4,752,198.” And AHC is just one of 100 arms of the ACORN octopus.


“The banks know they are being held up,” one financial industry consultant told EPI researchers, “but they are not going to fight over this. They look at it as a cost of doing business.”


Politicians and left-wing activist groups including ACORN were doing more than shaking down lending institutions for their own profit. They also demanded that lending standards be loosened for those in the underclass who tend to vote Democratic.


With a large political gun aimed at their heads, banks commenced making hundreds of thousands of what they called “Ninja” — no income, no job, no assets — loans to minorities who previously would have been deemed uncreditworthy. Knowing that many of these loans they were coerced to make would go bad, many lending institutions bundled them into new types of investment packages and sold them to shed risk.


The giant quasi-governmental lending institutions Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae, both largely run by Democratic appointees, became sources of funding for groups such as ACORN that aided Democratic politicians — and promoters of high-risk subprime home loans.


Democratic executives at these institutions, such as former Clinton administration member and Fannie Mae chair and chief executive officer, Franklin Raines, arranged to have their incomes increase with the amount of lending their institutions did. In six years of recklessly having Fanny Mae assume an astronomical burden of risk, Raines pushed his own income above $90 million.


As former federal prosecutor James H. Walsh recounted in a Sept. 22 Newsmax.com article, Raines was an adviser to Obama until recent national financial problems made Raines too risky to embrace.

[Editor's Note: Read “Obama, Voter Fraud & Mortgage Meltdown

” — Go Here Now].

Obama, noted Walsh, had been “the Senate’s second-largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”


Is ACORN troubled by what many are calling a credit meltdown and the likelihood that many minority homeowners may lose their homes? Probably not, because the ideological aim of ACORN’s radical founders was to destroy capitalism and replace it with socialism. In the current financial situation, government will get bigger, free markets will become less free, and vast amounts of capital will shift from private companies to government.


For those like Barack Obama who share ACORN’s ideology, the situation is perfect — heads, government wins; tails, capitalism loses. If people keep their homes, many will naively thank the Democratic politicians and left-wing activists who caused their problems in the first place. If poor people lose their homes, they will be that much easier for ACORN to brainwash with class hatred against evil capitalists.


And lest we forget, the first think that congressional Democrats put into their proposed “bailout package” to solve the financial crisis was a permanent slush fund to be extracted from capitalist institutions that would start growing at more than $20 million. The beneficiaries of this now-deleted slush fund were to have been radical Democrat-allied organizations such as ACORN.




Greedy Lefists


The Rathkes commingled ACORN’s socialist redistribute-the-wealth ideology with their own hypocrisy and personal greed. From ACORN, they spun off approximately 100 other legal entities.


They then created a shell game under which money acquired by one ACORN front group, e.g., Project Vote, would be moved to other ACORN-controlled groups, in some cases to acquire property.


One former Arkansas ACORN chair, Dorothy Perkins, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, described the organization as “building up a land portfolio” that was supposed to “translate to money and power for the national organization.”


But that money was “never seen” by the poor people ACORN claimed to serve, she said, and “all the money ended up” under Wade Rathke’s control. Rathke, she said, ran ACORN “like a Jim Jones cult.”



Relatively little of the redistributed wealth of Rathke’s ACORN conglomerate trickled down to the poor, and comparatively little went to the organization’s thousands of full-time “community organizers.”


Typical pay was $25,000 a year or less, for which ACORN employees were expected to work 54 hours or more per week, weekends included. In 2006, ACORN required many of its workers in Missouri to sign an agreement that they would be “working up to 80 hours over seven days of work.”


ACORN went to court in California, arguing unsuccessfully that it should be exempt from minimum wage laws. But in recent years, ACORN has staged many demonstrations to demand a “living wage,” typically a minimum of $12 or more per hour, for minimum wage workers.


According to Mac Stuart, ACORN collected more than $4 for each completed, and illegally copied, voter registration. Its workers who found people and submitted their registrations were paid only $2, with ACORN and the Rathkes pocketing the difference.


But ACORN had many other sources for its annual $37.5 million budget, including millions in government and foundation grants.


ACORN head Wade Rathke was also chief organizer of a New Orleans local of one of America’s most radical labor unions, the Service Employee’s International Union (SEIU), and ACORN was a close ally of organized labor. Unions sometimes paid ACORN to have its low-paid workers march with picket signs pretending to be striking union members.


When ACORN workers, as well as those in his SEIU union local, tried to form their own unions to bargain for higher wages and shorter hours, Rathke successfully used a wide array of union-busting techniques to stop them — the same kinds of techniques he routinely condemned other businesses for using.


But the Rathkes fell from power in 2008 shortly before The New York Times on July 9 reported that in 1999-2000 Dale Rathke, then ACORN’s chief financial officer, had diverted $948,607 from ACORN and affiliated charitable organization accounts.


Other ACORN officials in 2001 reportedly obtained a restitution agreement from Wade Rathke to repay the missing funds in $30,000 per-year installments.


ACORN, meanwhile, continued to pay Wade Rathke considerably more than $30,000 each year, in effect covering these repayments, while Dale Rathke’s apparent embezzlement of almost a million dollars — in contributions to help the poor — was kept secret from the public and from those funding ACORN.


“How did ACORN handle the crime?” asked a July 13 New York Post editorial. “By disguising it on the books as a loan from one of its contractors….” and only letting Rathke go “when word of his fraud leaked to donors…. most of the people who covered up the embezzlement are still working for ACORN.”


“We thought it best at the time to protect the organizations,” said ACORN President Maude Hurd. “We did what we thought was right.” Or what served the interests of the left.


Welcome to ACORN, the organization that made Barack Obama what he is today, and that may make him president of the United States.

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_acorn_smears/2008/10/06/137891.html

[mick]

i found this. Prosecutors move to delay Rezko sentencing


Email this Story

Oct 7, 6:14 AM (ET)

By MIKE ROBINSON

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081007/D93LJEUG0.html


CHICAGO (AP) - Federal prosecutors moved Monday to delay indefinitely the sentencing of convicted fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko, sending their strongest hint yet that he is ready to spill his political secrets.

The filing asks for a postponement while prosecutors and defense attorneys "engage in discussions that could affect their sentencing postures."

Speculation has simmered for weeks that the key fundraiser for Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Sen. Barack Obama was whispering what he knows about corruption in Illinois government to federal prosecutors in hopes of getting a lighter sentence.

Rezko raised more than $1 million for Blagojevich's campaign fund and was one of the governor's key advisers. He was frequently by the governor's side in the early days of his administration and could be in a position to shed considerable light on federal investigations into patronage hiring and a host of other issues involving Blagojevich.

The governor has not been charged with wrongdoing. A spokesman did not immediately respond to an e-mail message after business hours seeking comment.

U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve had set Sept. 3 as a firm date for sentencing Rezko on his conviction for launching a $7 million scheme to use his clout with the Blagojevich administration to squeeze kickbacks out of a contractor and seven money management firms wanting to do business with the state. Then she postponed the sentencing date to Oct. 28.

Federal prosecutors filed a three-paragraph brief late Monday asking for that date to be stricken and the sentencing postponed indefinitely. The wording left little doubt that Rezko offered enough to make the government consider some sort of sentencing break.

