Views by Lu

Obama = Pharaoh = Slavery

2009-10-13T23:08:00.003-05:00

I received this in my email today and I thought that it was BRILLIANT!

Wake UP Americans!

Don't let this happen to "We The People!"

_________________________________________________

I would love to give the Pastor of this predominantly black church in Virginia a hug and a high five. This guy is obviously a leader and not one of the sheep. Perhaps we should each decide who our real leader is. It is amazing to see that very little has changed in 4,000 years.

RECENT VIRGINIA CHURCH SERVICE -STIMULUS SERMON Gen 47:13-27 Good morning, brothers and sisters; it's always a delight to see the pews crowded on Sunday morning, and so eager to get into God's Word. Turn with me in your Bibles, if you will to the 47th chapter of Genesis, we'll begin our reading at verse 13, and go through verse 27.

Brother Ray, would you stand and read that great passage for us?

....(reading)...

Thank you for that fine reading, Brother Ray.... So we see that economic hard times fell upon Egypt, and the people turned to the government of Pharaoh to deal with this for them. And Pharaoh nationalized the grain harvest, and placed the grain in great storehouses that he had built. So the people brought their money to Pharaoh, like a great tax increase, and gave it all to him willingly in return for grain. And this went on until their money ran out, and they were hungry again.

So when they went to Pharaoh after that, they brought their livestock -their cattle, their horses, their sheep, and their donkey - to barter for grain, and verse 17 says that only took them through the end of that year..

But the famine wasn't over, was it?So the next year, the people came before Pharaoh and admitted they had nothing left, except their land and their own lives. "There is nothing left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our land. Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be servants to Pharaoh." So they surrendered their homes, their land, and their real estate to Pharaoh's government, and then sold themselves into slavery to him, in return for grain. What can we learn from this, brothers and sisters?

That turning to the government instead of to God to be our provider in hard times only leads to slavery? Yes. That the only reason government wants to be our provider is to also become our master? Yes.

But look how that passage ends, brothers and sisters! Thus Israel settled in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen. And they gained possessions in it, and were fruitful and multiplied greatly." God provided for His people, just as always has! They didn't end up giving all their possessions to government, no, it says they gained possessions!But I also tell you a great truth today, and an ominous one. We see the same thing happening today - the government today wants to "share the wealth "once again, to take it from us and redistribute it back to us. It wants to take control of healthcare, just as it has taken control of education, and ration it back to us, and when government rations it, then government decides who gets it, and how much, and what kind. And if we go along with it, and do it willingly, then we will wind up no differently than the people of Egypt did four thousand years ago - as slaves to the government, and as slaves to our leaders.

What Mr. Obama's government is doing now is no different from what Pharaoh's government did then, and it will end the same. And a lot of people like to call Mr. Obama a "Messiah," don't they? Is he a Messiah? A savior? Didn't the Egyptians say, after Pharaoh made them his slaves, "You have saved our lives; may it please my lord, we will be servants to Pharaoh"?

Well, I tell you this - I know the Messiah; the Messiah is a friend of mine; and Mr. Obama is no Messiah! No, brothers and sisters, if Mr. Obama is a character from the Bible, then he is Pharaoh.

Bow with me in prayer, if you will.

Lord, You alone are worthy to be served, and we rely on You, and You alone.We confess that the government is not our deliverer, and never rightly will be. We read in the eighth chapter of 1 Samuel, when Samuel warned the people of what a ruler would do, where it says "And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day." And Lord, we acknowledge that day has come. We cry out to you because of the ruler that we have chosen for ourselves as a nation. Lord, we pray for this nation. We pray for revival, and we pray for deliverance from those who would be our masters.Give us hearts to seek You and hands to serve You, and protect Your people from the atrocities of Pharaoh's government.

In God We Trust...

Transparency, Truth, and Eligibility

2009-06-06T21:29:00.003-05:00

Subject:

Transparency, truth, and eligibility

To:President Barack Obama & Several Representatives

June 6, 2009

I am truly appalled at the lack of proper vetting which goes on in our government. This is supposed to be the "Truth and Accountability" Administration - where facts and eligibility do not exist, but suppression of the facts does.

I am not amused at the number of failed appointees, all of whom think the law applies to other folks, and the cover-up being perpetrated on We The People by our own Congress. It is not at all amusing to cover-up affairs with mistresses, failure to pay taxes, employment of illegals, and ineligibility to hold office,

Racism in a candidate for the United States Supreme Court is likewise insupportable.