Federal spokesman Randall Samborn declined to comment on the latest development. Defense attorneys Joseph Duffy and William Ziegelmueller did not immediately respond to office voicemails left late Monday.

Two attorneys familiar with the investigation, speaking only on condition of anonymity because grand jury matters are secret, said last week that federal prosecutors were contacting the lawyers of a number of campaign contributors and others with information that only Rezko could have given them. One of the lawyers said it was plain the prosecutors were laying the groundwork for questioning Rezko further.

One of the matters that prosecutors have been interested in learning is who paid for the renovation of Blagojevich's Chicago home. Rezko's now defunct Chicago Construction Services was the contractor on the project. One person familiar with the renovation contacted Monday afternoon, speaking only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, said he was subpoenaed by federal prosecutors and asked about the project.

"They were looking for basic business dealings, who paid, how much, that sort of thing," he said. He said the governor's wife, Patti, paid the bill.

At Rezko's trial in May, former state employee Ali Ata, who got his job as head of the Illinois Finance Authority from Blagojevich through Rezko, testified as the government's surprise witness that he had to provide $25,000 to Rezko to pay contractors who were threatening to put a lien on the house if the bill was not paid. Ata earlier pleaded guilty to tax fraud and lying to the FBI about how Rezko got him his job.

Besides bankrolling a large portion of Blagojevich's campaign, Rezko raised substantial funds for Obama's past campaigns in Illinois - although none for his current presidential run.

Obama's campaign says it has sent to charity $159,000 traceable to Rezko's past fundraising.

While Blagojevich was frequently mentioned at Rezko's trial, the testimony rarely touched on Obama, who has been accused of no wrongdoing.

Unmentioned at the trial was a purchase by Rezko's wife, Rita, of property adjacent to the Obama home near the University of Chicago on the city's South Side. Obama and his wife, Michelle, purchased their home the same day that Rezko's wife closed on her property. And she later sold some of her property to the Obamas to enlarge their lot. Obama later said that allowing Rezko to do what appeared to be a favor was a "bonehead" move.

Rezko was convicted in June of mail fraud, wire fraud, attempted extortion and money laundering. Several of the charges carry 20-year maximum sentences and while Rezko would not be expected to served that much time for a first offense he is still looking at the possibility of years in federal prison. A deal with prosecutors could reduce his time considerably.

Moreover, Rezko faces the prospect of a second trial early next year on federal charges of swindling the General Electrical Capital Corp. out of $10 million in the sale of a group of pizza restaurants.

And beyond that, by his own account his is running out of money and an arrest warrant has been issued in Las Vegas accusing him of failing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in casino bills.

[mick]

well OB or John will be possibly going back to the senate.

only one can win da oval.

[mick]

hi dec212012', good morning. that is a surprise going to see
OB writibg on the wall.

i wonder if it can be done?

[dec212012]

yup he wants us to be "global citizens"....

[mick]

i did call today as some octobers, black monday is the first monday in OCTOBER.

today---intraday at 729 down tick. 1:20 mins before close.

two black monday's in sept.,2008

[mick]

i'd like to pst this here due to its nature.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=32638105


Posted by: dec212012 Date: Friday, October 03, 2008 5:56:41 PM
In reply to: None Post # of 599950

Implications of an Obama Victory to the Supreme Court

Posted on September 15, 2008. Filed under: B. Hussein Obama's real record as a "reformer", Obama's Grand Plan for Change, Past Policy Voting Tendencies (Or Lack of Voting) |






One issue that has not been heavily discussed in the press is the implication this election will have on the ideological composition of the United States Supreme Court. Federal judicial nominees are a very important power granted to the president under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. The Constitution says, “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court…” Over the years the Democrats in the Senate have continued to interpret their role in advising and consenting to the appointments to grant them increasingly more power to demand certain beliefs from the nominees they approve. However, even with the Senate expanding their role, the President is the one who chooses the nominees the Senate will evaluate. At no time, has the Senate ever tried to dictate the pool out of which the President should choose the nominees. Therefore, the President is the one who is ultimately responsible for the beliefs and agenda the newly appointed justices will arrive on the Supreme Court to advance. This is an especially important issue that should be on the minds of all voters this November. Just through their party affiliations, Barack Obama and John McCain possess competing views of what is important in selecting a Supreme Court nominee. However, since Barack Obama is the most liberal senator in the US Senate, the values he will seek out in a nominee are polar opposite of those John McCain, and many Americans, will value in a judicial appointment.

Throughout history, Democrats and Republicans have had very different views on how they feel a Supreme Court Justice should interpret the Constitution. Most liberal Democrats favor justices that believe the Constitution is a living document that must constantly be reinterpreted to keep up with a changing society. This view of the Constitution is how the court decided in the Roe v. Wade opinion that abortion is a fundamental right granted to US citizens through the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment. This interpretation often allows justices to impose their political positions on American citizens through maintaining that the Constitution must be reinterpreted to accommodate for issues brought before them. Many critics of this type of judicial reasoning often see judges bending the words of the Constitution any way they see fit in order to legislate from the bench in order to advocate a social agenda. Going back to the Roe v. Wade decision, in this case the Supreme Court was able to declare abortion constitutionally protected through the claim that denying women the ability to have an abortion is a violation of their right to privacy as protected in the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the passage in Section 1 that reads, “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Loose interpretation of the Constitution is not only used as a method of creating rights, it is also used by the same group of justices to attempt to take away rights. The justices on the current Supreme Court who are in agreement with Roe v. Wade wrote a dissenting opinion during on the case of Heller v. The District of Columbia where they stated the Constitution provides no basis for private firearm ownership even though the Second Amendment ends with, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Through the idea that the Constitution can be reinterpreted at any point in time to accommodate almost any government agenda is a very dangerous scenario because it allows a court to arbitrarily create and take away any right they wish without needing any approval of the people.

Republican presidents have strived to appoint originalist judges. Judges that fall into this category hold that the framers of the Constitution had specific ideas in mind when writing the Constitution. Even though times change, the Constitution was based on fundamental ideas that remain constant over time and provide the guiding principles by which to base new laws and regulations. Subscribers to this judicial belief system are more concerned with applying the rule of law to cases before it rather than advancing a social agenda. While the liberal justices who believe the Constitution is a “living document” which they believe gives them the authority to interpret the Constitution to include, or exclude any rights they are seeking to implement or restrict. This should be one of the most frightening ideas to the American people. This method of interpreting the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the ability to completely circumvent the will of the people in order to further any political ideology the Justices wish.

Those on the left always accuse a Republican president as wanting to stack the Supreme Court with Christian, pro-life, conservative justices in a coordinated attempt to first overturn Roe v. Wade and then to stamp out any political adversaries. This is a view that is often painted as more dangerous to the rights of Americans rather than the liberal “living document” view. However, while the decisions under a liberal-leaning court often establish certain values as law, such as in Roe v. Wade, originalist judges keep the court from legislating on social issues that should be decided by the voters in their respective states. In fact, if the worst case scenario was to occur and a conservative court was to strike down Roe v. Wade, abortion would not be immediately banned. The issue would instead go to the voters and each state would get a chance to decide what they choose to permit. However, as proven since Franklin Roosevelt’s administration, liberal judges take it upon themselves to enact into law any cause they see worthy whether or not it is allowed under the Constitution or even favored by the people. This is a dangerous path for the rights of Americans to essentially grant one branch of government the ability to govern with no recourse.

Supreme Court appointments have been an important issue in the Obama campaign. Obama claims that John McCain must be defeated because he will appoint pro-life justices who will look to overturn Roe v. Wade. This is the main concern Democratic presidential candidates have voiced every election since the court decided the case. On the campaign trail, Obama has given several indications of the political ideology he would seek out in his judicial nominees. On his campaign website, Obama offers a statement on the recent Supreme Court decision that placed restrictions on late-term abortions, the type of abortion procedures that lead to the situations discussed in the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act which Obama opposed both as a Illinois State Senator and as a US Senator. (For more details see previous Anti-Obamassiah Refuge post, Obama’s Unfailing Opposition to the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act.) Obama placed this statement on his campaign website, “I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.”

His statement shows how passionate Obama is about placing absolutely no restrictions on when a pregnancy can be terminated. In fact, in an effort to advance their pro-abortion stances, Obama and Justice Ginsburg have completely dismissed a crucial part of the Roe v. Wade decision. The Roe v. Wade opinion written by Justice Blackmun states, “For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.” In this statement, the court is only legalizing abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy. After the first three months, Blackmun writes, “For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.” Thus giving the states the ability to regulate abortions performed after the first trimester. In Obama’s crusade to ensure a mother’s right to end her pregnancy up to and even beyond child birth in cases where the abortion attempt is unsuccessful, he has completely dismissed the actual ruling in Roe v. Wade and is focused to expand the decision until there can be absolutely no restrictions on abortion. Obama’s goal is to ensure no restrictions can be placed on abortion in terms of methods allowed, prohibitions of aborting an infant at any time during the pregnancy right up to the point of labor, requiring parental notification of minors who are seeking an abortion, and restricting or limiting the use of tax money to assist mothers seeking abortions in the United States or abroad. To achieve this, Obama looks to appoint justices that hold the same view of the Constitution being open to different interpretations for each issue presented to the court. The reason this is so appalling for a politician to pursue is that the court can, essentially, pass laws from the bench without ever giving the American people or their elected representatives a voice in the process.

Obama further proves his desire to appoint justices willing to twist the interpretation of the Constitution to allow any law he favors with his past actions against the Second Amendment. On the issue of gun control, Obama has always favored very extreme restrictions on private firearm ownership. While a state senator in Illinois, Obama voted against a law that would prevent criminal charges being brought against someone who used a handgun to protect themselves in a home invasion. In Chicago, handguns are banned and homeowners used to be subject to criminal charges if they defended themselves and their families against a burglar by using a handgun kept in the home. Luckily, the Illinois legislature passed a law absolving homeowners from criminal charges in these situations but not with Obama’s support. Obama voted against the bill. When it passed despite of his opposition, the bill was vetoed by the governor. The veto was overridden but not after Obama seized the opportunity to vote against it one more time. When the Supreme Court handed down their decision that the Second Amendment does grant a right to private firearm ownership for self defense, Obama gave a statement that cannot truly be taken seriously in light of his voting record on gun control through both his state and federal senate career. RealClearPolitics.com shows how Obama remarked on the Heller decision by stating, “I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures.” Apparently from his vote against Chicago residents using a handgun for self defense, Obama is not in agreement that the Second Amendment protects the right to self defense.

As far as Obama’s Second Amendment support goes, his other votes and statements he has made in the past help to show what Obama feels are “common-sense, effective safety measures.” These statements help to shed light on what course of action he will be nominating federal judges to pursue. In the Illinois Senate, Obama voted against lowering the minimum age for a Firearm Owner Identification Card, which all Illinois residents must possess in order to buy a firearm or ammunition, to 18 from 21. The law was proposed to help members of the military who were under 21. (Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18) Obama voted to raise the taxes on firearms and ammunition 500% in Illinois. (Chicago Defender 12/13/99) He also voted against a bill requiring notification of gun owners’ when the state of Illinois ran record checks on them for no legal reason. (Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26) As far as allowing states and municipalities to establish their own gun laws, he actually means that he supports states and municipalities establishing gun control measures that he endorses. He has often referred to a president and court’s responsibility to protect states from other states’ flawed gun policy of allowing concealed carry. He has said, “I’m consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.” (Chicago Tribune, 4/27/04) These examples should leave no doubt in Obama’s views that, despite the words in the Second Amendment, no individual has the right to self defense through gun ownership. These are just a few examples of specific votes and statements Obama has made in the past that give voters an idea of where he truly stands on Second Amendment issues. As the votes and statements prove, restricting the rights granted in the Second Amendment is an important goal of Obama’s and there can be no doubt in the voters’ minds that he will appoint Supreme Court justices that he feels will promote this agenda of reinterpreting the Constitution to grant absolute rights and court-mandated full government support to abortion-on-demand while blatantly ignoring the precise wording of the Second Amendment that actually does recognize the peoples’ right to firearm ownership. The main difference between the conceal carry laws Obama opposes so much and the abortion ruling he defends with every fiber of his soul, is that the American voters express their desire of having conceal carry permits through state-wide elections. Abortion, however, was sent to the Supreme Court and decided by activist judges before the people even had a chance to voice their disapproval at the ballot box.

No one can forget Obama’s statements in San Francisco at a private fund raising event when Obama thought he was off of the record and he explained, “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” It is very obvious from these remarks that Obama has no respect for religion or gun ownership, which are both explicitly protected under the First and Second Amendments of the Constitution.

Further proof of the characteristics of potential Obama judicial nominees also comes from looking at his concerns about the last two Supreme Court justices to be appointed. The Senate confirmation hearings for Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito were a very partisan process where the Democrat Senators delayed the confirmations as long as they could while they asked many divisive questions which were more concerned with the nominees’ political beliefs rather than their ability to effectively sit on the nation’s highest court and determine the constitutionality of the cases brought before them. Concerns were raised in the press about John Robert’s two adopted children because some wondered how Roberts was able to adopt two white children so close together. The questioning of Alito became so intense and cruel that his wife was brought to tears during the confirmation proceedings. Obama, the self-described, bipartisan solution-seeker voted with the rest of the Democrats when he voted against confirming Roberts and Alito. Why did he oppose the nominations? Because, as he expressed repeatedly, he said that they were crucial to the conservative right’s ultimate plan of repealing Roe v. Wade. This has been the Democrat Party’s main issue in the last three Republican presidents’ judicial nominees. Perhaps the most notorious example of the Democrats’ brutal attempts to disqualify a Supreme Court appointment was during the confirmation hearing of Clarence Thomas. This is where the party that supports affirmative action, tried desperately to ruin the second black man to be nominated to the Supreme Court’s personal and professional reputation in their efforts to protect their holy grail of Roe v. Wade.

This issue is not only about abortion and gun rights, although both are very important issues. A judiciary that Obama would be allowed to stack in his favor would also be expected to advance his extreme leftist ideas. Among these are his positions on whether or not employees can use a secret ballot system when voting whether or not they want union representation. Obama, through his feeling of indebtedness to the labor unions, sides with their goal of removing secret ballot from these employee votes, which would no doubt, subject those who vote against union representation to union and fellow employee scrutiny.