Toledo , OH

_________________________________________

I copied the above from another concerned American. I couldn't agree more with what he/she wrote.

We expect more from our representatives than this.

Please read this: http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6216

and this: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100161

and this: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100312

and this: http://dirtyrottenscoundrels.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/national-secrets-under-review-what-about-obamas-secrets/

Now please tell me if you have seen 100% proof of Mr. Obama's eligibility to be our president, (as listed below), and that you're ready to send it all out to the press. If not . . . .WHY? . . . and what are you waiting for to demand it?

There were congressional hearings to determine Sen. McCain's eligibility for goodness sake. Is the government trying to say that Mr. Obama is immune to the Constitutional requirements or having to prove said requirements

Obama has refused all efforts to have him release the following documents, relying on sealing of records and/or privacy laws:

Punahou High School records,

Occidental College records,

Columbia College records,

Columbia Thesis paper,

Harvard College records,

Selective Service Registration,

medical records,

Illinois State Senate records,

Illinois State Senate schedule,

Certified Copy of original, LONG FORM, Birth Certificate,

Harvard Law Review articles that were published,

University of Chicago scholarly articles,

exit and entry immigration records covering all of Obama’s travels out of the United States; passports; and record of baptism, if any.

Why? If there is nothing to hide then Why? You would think that Mr. Obama would Want to clear this all up so that NO questions of his eligibility would be hanging over his presidency in anyone's mind.

The Above list of documentation is what the American People Need. The Above list of documentation is what the American People Deserve to see and Nothing Less will do. We expect our congress to do something about it.

Thank you for your time,

Dyersburg, Tennessee

ONLY 100 Days Til The March on DC

2009-06-04T22:42:00.001-05:00

LuraPoe RT @912DC Only 100 days left until the #912 March on DC! Are you registered? What about your friends? http://bit.ly/64FcR #TCOT

________________________________
Event Details
It’s time to take the tea party movement directly to Washington, D.C. Please join thousands of local organizers and grassroots Americans from across the country as we gather in our nation’s capital to deliver a message to the politicians: Enough!

We’ve had enough of the out of control spending, the bailouts, the growth of big government and the soaring deficits. And we reject the future tax increases to pay for all of this spending and debt down the road. We are gathering on 9-12-2009 to deliver our message in person that we’ve had enough!

Tentative Agenda:

Thursday, 9-10
Morning: Liberty Summit with limited government advocates
Afternoon: Grassroots lobbying visits on Capitol Hill
Evening: Free time to tour Washington

Friday, 9-11
Morning: September 11th Never Forget Memorial
Afternoon: Grassroots leadership training seminars
Evening: Dinner Event

Saturday, 9-12
8:00am Set up for stages and volunteers
10:00am Event begins at West Front of the U.S. Capitol
2:00pm March on Washington Begins (details to come)

For travel information, please click here

Note: The names below only represent those that have signed up on the upgraded registration system. Our previous system had over 4,000 registrations.

______________________________________
***Send the following press release to all of your local radio, newspaper and television stations.***
______________________________________
Press Release is as follows:

For Immediate Release
Contact: Joyce Rae Kardos Tel: 330-348-6938
Email: kardos4@gmail.com

WASHINGTON D.C. RALLY SEPTEMBER 12 & 13 2009

Freedomsfirst rally for the Constitution (We want America Back)

Join us!

We will come together in a peaceful rally.Our government is for the people and by the people. Where is that now? We are PRO GOD, PRO LIFE, PRO GUN Americans who see our rights slipping away. It is time our voices are heard. It is time for us to shout loudly and strongly that we refuse to live under a socialist regime. Let us speak for the rights of our unborn children, for they cannot.

We have already committed to be speakers at our rally notable names such as, Rev Manning (Trinity Broadcasting Network), Dr.Mike Ritze ( Oklahoma State Representative), Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs),Ambassador Alan Keyes (tentative) Senator Randy Brogdon (Oklahoma), Dr Orly Taitz (Attorney) a key figure in several cases regarding Obama’s constitutional qualifications to be president, Mr. Lloyd Marcus (Singer & Song Writer), Joyce Kaufman (Radio talk show host from 850am WFTL Miami Florida, Chaim Ben Pesach (Speaker of the Jewish Task Force), Rolling Thunder, National Right To Life, The National Rifle Assoc. as well as musical entertainment and many other guest speakers that are proud Americans.