Also at issue is Obama’s support of gay marriage. Gay marriage is not only about preserving the sanctity of the traditional family; there is also an aspect which would affect almost every church-going American. If the Supreme Court were to rule that a ban on homosexual marriage is unconstitutional, most likely the deciding justices would claim the ban as running contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause as they have used for most of their social engineering decisions in the past. If this were the case, any church that did not want to perform homosexual marriages would then be liable to class action law suits which would place the churches in the position of either changing basic tenets of their theological beliefs or leaving themselves open to bankrupting class action law suits. All of this could be done without any input from the voters or their elected representatives.

Perhaps the most amazing issue Obama has supported which he could make law with a Democrat Congress and a self-appointed judiciary would be making US citizens liable to an International Criminal Court (ICC.) This is an issue that Obama has weighed in on in the past. In David Freddoso’s book, The Case Against Barack Obama, he discusses Obama’s support of America entering into a treaty that would place US citizens under the ICC’s jurisdiction despite the court’s lack of a presumption of innocence and due process rights which are at the foundation of the American judicial system. The ICC also brings up concerns of placing US military in risk of being tried by a foreign court for military actions. Placing America under the jurisdiction of a foreign court also calls the nation’s sovereignty into question. In 2004, Fredosso discusses Obama’s comments to a small liberal publication when he voiced strong support for the ICC and blamed the Bush Administrations, “general arrogance that was on display before Iraq…it was true of our unilateral rejection of the International Criminal Court which, had we been a signatory, could have actually dealt with Saddam Hussein.” Obama conveniently doesn’t mention how the US waited for months before acting to give the United Nations a chance at solving the problem in Iraq. In several questionnaires leading up to the 2008 election, Obama gives vague answers about his support for the ICC. A questionnaire from Citizens for Global Solutions asked about Obama’s support for treaties such as the ICC, Kyoto Treaty, Law of the Sea, and Test Ban Treaty. Without specifically mentioning the ICC Treaty, he does say he approves of such treaties but he does not give specifics of which treaties he supports. With a Supreme Court tailored to Obama’s agenda, Americans very well might become subject to a foreign government that does not afford them the same protections they receive under the US Constitution. Obama supports this treading on American Constitutional rights despite his Harvard Law degree and work as a constitutional attorney.

So how is the process any different when Republican senators are confirming justices nominated by a Democrat president? To give an idea, during the entire history of the Supreme Court, twelve nominees have been outright rejected by the Senate. No Democrat president has ever had a nominee rejected by a Republican senate. Is this because the Democrat presidents don’t nominate controversial justices? No, it is actually very much to the contrary. President Clinton nominated Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the Supreme Court. She was the first justice to voice her support for Roe v. Wade during her confirmation hearing; she supported the decision in Roe v. Wade even though she described the ruling as, “heavy-handed judicial intervention.” She is also considered by many to be the most liberal activist judge to ever sit on the court and probably the current justice on the court most supportive of the “heavy-handing judicial intervention” known as the Roe v. Wade decision. The difference lies in the different approaches taken by Democrats and Republicans when considering court nominees. Democrats will fight the confirmation of a justice that they believe is a threat to Roe v. Wade, which is any justice that decides cases purely on powers granted in the Constitution instead of creating the powers they wish were contained. However, the Republicans mostly confirm judges based on the qualifications they have to sit on the bench. They hold a belief that the voters have voiced the direction they would like the Supreme Court to take when they elect a Democrat president. This is the reason why John McCain along with most Republicans voted to affirm both Justices Ginsburg and Breyer when President Clinton nominated them to the high court.

While the issue of Supreme Court appointments is not front-and-center in this election it should be a deciding factor in every voter’s decision this November. Activist Supreme Court Justices have recently proved what they are capable of in their 2005 decision in Kelo v City of New London where the court ruled that private land can be confiscated by the government for the use by another private individual or company in the name of economic development. This ruling was before the nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. This ruling came from the Supreme Court shaped by Bill Clinton and it ruled that an American citizen’s land can be taken over by another non-government entity for private use for economic development. Essentially, no one is safe from a government deciding their home would be better used as a Costco. Obama and his campaign want to scare voters into believing that a conservative court places a priority on pressing their morals on the American People. However, through the liberal justices’ twisting of the Constitution, especially the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, an Obama-sympathetic court will, in fact, impose their social agenda on every American without giving any voice to the American voters or their duly elected representatives. The Kelo Decision is just a recent example of what voters have to lose by allowing a president to give the Supreme Court a liberal bias. Even if Obama’s worst nightmare is realized and the Supreme Court was to strike down Roe v. Wade, the issue of abortion would only go to the voters to decide. In no way would abortion be immediately declared illegal. The next president may have the chance to fill up to three Supreme Court justices. If Obama is the one who makes these appointments, Americans will lose their voice on very divisive social issues.

http://antiobamassiah.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/implications-of-an-obama-victory-to-the-supreme-court/

[mick]

wow, all are giving lot of responses all over IHUB.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=32676408


Posted by: NYBob Date: Monday, October 06, 2008 2:21:49 PM
In reply to: mick who wrote msg# 1189 Post # of 1220

The 666Fed has informed Bank of America to be ready for a one-week
universal shutdown of the banking system, including access
to checking accounts, savings accounts and credit cards.

This is why you need $5,000 in small bills in your safe -
at home and small denomination gold and silver coins? -

http://theinternationalforecaster.com/printerfriendly/International_Forecaster_Weekly/Bailout_Creating_a_Financial_Black_Hole_to_Suck_Us_All_In
--

with hidden factors, it could be 2 trillion cause the persons don't read all the fine print.

none of these items help six pack joe.
--

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=32654196

--

http://www.johnmccain.com/palin.htm

http://www.888c.com/
imo. tia.

[mick]

with my last message IT IS TIME , HOW SOON? , THAT WILL DEPEND
ON OUR GOV'T.

U.S.A. WILL ASK FOR FORGIVENESS OFOUR DEBTS TO ALL FOREIGN NATIONS U.S.A. IN DEBT TO.

then new money in da vaults backed with gold standard requirements as before with all banks.

gold standard should have never been taken away for our dollar nor one dollar bill backed by silver.

[mick]

i read this here,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=32676230

Posted by: doogdilinger Date: Monday, October 06, 2008 2:17:37 PM
In reply to: doogdilinger who wrote msg# 9072 Post # of 9073

TSX loss challenges Black Monday

Derek Abma , Canwest News Service
Published: Monday, October 06, 2008

One week after the Toronto Stock Exchange's composite index recorded its biggest one-day point loss in history, it was flirting with a percentage decline that came close to its worst day ever in that regard - Black Monday of 1987.

At about 11 a.m., the S&P/TSX composite index was down 1,185.42 points, or 10.97 per cent, to 9,617.93. If it had fallen a little further down and stayed there, it would've broken the record 11.32 per cent drop of Oct. 19, 1987.