Join us at the Lincoln Memorial next to the Reflection Pool. Join our estimated crowd of One Million fellow Americans. Let us take America back and return her onto the correct path that our Founding Fathers intended.

National Concert Productions will be doing our Stage, Video and sound.l

If you would like more information about this rally or any other projects at Freedoms First, or to schedule an interview with the founder of Freedoms First. Contact freedomsfirst@inbox.com and ask for Steve Domina (President), or you may call or write the listed representative. Please visit our site at http://www.freedomsfirst.org.

Please donate to this worthy event at http://www.freedomsfirst.org.
____________________________________

http://912dc.eventbrite.com/

How Did We Get Here?

2009-04-18T22:41:00.001-05:00

Over the past year or so, I have been asking myself with ever more urgency, How Did We Get Here? How did we become a nation that is so incredibly divided?

I remember when I was a child, the rule was, "You never talk politics." Years later the new rule became, "Let's just agree to disagree and we can still be friends." Later still the rule became, "You're 100% wrong and I'm 100% right and we shouldn't speak to one another." And Now . . . .Now the rule is, "You're an IDIOT! You're STUPID! WHAT A MORON! I HATE YOU! YOU'RE EVIL! IT'S MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY . . . .NOPE! . . .NO COMPROMISE . . . .MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!!"

I heard somewhere recently that it is the fault of our politicians that we are in this divided state. After thinking about it, I have come to the conclusion that they may very well be correct. Think about it. Year after year political campaigns have become more vile and filled with the mud slinging. Politicians have chosen as part of their platforms some of the most controversial issues and used them to against their opponents to win elections. They get everyone so worked up and angry with the "OTHER" side, that people actually start hating each other for having opposing views. And its all for their own personal gain . . .And at the expense of our country. Just look at what our elected officials are doing in Washington right now! I see a lot of accusations, finger pointing, no compromise, My Way Or The Highway, even putting down and dismissing American Citizens . . . but very little is being done for the GOOD of the country . . .IMHO.

I have never liked dirty campaigns. They make me ill. But now I'm making it MY Rule that I will not abide any politician who thinks that running a dirty campaign is the thing to do. Sure, distinguishing yourself from your opponent is a must, but we all know that there is Way too much embellishing, stretching and even out-and-out Lying. Some even delve into their opponents personal life.

This is the way "I" think it should happen. You're running for office and your opponent starts running a nasty campaign against you. You correct any false statements and refuse to mention anything other than your opponents TRUE political record . . . .and then drop it and move on to promoting your own platform. GEEEEZZZZ!!

We have got to find our way back to each other somehow. I know the divide is so deep now. I don't really even know where we should begin, other than being willing to truly listen. We have GOT to find a way to bring COMPROMISE back into the mix. I totally FEAR what will happen if we don't.

Shoes For You With Designs By ME! ;o)

2009-02-06T08:00:00.003-06:00

Everyone loves a great pair of comfortable, casual and fun shoes! What better gift could you give yourself or someone special, than a pair of Ked’s Shoes. You can choose from 3 comfy styles and designs by me that you will only find in my Zazzle Gallery. If you like a design of mine that is not on the style shoes that you want, just leave me a note and I will add it for you ASAP. ;o) So run on over to my Zazzle Gallery and make yourself some Happy Feet! :oD

Art By LuraDee . . . . .Ked's Shoes

http://www.zazzle.com/luradee/shoes?rf=238761194675487836

My Zazzle Gallery - Art By LuraDee

2009-02-05T12:01:00.003-06:00

Valentine’s Day is Fast approaching. So why not customize your own Card from the variety of designs that I have in my Zazzle Gallery. You can have your own personal message printed inside the card of your choice. Your Valentine will surely treasure such a personal card made especially for them.

Art By LuraDee

http://www.zazzle.com/luradee?zbar=true

Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

2008-11-02T07:56:00.000-06:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

From the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Socialized Medicine as proposed by the Democrats, then a private citizen Ronald Reagan Speaks out against socialized medicine. There is no video because this was an LP sent out by the American Medical Association

Social Security ~ THIS IS WORTH READING and PLEASE PASS IT ON!!

2008-11-02T07:30:00.002-06:00

Your Social Security
Just in case some of you didn’t know this. . .
Be sure and show it to your kids.
They need a little history lesson on what’s what.
And it doesn’t matter whether you are Democrat of Republican.
Facts are facts!!!

Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary.

2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the
Independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the
General Operating Fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month –
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the federal government,
you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which political party took Social Security from the
Independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it in to the
General Fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-
controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which political party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

Q: Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That’s right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
they began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them
even though they never paid a dime into it!

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
the Democrats turn around and tell you that the
Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully
sure of what isn’t so.

But it’s worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.

AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!

“A government big enough to give you everything you want,
is strong enough to take everything you have.”
-Thomas Jefferson

AND NOW……LOOK WHO THEY’RE ATTEMPTING TO
GET ELECTED TO BE OUR NEXT
PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Some great quotes from Ronald Reagan.

2008-11-02T07:08:00.000-06:00

Some great quotes from Ronald Reagan.

His words sure hold true in this election….

‘Here’s my strategy on the Cold War:
We win, they lose.’
- Ronald Reagan

‘The most terrifying words in the English language are:
I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’
- Ronald Reagan

‘The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s
just that they know so much that isn’t so.’
- Ronald Reagan

‘Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too
strong.’
- Ronald Reagan

‘I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked
like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.’
- Ronald Reagan

‘The taxpayer: That’s someone who works for the federal government but
doesn’t have to take the civil service examination.’
- Ronald Reagan

‘Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one
end and no sense of responsibility at the other.’
- Ronald Reagan!

‘The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a
government program.’
- Ronald Reagan

‘It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have
learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.’
- Ronald Reagan

‘Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short
phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it
stops moving, subsidize it.’
- Ronald Reagan

‘Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards;
if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.’
- Ronald Reagan

‘No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as
the will and moral courage of free men and women.’
- Ronald Reagan

‘If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation
gone under.’
-Ronald Reagan

Obama Calls Low Taxes "Selfishness"

2008-11-02T07:06:00.000-06:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGAYc66vK7k

That "tingle up your leg" is nothing more than ENTHRALLMENT

2008-10-28T17:34:00.001-05:00

I received the following in my email. I don't agree with all of it . . .but I certainly found it interesting and thought provoking.

Do any of you see any anything similar to the Hilter craze of the 30s going on here… Too me it is very plain.. But I guess even in Germany there were Germans that figured it out but could not stop it, They are the ones who helped the Jews escape while the rest really started believing they were the “super race”.Hitler hated Jews, his mother was Jewish.
Obama does not like whites, his mother was white. Germany’s economy collasped, our economy is going under (thanks to the Dems) Hitler gave them “hope through change”. Hmm sounds familiar…. I have been through the death camps in Germany, I have stood in the showers where they gassed innocent men, women and children, I have seen lamps and wallets made from human flesh, I have seen the horrible things that man can do against man….Because of one mans agenda…. Now our country is face with a man with an agenda….. How many people are being duped into following what might lead to destruction of a people,,, Will you go slowly , blindly following until it is too late to stop it. I will not go into anything so that one man can persue his own dreams…. I will not go quietly nor will I follow anyone not worth following,,, No man blinds me from right….McCain 2008

TO OB Supporters–that “tingle up your leg” is nothing more than ENTHRALLMENT–something a lot of BO disciples are suffering from. How do I know? A long time ago a man named Hans, who started out in Hilter’s Youth spoke about ENTHRALLMENT. He said Hilter was very charismatic, promised CHANGE. Whenever he listened to Hilter, he felt inspired, he felt hope, he felt energized, –he said he found himself WANTING to believe everything Hilter told him. When asked about RUMORS, he said, yes they heard bad rumors–but, he either dismissed them immediately to the point they literally no longer existed, or, he would immediately put a positive spin on it. He said that he was so ENTHRALLED with Hilter he was no longer thinking for himself–but at the time he did not realize this–and if anyone would have tried to tell him he was enthralled, it would have made him angry. He said, “it took a long time–too long to see the truth.” And now after all these years, We are seeing ENTHRALLMENT for ourselves. PROMISE CHANGE, APPEAL TO THE MASSES, TARGET THE POOR AND HOW YOUWILL HELP THEM, GET INDUSTRY BEHIND YOU. Sound familiar? Don’t feel bad about being enthralled, it has happened to people down through the centuries–just DO SOMETHING about it now before it’s too late.

Obama's Pattern Of Supporting Wealth Redistribution!