Canadian and U.S. stock benchmark indexes - the TSX composite and Dow Jones industrial average, respectively - both plunged below the 10,000-point mark on Monday for the first time since 2005 following an overseas sell-off sparked by the growing crisis in the financial sector and mounting fears of a global recession.


Markets around the world dropped Monday with sell-offs both in North America and overseas.
Toru Hanai/Reuters

In early afternoon trading, there had been some recovery in the TSX composite. It was down 639.41 points, or 5.9 per cent, to 10,163.94. The Dow was off by 555.54 points, or 5.4 per cent, to 9,769.84. The Nadsaq composite index was down 121.6 points, or 6.4 per cent, to 1,825.79. The S&P 500 had declined 66.43, or six per cent, to 1,032.80.

"At this point, it just looks like massive liquidation where hedge funds and traders are selling equities to make margin calls," said Robert Kavcic, economic analyst with BMO Capital Markets.

He added that real economy issues, like earnings expectations in a sluggish economy, are starting to increasingly influence stock values.

Energy was accounting for more than 40 per cent of the decline on the TSX composite. Financials and materials were also leading sectors in bringing the main index down.

Among the stocks making the biggest impact: Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. was down $11.71, or 11.5 per cent, to $90.50; Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. was down $6.01, or 9.4 per cent, to $57.91; Suncor Energy Inc. had fallen $5.10, or 14 per cent, to $31.34; and Research In Motion Ltd. was down $4.25, or 6.4 per cent, to $61.78.

The Canadian dollar dipped below 90 cents US, down from its Friday close of 92.46 cents US. At noon, it was trading at 90.69 cents US.

Crude oil was down $3.98 to 89.90 US a barrel in New York.

Earlier Monday, Asian and European markets tumbled as international investors responded to doubts about the success of the U.S. government's $700-billion US bailout bill passed Friday.

Hong Kong's Hang Seng index was down 3.35 per cent, with all 43 of the index's blue chip stocks decreasing.

Japan's benchmark Nikkei 225, the Tokyo-based stock exchange of top Japanese companies, closed 4.25 per cent from Friday to hit its lowest level since February 2004.

European markets saw similar losses across the continent as German officials offered a blanket bank deposit guarantee and French banking giant BNP Paribas announced a $20.1-billion US deal to take over Fortis, a financial group.

The FTSE 100, the London exchange of Europe's top shares, closed down 7.9 per cent. Germany's DAX index slipped 7.1 per cent and the France's CAC 40 fell nine per cent.

On Friday, North American markets closed slightly lower after the U.S. House of Representative's vote on the bailout bill.

The TSX benchmark closed down 1.3 per cent at 10,803.05 points and the Dow ended down 1.5 per cent to close at 10,325.38.




© Canwest News Service 2008

[mick]

i tried the click to for total writing of this bill.

i think mccain should have voted no even though pressures
from congress and GWB.

do have click to for all pages to be read?

many are reading his yea vote a vote for OB nation.

[mick]

good article and comments. actually as i see it BLANK CHECK plus add on to trillion or trillions more for socialism
gappers.

[mick]

it started /// the bailout from paulson 3 pages. then 200 and then 451 pages.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd400.htm

[mick]

part 4, Will these Americans get back these losses? If they leave their money in, they run the risk of the continued and devastating effects of this meltdown which is NOT going to get any better as a result of this monstrous "2008 Economic Stimulus Relief Bill." If people try to salvage what's left and withdraw their own money, the thieves at the IRS will penalize you anywhere from 20-35%. Every time I watch one of these jackals in Congress crow how much they are about "Main Street," I want to puke.

Supposedly one of the promises in this "rescue" bill was to allow Americans to withdraw their 401(k) funds without penalties. It never happened as I read those sections of the bill. Of course not. The puppet masters who own Congress and the White House don't want Americans to pull their own money out of the risky markets. They would rather you go bankrupt or lose what you worked so hard for decades to acquire to protect their game. You can read the 401(k) provisions of the bill here; it begins on page 303. This is what your public servant who voted for that bill (including Obama and McCain) did last week:

Bailout vote: Congress shrinks your 401(k)

"That loss guarantees that a huge amount of money has been wiped off the value of 401(k)s affecting retirement plans. Tens of millions of Americans will be retiring in poverty or will not be able to afford retirement at all because of the votes those 133 Republicans and 95 Democrats made on this fateful "Fools Monday"...Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is responsible for at least half of this debacle. Her speech Monday, supposedly in favor of the bailout, was as partisan, short-sighted and even hysterical as anything she has ever said. It was the defining moment of her career, and she blew it..."

These reprobates used your retirement as a sledgehammer: "Basically they gave Congress a ransom note: 'We've got your 401(k) and if you want to see your 401(k) alive again, give us $700 billion in unmarked bills,' " Sherman said."

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd400.htm

[mick]

part 3, U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 7: All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Here's how it was done via 'Parliamentarian procedures' in the U.S. House of Representatives. In March, 2007, a bill originated in the House, H.R. 1424. This innocuous bill was originally introduced as the 'Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.' As time was of the essence for the banker barons to get their swindle shoved down our throats and these sell outs in Congress to "cobble" together "something," the original text was scrubbed (you'll see here at GovTrak the term "co-opted" is used) and the new bill text is slapped onto this bill number: "In October 2008, it was co-opted as the so-called "vehicle" to pass the relief bill with an amendment that rewrites the whole bill. The House's initial vehicle was H.R. 3997, but they failed to pass their amendment co-opting the bill."

Go look at the bill here. Notice the words: Purpose: In the nature of a Substitute.

This new bill using an old number fails in the House, goes to the unlawfully seated Senate, they pass it, off it goes to the House where it passed last Friday. Nice, neat, slick. But is it constitutional? The bill did originate in the House, but in my eyes, what we saw was yet more chicanery by a body of public servants who care nothing for truth, honesty, integrity or the U.S. Constitution. We know that the U.S. Treasury made up the $700 billion dollar figure; they simply wanted to "pick a big enough number." Now, we have Pelosi's gangsters in the House using back door methods to ram a bill down out throats that is so heinous, these fools simply don't realize what they've done to the American people.

401(k)s. For almost three weeks, popular financial guru's on both the tube and Internet have been telling people these bail out bills would not have any effect on their pension plans or 401(k)s. Keep investing in the stock market and don't touch those 401(k)s! While speaking to my attorney friend out in DC over the weekend, he told me a friend of his checked his 401(k) and found it had lost 47% last week. That's not the only one. Another man I know lost $35,000 of his 401(k) last week and a wonderful lady who emails me all time, Nettie, said her husband's 401(k) had lost almost $60,000 and she was very worried about his mental health. They're in their late 60s and it's too late for them to start over. My heart bleeds to read these emails.

[mick]

part 2, Notice on page 298 of the bill, there are provisions for the film and motion picture industry. What does this have to do with bailing out banks? How about page 300 that provides exemption from excise taxes for wooden arrows made for children? Or, how about Section 504 regarding income from Exxon Valez settlements? Here's more on the swindle: GREEN ALERT: Hidden Carbon Tax Provisions in Paulson’s Bailout 2.0. "This appears to be an attempt by global warming fanatics to lay the foundation for an economy-killing carbon tax just like the “cap-and-tax” system that is now destroying European industry. If you think the Mother of All Bailouts is bad, just wait till you see the carbon tax. Get ready to reduce your standard of living drastically."