2008-10-28T17:14:00.000-05:00

October 27, 2008

Listen to this 2001 interview in which Sen. Obama is clear that he supports "redistributive change" and that one of the tragedies of the Warren Court was that it didn't do more to help redistribute the nation's wealth.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=301256

Forward this news item to your friends and family.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA - IN HIS OWN WORDS

2008-10-27T11:30:00.000-05:00

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA - IN HIS OWN WORDS

Audacity of Hope: “Lolo (Obama’s step father) followed a brand of Islam ….” “I looked to Lolo for guidance”.

Dreams of my Father: “The person who made me proudest of all, though, was [half brother] Roy .. He converted to Islam.”

Dreams of my Father: “In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school”

Dreams of my Father: “I Studied the Koran.”

Audacity of Hope: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

Dreams of My Father: “I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race”.

Dreams of my Father: “The emotion between the races could never be pure….. the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart.”

Dreams of my Father: “Any distinction between good and bad whites held negligible meaning.”

Dreams of My Father: “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites”

Dreams Of My Father: “I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself..”.

Dreams of My Father: “That hate hadn’t gone away,” he wrote, blaming “white people — some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives.”

Dreams of My Father: “There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs,” he wrote. “It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names”

Dreams of my Father: “Desperate times called for desperate measures, and for many blacks, times were chronically desperate. If nationalism could create a strong and effective insularity, deliver on its promise of self-respect, then the hurt it might cause well-meaning whites, or the inner turmoil it caused people like me, would be of little consequence.”

Dreams of my Father: “To avoid being mistaken for a racial sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chi-canos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and p-unk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy.”

Dreams of my Father: “there was something about him that made me wary,” Obama wrote. “A little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.”

Dreams of my Father: “the reason black people keep to themselves is that it’s easier than spending all your time mad, or trying to guess whatever it was that white folks were thinking about you.”

Dreams of my Father: One line in Malcolm X’s autobiography “spoke” to Obama “it stayed with me,” he says. “He spoke of a wish he’d once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged.”

B. HUSSEIN OBAMA:

For 20 years I have attended Trinity United Church of Christ. Ahhh I listened to Rev Wright’s sermons on a weekly basis and entertained him in my home. He was my spiritual advisor, my pastor, ahhh teacher and mentor. He married Michelle and I and baptized my daughters. So we go back a long, long time. In all of those years, ahhh I have never heard Rev Wright making ahhh any racist remarks and wasn’t aware of his poisoned view of this country. Yes, ahh I did appoint him to my official presidential campaign religious council. Then all of these tapes of his sermons became public and ahh I was stunned hearing his racist and anti-American rants. Rev Wright is not the same person that I have known for 20 years.

I know many of you are wondering about my relationship and Tony Rezko. Let me be very clear, ahhhh all I did was ask Tony to help me find a home. Ahhhh I don’t have any control over his generosity. I had no idea he was under investigation. As I look back he is not the same person I once knew!!

Now I understand that Bill Ayers is a home grown terrorist? Well I think I was about eight years old when he did those bad things. I didn’t know, he was just a neighbor to me. Well OK we were working on community matters but ahhhh well OK I helped him with millions in tax payers funds but I didn’t know much more about him then.

With respect to Larry Sinclair, ahhhh he makes these allegations of a sexual encounter and so on ahhhhh and says his is telling the truth well you know it all depends on what is ..is … ahhhh he too is not the same person I once knew.

You accuse ahhh my step father, Lolo, who I look to for guidance of being a radical Muslim. Well let me be very clear ahhh he is not the same person I once knew.

I supported and encouraged my cousin Railo Odinga’s political ambitions in Kenya several years ago. Ahhh at that time I did not know that Railo was an Islamic Militant. When he led a rebellion that killed hundreds of Kenyans I was shocked. Railo is not the same person I once knew.

It looks like I’m attracted to people who transform themselves to villains’ right under my nose. I know ahhhhh my past doesn’t look good but I will redeem myself. If elected I hope to get a fresh start and ahhhh meet with Ahmadiejad, Kim Jong II, Hugo Chavez, Fidel & Raul Castro and even Mugtada al-Sadr.

Some of you have questioned ahhhh my perspective on the global front. Well you know that we cannot expect others to respect us while we drive SUV’s, eat as much as we want, and set our thermostats at 72 degrees. Ahhhhh we need to change our life style and set the example and learn to speak a foreign language.

Now let me clarify my ahhh position on the flag pin and anthem. As I’ve said before about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking sides. There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. I’m wearing it now just to satisfy my critics. And the Anthem itself ahhh conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song ‘I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing.’ If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.’

I am not a Muslim now but…. If the political winds shift in an ugly direction I will stand with the Muslims.

The TRUTH About Where Our Economic Troubles BEGAN!!

2008-10-27T09:12:00.002-05:00

They want you to believe that it’s been the Bush policies of the “last eight years” that have cause our current economic troubles. That’s BULL

So here's the breakdown of what led to our economic troubles. It's long, but our troubles actually started a long time ago with a Democrat. So if you care to learn the truth, Here it is!

In Short, here is the most relevant part:
Rep. Arthur Davis (D-Ala), …now admits Democrats were in error: "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."

1977
Sen. Proxmire (D-Wisconsin) introduced a “creeping socialism” community reinvestment Senate bill. Opponents argued the bill would allocate credit without regard for merits of loan applications, thereby threatening depository institutions. Proponents countered that it was only to ensure that lenders did not ignore good borrowing prospects in their communities. The bill’s sponsor stressed it would neither force high-risk lending nor substitute the views of regulators or those of banks.
President Carter, pressed by grassroots organizations — though opposed by the banking industry, signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). In the years following the Act has undergone several revisions.
To boost community development laws, CRA was a provision designed to stem bank “redlining,” the practice of drawing a red line around low-income communities and denying lending in these areas. The original intent of CRA was to encourage banks to foster homeownership opportunities in these underserved communities in which the lending institutions are chartered.
According to Section 801 of title VIII, “regulated financial institutions are required by law to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs [i.e., credit and deposit services] of the communities in which they are chartered to do business.” Accordingly, “regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation” to meet these needs. Moreover, the title required each “appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions.”

1990s
With the mechanisms in place, the community organizing groups began developing directed strategies to exert more and more pressure on the lending industry in the cloak of complicity with CRA. Community organizer Barack Obama worked closely with ACORN activists. Employing the radical Alinsky intimidation tactics Obama had learned and was teaching — “direct action” — activists crowded bank lobbies, blocked drive-up teller lanes and demonstrated at the homes of bankers to browbeat risky lending in poor and minority communities. Those who resisted were accused of racism to the media and government officials.
The agitators could now stall or hijack bank mergers by filing complaints of non-compliance against the institutions. Lawsuits alleging redlining and racism began flooding the court system. With the prospect of expansions and mergers threatened, banks settled cases and, significantly, increasingly made loans they would not have normally made. The net effect, as ACORN litigation increased, was that credit standards lowered.
Initially the GSEs resisted purchasing these risky mortgages but eventually the Clinton Administration instructed them to substantially increase the percentage of these mortgages in their portfolios. The government-backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of the Clinton reforms became “a feeding trough,” in the phrase of Peter Ferrara.
The poor communities and their exploitive leaders benefited from the capitalization with a surge of homeownership, at least on the surface. Wall Street benefited from increased sales of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and guaranteed mortgage-backed securities, as the housing market benefited from new capital channeled from Fannie and Freddie. And the GSE heads profited, with political support in Washington in the form of campaign contributions.
In the period 1989-2008, topping the list of recipients of contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Dodd (D-Connecticut), who received $165,400. Second on the list is Sen. Obama (D-Illinois), receiving $126,349 with only three years in the Senate. Rep. Frank (D-Massachusetts), received $42,350.