Reading this bill was like a nightmare that wouldn't end. How many members of Congress actually read the entire 451 pages? Most likely, they just paid attention to the sections that would satisfy those who bought their favors.

Was the procedure used to bring this monstrosity up for a vote constitutional? If the original bill failed in the House, how could the unlawfully seated senate originate a bill of expenditure? Why would people ask this specific question?

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd400.htm

[mick]

very good article, BAILOUT VOTE CONSTITUTIONAL? -
401(k)s BLEED




By: Devvy
October 6, 2008

© 2008 - NewsWithViews.com



It's almost difficult to describe in mere words what happened last week in Washington, DC. That Blitzkreig is today's definition of shock and awe. When the enemy hits you at a speed you may not have time to get ready for is exactly what the money masters planned when they dropped the bail out swindle into the laps of a body of individuals (Congress), with a few exceptions like Congressman Ron Paul, R-TX, who have virtually no understanding of the subject matter. In cases like sodomite, Barney Frank, D-MA., whose male sex partner was a senior exec at Fannie Mae, Frank should be investigated by the Department of Justice along with Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-CT.

Despite the overwhelming opposition of we the people across this land, Congress passed another nightmare. If you haven't seen the breakdown, it is here. Note the the part which gives the IRS immunity from federal laws, more power to snoop into your life and make your personal income tax information as exposed as a newborn baby. You will see this wasn't just a "rescue" to recapitalize banks, it is more massive pork ridden debt slapped on our backs.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd400.htm

[mick]

hi Legato' , LEH / CEO is in hearings today for fall of LEH.

re;
will do da click to

This is an article revealing (D) Barney Frank relationship with someone of was on the up at Fannie Mae. Look at the top paragraph. http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd400.htm

[Legato]

This is an article revealing (D) Barney Frank relationship with someone of was on the up at Fannie Mae. Look at the top paragraph. http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd400.htm

[mick]

dec212012', good morning. say this 2012 number?

prediction? dec.12, 2012?

anything to do with armageddon? nostradamus?

scary too how the OB nation is recruiting voters with celebrities and other type of recruiting for OB registering
and voting at same time.

mc and sarah just let the handle to loose for OB nation. imho

re;
another scary one on obama

http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=2501&srcid=2392

will click to soon.

[dec212012]

another scary one on obama

http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=2501&srcid=2392

[thesource]

I don't know much about the bill other than most if not all the people I know think its a bad idea . Apparently , the market did think it was so great either from the large swing we saw on Fridays trading .

[mick]

this isn't about the count but possibly a good read.
re;
Saturday, October 04, 2008

EXPLOSIVE: Treason-Gate Update as Bush-Clinton Crime Syndicate Looting of US Treasury Escalates

http://blog.myspace.com/tom_heneghan_intel

The times they are extraordinary. Maybe it takes extraordinary responses to get people to notice? ??

[dec212012]

A New Rule Change That Could Hurt Taxpayers

By Elizabeth MacDonald

A little understood but very important accounting rule being blamed for the $523 bn in losses and writedowns at financial companies around the globe is now being retooled by market and accounting regulators, in a last-ditch attempt to stop the steam pipes bursting and to get banks lending again.

However, the move matters greatly to taxpayers, because analysts now say that banks who own severely damaged mortgage-backed bonds may be able to use the changed rule to get higher prices for these securities if they auction them off to the government as now planned in the $700 bn rescue bill.

The rule change comes just at the end of the third quarter, which means companies may be spared the pain of big third-quarter losses and writedowns.

And it comes as the Federal Bureau of Investigation is probing Wall Street firms to search for criminal securities fraud in the valuation of these bonds.

How it Works

Here’s how it works.

When borrowers get loans, the banks typically sell these loans to Wall Street firms, who then repackage them as bonds backed by the value of a house or property. Wall Street then sells these bonds to mutual funds, pension funds and all sorts of investors around the globe.

As house prices drop in value, so, too, do the value of these bonds, which vary in type as mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), even CDOs of credit default swaps or exotic bonds called CDO-squareds.

The accounting rule says that companies that own these bonds must value these bonds each quarter as if they were going to be sold immediately. That process is called “mark to market.”

But since these bonds have dropped in value, they are regarded as Kryptonite because no one wants them.

Companies must then book these losses on these bonds even if they did not sell them. “Mark to market” has since been jokingly called “mark to mayhem” and “mark to madness.”

Relaxing the Rules

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Accounting Standards Board have now “clarified” existing mark to market accounting rules saying companies have leeway in assessing value, and do not have to use the current market price, which is of course way down.

The SEC and the FASB basically say that companies are not required to book fire sale prices when valuing these illiquid assets, including mortgage-backed bonds. Instead, management can use their own internal assumptions to measure fair value.

Specifically, the accounting regulators said that companies were initially supposed to use fair values based on an “orderly transaction” between willing market participants. However, “distressed or forced liquidation sales are not orderly transactions,” the SEC said in a statement.

Don’t Blame the Rule

It’s important to remember here that no one really knows the value of these bonds and whether they are worth more or less than what the market says they are worth because the cash flow is or is not really there.

It’s important, too, to remember that it’s not just an accounting rule that can be held to blame for record losses, but the fact that banks got themselves into trouble by recklessly giving too many loans to borrowers who either were irresponsible or could not afford them.

It is no small irony that the government’s plan essentially is an attempt to put a floor under these bad securities that were written down according to a governmental accounting body’s rules.

The question now is whether this accounting rule change will reflect the true value of these assets and whether doing so will force Congress to dole out the full $700 bn–or more–to rescue these assets.

Record Losses

The losses have caused banks to be in violation of their statutory capital requirements, forcing them to raise capital to plug balance sheet holes. The losses are also the reason why a growing number of financial companies have shut down, been forced into mergers, or been nationalized.

And the losses are behind the reason why the Federal Reserve and central banks around the world have pumped record amounts of liquidity into markets, and have pushed the US central bank and the US Treasury to let banks dump their illiquid mortgage-backed bonds for more liquid Treasuries.

The decision by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Accounting Standards comes as the London interbank offered rate, or LIBOR, hits record highs. Many adjustable rate mortgages–including dodgy no income verification loans and interest only loans–in the US are due to reset to higher interest rates because they are tied to LIBOR, which is the rate that banks in Europe charge each other for such loans.

As more loans go belly up due to the higher rates, that means more losses for banks and financial companies.

The financial-services industry has been lobbying the SEC and FASB for months now to alter the rules, a lobbying that picked up speed in the wake of the new $700 bn Congressional rescue bill that would set up a reverse auction mechanism to let banks unload these damaged bonds onto the government. Congress may include the change in its new version of the rescue plan.

The American Bankers Association had complained to the SEC that auditors were forcing banks to value these bonds at unrealistically low “fire sale” prices, rather than at the higher values the banks believe these bonds should be worth in an orderly market.

There is also some talk in Congress of a temporary or permanent repeal of the mark to market rules to allow for more long-term valuation of assets and loans.

The Problem with the Rule

The problem with this accounting has always been what critics say is its punitive effect.