October 1992
Congress, enacting the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, allowed legislation to “amend and extend certain laws relating to housing and community development.” The Act created the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) within HUD to “ensure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are adequately capitalized and operating safely.” It also “established HUD-imposed housing goals for financing of affordable housing and housing in central cities and other rural and underserved areas.”
Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) warned about the impending danger non-regulated GSEs posed. As the Washington Post reports, his concern was that Congress was “hamstringing” the regulator. Complaint was that OFHEO was a “weak regulator.” Leach worried that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were changing “from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the stockholding few.”
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) countered, as the Post reports, “the companies served a public purpose. They were in the business of lowering the price of mortgage loans.”
September 1993
The Chicago Sun-Times reports an initiative led by ACORN’s Talbott with five area lenders “participating in a $55 million national pilot program with affordable-housing group ACORN to make mortgages for low- and moderate-income people with troubled credit histories.” Kurtz notes that the initiative included two of her former targets, Bell Federal Savings and Avondale Federal Savings, who had apparently capitulated under pressure.
July 1994
Represented by Obama and others, Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Citibank had “intentionally discriminated against the Plaintiffs on the basis of race with respect to a credit transaction,” calling their action “racial discrimination and discriminatory redlining practices.”
November 1994
President Clinton addresses homeownership: “I think we all agree that more Americans should own their own homes, for reasons that are economic and tangible and reasons that are emotional and intangible but go to the heart of what it means to harbor, to nourish, to expand the American dream. . . . I am determined to see that you have the opportunity and together we can make that opportunity for the young families of our country. I am committed to a new and unprecedented partnership between industry leaders and community leaders and Government to recommit our Nation to the idea of homeownership and to create more homeowners than ever before.”
June 1995
Republicans had won control of Congress and planned CRA reforms. The Clinton Administration, however, allied with Rep. Frank, Sen. Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and Rep. Waters (D-California), did an end-around by directing HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo to inject GSEs into the subprime mortgage market.
As Kurtz notes,”ACORN had come to Congress not only to protect the CRA from GOP reforms but also to expand the reach of quota-based lending to Fannie, Freddie and beyond.” What resulted was the broadening of the “acceptability of risky subprime loans throughout the financial system, thus precipitating our current crisis.”
The administration announced the bold new homeownership strategy which included monumental loosening of credit standards and imposition of subprime lending quotas. HUD reported that President Clinton had committed “to increasing the homeownership rate to 67.5 percent by the year 2000.” The plan was “to reduce the financial, information, and systemic barriers to homeownership” which was “amplified by local partnerships at work in over 100 cities.”
Kurtz concludes, “Urged on by ACORN, congressional Democrats and the Clinton administration helped push tolerance for high-risk loans through every sector of the banking system — far beyond the sort of banks originally subject to the CRA. So it was the efforts of ACORN and its Democratic allies that first spread the subprime virus from the CRA to Fannie and Freddie and thence to the entire financial system. Soon, Democratic politicians and regulators actually began to take pride in lowered credit standards as a sign of ‘fairness’ — and the contagion spread.”
Attorney General Janet Reno, with a number of bank lending discrimination settlements already, sternly announces, “We will tackle lending discrimination wherever it appears.” With the new policy in full force, “No loan is exempt; no bank is immune.” “For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement,” reiterated Reno.

April 1998
HUD announced a $2.1 billion settlement with AccuBanc Mortgage Corp. for alleged discrimination against minority loan applicants. The funds would provide poor families with down payments and low interest mortgages. Announcing the Accubank settlement, Secretary Cuomo said, “discrimination isn’t always that obvious. Sometimes more subtle but in many ways more insidious, an institutionalized discrimination that’s hidden behind a smiling face.”
Before the camera, Cuomo admitted the mandate amounted to “affirmative action” lending that would result in a “higher default rate.” The institution would “take a greater risk on these mortgages, yes; to give families mortgages who they would not have given otherwise, yes; they would not have qualified but for this affirmative action on the part of the bank, yes. It is by income, and is it also by minorities? Yes. . . . With the 2.1 billion, lending that amount in mortgages which will be a higher risk, and I’m sure there will be a higher default rate on those mortgages than on the rest of the portfolio.”

May 1999
The LA Times reports that African Americans homeownership is increasing three times as fast as that of whites, with Latino homeowners is growing five times as fast, attributing the growth to breathing “the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act.” This breath of “life” mandated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages with deviant down-payments and debt-to-income ratios which allowed lenders to approve mortgages for lower-income families that would have been denied otherwise.
By now all pretense had disappeared, lending practices were based upon concerns of discrimination in the banking system regardless the consequences. The administration threatened to veto a bill passed by the Senate which had “shortsightedly voted to retrench” CRA, as the advocative Times put it.
Under pressure, Fannie Mae was resisting increased targeting, arguing that the result would be more loan defaults. Barry Zigas, heading Fannie Mae’s low-income efforts, argued, “There is obviously a limit beyond which [we] can’t push [the banks] to produce,” the Times reported.

September 1999
With pressure from the Clinton Administration, Fannie Mae eased credit requirements on loans it would purchase from lenders, making it easier for banks to lend to borrowers unqualified for conventional loans. Raines explained that “there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market,” reported the New York Times.
With this action, Fannie Mae put itself at substantial risk in the event of an economic downturn. “From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” warned Peter Wallison. “If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.” The danger was known.