Companies have to record resulting losses from this mark-to-market exercise, which some say is the equivalent of sticking a finger in the wind, as if they actually lost cash even if they did not actually sell the bonds at all, and even if the cash flows are still coming in higher than what the market says the assets are worth (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have said that they are solvent on a cash-flow basis, notes economist Brian Wesbury).

The writedowns taken by some firms have triggered a cascade of writedowns at other companies, as prices are seen to be set in the marketplace. For example, E*Trade last year priced some mortgage-backed bonds at 27 cents on the dollar, triggering writedowns at other firms. Merrill Lynch (MER: 27.07, +1.77, +6.99%) sold assets to the vulture fund Lone Star at 22 cents on the dollar (really 6 cents if you consider that Merrill financed 75% of this sale), also causing other writedowns.

JPMorgan Chase (JPM: 48.43, +1.73, +3.70%) bought Washington Mutual (WM: 0.16, +0.00, +0.00%) at a garage sale price, triggering fresh new prices for assets on its books that triggered anew mark-downs on the assets at Wachovia, which was shephered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. into the arms of Citigroup (C: 22.91, +2.40, +11.70%).

Risk to Taxpayers

But the $700 bn rescue plan makes the change potentially more damaging to taxpayers because the relaxation of the accounting rule means banks may be able to keep higher prices on these bonds and then unload them at higher prices at auction to the Treasury.

“It is not in the interests of U.S. citizens and taxpayers to abandon mark-to-market accounting for a proposal in which taxpayer funds are being used,” says Janet Tavakoli, founder and president of Tavakoli Structured Finance and one of the best market analysts on the dangers of credit derivatives.

Tavakoli adds: “If we would have to sell the assets at a loss due to downward moves in market prices, we have a right to know that. If the assets have permanent losses so that even if we hold to maturity we would have losses, we have a right to know that too. At any given time, we have a right to know what our ‘investment’ is worth.”

Tavakoli adds that the danger is that the government’s new portfolio managers “can claim they are making money” while “the assets are declining in value due to defaults or permanent value destruction of collateral. This situation can continue for a long time to create the false appearance of profitability.

Tavakoli notes that “in other words, U.S. taxpayers can be told they are making money on their $700 bn investment, when in reality they are losing money. I would rather know the market price, even if the news is bad news.”

Loophole Dangerous to Taxpayers in the Rescue Bill

And check out this sentence I’ve highlighted in italics in section 101 of the new bill, entitled “purchases of troubled assets”–it could also mean even higher costs to taxpayers:

(e) PREVENTING UNJUST ENRICHMENT. In making purchases under the authority of this Act, the Secretary shall take such steps as may be necessary to prevent unjust enrichment of financial institutions participating in a program established under this section, including by preventing the sale of a troubled asset to the Secretary at a higher price than what the seller paid to purchase the asset. This subsection does not apply to troubled assets acquired in a merger or acquisition, or a purchase of assets from a financial institution in Conservatorship or receivership, or that has initiated bankruptcy proceedings under title 11, United States Code.

This section “probably indicates that JPMorgan Chase can sell the troubled assets of WaMu to the US government and make windfall profits,” notes market analyst Richard Suttmeier. “Same for Citigroup with regard to Wachovia’s troubled assets. Other future deals as well. That is a direct bailout of Wall Street on the back of taxpayers.”

A Better Way

Check out what Tavakoli says is a better way than the $700 bn bailout plan:

“Rather than adopt any form of the Paulson Plan, which uses billions of taxpayer dollars and forces risk and potential losses on taxpayers–instead of those who enjoyed the gains–I advocate an alternative.”

“Instead of the Paulson Plan, we can force creditors to accept a restructuring plan (this was done during the Great Depression). Creditors (debt holders) including credit default swap counterparties would be compelled to accept a restructuring plan. That requires partial forgiveness of debt in many cases and/or a debt for equity swap (in which the government takes equity stakes in these companies).”

“If we are determined to violate personal property rights, I prefer it be done through a forced debt forgiveness and a forced capital restructuring (debt for equity swaps), rather than through a massive bailout (any of the various forms of the Paulson Plan).”

“The Paulson Plan destroys capitalism (those who stood to gain–and already made off with large gains–should bear the risk) and violates the spirit of democracy established by the Founding Fathers of the United States.”

[dec212012]

Wrecks, Lies and Barney Frank
By Marc Sheppard

Democrats have a lot to hide about their role in creating the current financial crisis and are doing their best to appear blameless with charges directed elsewhere.


Within hours of the fall of their affirmative-action-lending-policies house-of-cards, they rose united to wag accusing fingers at Wall-Street greed and the failures of an unregulated free market. And even as new transcripts and videos surface daily revealing an irrefutable connect to a decades-old liberal push to increase availability of home mortgages to high-risk minority borrowers, the counterfeit clarion call against "predatory" capitalism continues. This fraudulent tactic is meant to not only exonerate accountable Democrats -- and one Massachusetts congressman particularly -- but to provide them cover to insist the same quixotic liberalism fueling the problem be included in any government-sanctioned solution.


Did you notice that during Monday's debate over H.R. 3997, the failed Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Democrats spoke often of strengthening both regulation and oversight, yet mentioned nothing of illiquid debt, government coerced or not? Or that some, including the House Speaker, promised the guilty will ultimately suffer the wrath of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Henry Waxman? How about the incongruity of those crying for justice and then thanking Barney Frank for reputedly making workable a bill originally delivered to him otherwise? Even Pelosi's obscenely partisan post-debate speech, which may have hammered the final nail into the Bill's coffin with its inopportune and wrath-filled Bush and Wall Street bashing, included a salute to the "extraordinary leadership" of the Massachusetts Democrat she was about to throw under the bus.


This was politics at its very worst, softening the blow they were about to strike against the Bush-backed Bill its House Democrat champion had all but staked his reputation on, while simultaneously spreading the same fertilizer Frank is using to rewrite his (and, of course, his party's) culpability engraved within the debacle's history. And Frank is spreading it wherever, whenever and however he can.


Indeed, the list of blameworthy Democrats is long and distinguished. However, Frank's recent thin-skinned written and spoken admonishments to those daring to confront previous related actions and statements betray a man whose hands may be deeper into this fiasco than any other sitting politician's.


Barney and Friends


As prelude to Monday's vote, Barney appeared on C-SPAN's Washington Journal Sunday morning purportedly to discuss the modified Bill. For a while, he actually managed to remain on point.


But then a caller challenged Frank's continued insistence that the meltdown was brought on by Republican deregulation, citing the 1999 NY Times article concerning Clinton Administration efforts to force Fannie to ease mortgage standards in order to provide more minority and lower-income lending. The caller reminded Barney of his own words as ranking member from a 2003 Times piece reporting Bush's initiative to reign in Fannie and Freddie by creating new oversight under the Treasury Department:


''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''


Recognizing the now-familiar accusation that he supported bad loans for the advancement of minority home ownership, Frank flew into a rambling tirade, blaming a right-wing-blogger conspiracy working to wrongly paint the good guy Democrats as the bad guys. As advocates of complete deregulation, he roared, "the Conservatives were very embarrassed." Adding that the "right-wingers" had left out that:


"Republicans were in control of the Congress from 1995 until 2006. They got a lot through -- they got the Iraq war through; they got the Patriot Act through; they got tax cuts for the wealthy, a prescription drug program ..... But in twelve years, they never got a bill through the Congress to tighten up the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.

"I became chairman of the committee that has jurisdiction in February of 2007. Within two months, the committee had passed a bill that did all of the increased regulation that the Bush Administration ever wanted. I was a supporter of the regulation, but the Bush Administration couldn't get it through Congress. When the Democrats took over Congress, we passed exactly that regulation, and while the Senate didn't do it until July of this year, here's the record: Twelve years of Republican control, no legislation to increase the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Nineteen months of the Democrats, and we have done it."


That's been Frank's stock response whenever his glaring complicity is underscored, be it in the blogosphere or by the few news agencies willing to hold his feet to the fire [Must see Fox News Video].


You've likely already heard it a dozen times or more.


But you may not have heard that last week, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) wrote an op-ed for her state's Star Tribune, also blaming misguided liberal policies for the mess:


"The recklessness of government is a primary culprit here. For years, Congress has been pushing banks to make risky, subprime loans. Using the authority of the Community Reinvestment Act, the big push for subprime mortgages began in earnest during the Clinton years. Banks that didn't play ball were subject to serious fines and lawsuits, and regulatory obstacles were placed in their way. While expanding access to the American Dream is a worthy goal, by blindly pursuing that goal and allowing the end to justify any means, we put millions of Americans at financial risk."


She then went on to specifically blame Congressional leaders, singling out her own committee chairman, Barney Frank, who "resisted reforming Fannie and Freddie at every turn."


Frank somehow found time in his busy schedule to submit a rebuttal to Bachmann's words, claiming in its title that Republicans set the table for this crisis and again insisting:


"The truth is that the Republicans failed in every year of their 12-year hold on Congress to create a strong, independent regulator to oversee Fannie and Freddie. And despite their rhetoric, the Bush administration also failed to enact strong regulation in the first seven years of its tenure."


I repeat -- Barney has sung this same tune virtually every time in the past few weeks he found an audience willing to listen.


But the congressman's continual karaoke resonates painfully off key.


Let's be perfectly Frank


In truth, the Bill that would have likely averted the Fannie/Freddy failure -- the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (S. 190) -- was Republican legislation introduced by Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE] in January of 2005. And it was the Democrats who opposed it in committee, fearing that its restrictions and portfolio caps might impair mortgage market liquidity, and subsequently, affordable housing. Despite the "nay" votes of all 9 Democrats on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, the bill moved to the Senate floor, where it died in limbo lacking a filibuster-proof majority. The Bill was reintroduced in the 110th Congress as S. 1100, but was kept on ice by committee chairman Chris Dodd, who, coincidently, received $133,900 in grease from Fannie and Freddie over the past decade.


What's more, the "regulation" Frank now takes credit for was not his (H.R.1427 passed the House last year but never escaped Senate committee) but rather Nancy Pelosi's (H.R. 3221 - The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008). And Pelosi's version, not surprisingly and unlike its Republican predecessors, was signed marked up with over 66 pages of Liberal wealth redistribution wish-fulfillment under the guise of assuring "affordable housing." While it did establish (and way too late, Barney) the Federal Housing Finance Agency, with regulatory authority over Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Banks, and the Office of Finance, it's bogged down with tons of pork-fat. This oinker even increased the national debt limit from $9.82 trillion to $10.62 trillion, and commissioned a boatload of programs for low income families to spend it on.


Frank did, however, introduce legislation of his own in October of last year. Would you believe that H.R. 3838 was actually an attempt to temporarily increase the caps on Fannie/Freddie portfolios and to mandate the "use of 85% of such increase for refinancing subprime mortgages at risk of foreclosure?"


Funny how the congressman neglected to mention that when he assured another C-SPAN caller that:


"Yes, I did want to help affordable housing, but I also wanted to prevent bad loans."


Simply hilarious, especially considering the joyous September 18th 2007 announcement on the congressman's own website that Maxine Waters' H.R.1852 had passed the House. As proudly emphasized by co-sponsor Frank at the time, the Bill authorized "zero and lower down payment loans for borrowers that can afford mortgage payments, but lack the cash for a required down payment." It also "more than doubled" funding to counsel "subprime homebuyers and borrowers late on mortgage loan payments" and directed the FHA "to provide mortgage loans to higher risk (but qualified) borrowers, without authorizing unnecessary fee hikes on such borrowers." It also raised "FHA single family loan limits, which now bar loans above 95% of the median home price in each local area and shut FHA out of higher cost home markets."


That was last year. Four years after the Bush Administration had sounded the alarm. Yet, shortly after his C-SPAN appearance last Sunday, Frank responded to the Boston Herald questioning his awful projections of half a decade ago with "in 2003, nobody that I knew of foresaw the crisis of subprime lending, and that is what caused this problem."


Does anybody really believe that the chairman of Financial Services somehow fails to understand the ingredients of the bad loans that have created all of the toxic paper at the root of this problem?


Frankly My Dear, They Don't Give a Damn (Unless, Of Course, You're Destitute)


The Democrats' campaign to sully the President and Conservative fiscal policies is a childish ruse to shield their own failed politically correct credit ideology. And their shockingly deceitful insistence that it was they who foresaw peril and championed regulation is equally sophomoric.


Yet without acceptance, there can be no transcendence.


Not only was their so-called "regulation" Bill loaded with the same irresponsible disregard for reality that created the need to regulate in the first place, but they continue to inject their disastrous PC claptrap into all attempts to remedy the nightmare they have created.


On September 9th, The Wall Street Journal pointed out that when asked about the bailout condition which would force Fannie/Freddie to "reduce the size of their high-risk mortgage-backed securities portfolios starting in 2010," Frank responded "‘Good luck on that,' and that it would never happen." The Journal also reported that Frank had coerced the creation of an "affordable housing" trust fund in backing the bailout, stating that:


"This fund siphons off a portion of Fannie and Freddie profits -- as much as $500 million a year each -- to a fund that politicians can then disburse to their favorite special interests."


Frank took issue and again found time to submit a rebuttal, again taking bizarre bows for July's too-little-too-late legislation, and referred to WSJ writers as "right-wing ideologues" who believe that "funding to build affordable residential housing is ‘loot.'"


Of course, he's not the only left-wing-nutjob in town that just doesn't get that some people simply do not earn enough to be homeowners - precisely the reason rentals exist.


On Tuesday morning's Morning Joe on MSNBC, Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) announced that the Congressional Black Caucus voted against the measure largely because it didn't include bankruptcy protection for homeowners. The CBC backs a fantasy-land proposal that would allow bankruptcy judges to unilaterally restructure home mortgages for those facing bankruptcy.


During Pelosi's poison-Bill speech on Monday, she blamed "failed economic policies -- policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system." Actually, the Speaker was right on the money describing the policies that precipitated this credit wreck.


But she couldn't have been more wrong in her choice of targets at which to aim her rage.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/wrecks_lies_and_barney_frank.html

[Legato]

FIX IT NOW - Plan to Actually SOLVE THE PROBLEM

[dec212012]

yes sir.....

[mick]

i surely appreciate you leading me here. you do understand the american way. thanx.