2000
The National Community Reinvestment Coalition instructed on how to exploit the new CRA regulations, “Timely comments can have a strong influence on a bank’s CRA rating.” NCRC asserted, “To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application, lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations.” That is, the mere threat to intervene in the CRA review process had equipped the ACORN groups for the massive shakedown.
Moreover, ACORN had been given a compelling incentive, as CRA allowed the organizations to collect a fee from the banks for their services in marketing the loans. The Senate Banking Committee had estimated that, as a result of CRA, $9.5 billion had gone to pay for services and salaries of the organizers.

March 2000
Rep. Richard Baker (R-Louisiana) proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie’s oversight in a House Subcommittee on Capital Markets.
Rep. Frank (D-Massachusetts) dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were “overblown” and that there was “no federal liability there whatsoever.”
Treasury Undersecretary Gary Gensler testified in favor of GSE regulation. He argued that the bill would promote private market discipline, increase transparency and preserve market competition, reducing the potential for subsidized competitors to distort financial markets.
Fannie Mae spokesmen responded by calling the testimony “inept,” “irresponsible,” and “unprofessional.”
Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute testified to the subcommittee that the bill was “a milestone in Congressional efforts to gain control of the Government Sponsored Enterprises.” He added that the “political courage and stamina that was required to introduce this bill and to continue to press it forward cannot be overstated.” He emphasized that the bill was only an “interim step in the necessary process of dismantling the GSEs and eliminating both their threat to the taxpayers and to the private financial sector of our economy.”
Wallison explained why Fannie and Freddie “pose a serious problem for both the public and private sectors.” First, they contain an inherent contradiction. “It is a shareholder-owned company, with the fiduciary obligation to maximize profits, and a government-chartered and empowered agency with a public mission. It should be obvious that it cannot achieve both objectives. If it maximizes profits, it will fail to perform its government mission to its full potential. If it performs its government mission fully, it will fail to maximize profits.”

Congressional Democrats and GSE representatives vigorously attacked any such criticism. “We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the nation’s housing and mortgage markets,” rebuffed Sharon McHale, Freddie Mac spokeswoman. Congressional Democrats and GSE representatives prevailed.

June 2000
Fred L. Smith Jr., writing in Investor’s Business Daily, recalls testifying before the House Financial Services Committee that GSE “special privileges create a serious hazard to the market, to taxpayers [and] to the economy.” He warned that these GSEs were “strange organizations, neither private-sector fish nor political-sector fowl” and that “as a result, no one is quite sure how these entities should be evaluated or held accountable.” These new debt portfolios “will certainly increase the likelihood of a Fannie-Freddie default.”
Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pennsylvania): “Mr. Smith, that is almost a fallacious argument,” adding that rapid growth of GSE debt holdings was nothing to worry about as it simply reflected “inflation and the growth of population. “Everything, proportionately, is that much larger.”
Rep. Marge Roukema (R-New Jersey): “very few banks or S&Ls could, even in this day and age, even now, meet the stress-testing requirements which Fannie and Freddie are required to meet.”
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-New York) regarding the Treasury Department line of credit: “It is really symbolic, it is obsolete, it has never been used.” “Would you explain why it would be important to repeal something that seems to be of little use?”
Smith: “as long as the pipeline is there, it is like it is very expandable. . . . It is only $2 billion today. It could be $200 billion tomorrow.”

November 2000
George W. Bush elected President

April 2001
Fiscal Year 2002 Budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity,” says a White House release.

July 2001
Subcommittee hearing on a bill proposed by Rep. Baker to transfer supervisory and regulatory authority over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and abolish the OFHEO.
Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pennsylvania) responded: “This bill would dramatically restructure the current regulatory system for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In my opinion, it also represents a solution in search of a problem. Nearly a decade ago, Congress created a rational, reasonable, and responsive system for supervising GSE activities, and that system with two regulators is operating increasingly effectively. H.R. 1409 would unfortunately interrupt this continual progress.”

May 2002
In an OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, the President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

February 2003
OFHEO reports that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations . . . the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them,” warning that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market, according to a White House release.
2003
Rep. Richard Baker (R-Louisiana), chairman of the House Financial Services subcommittee with GSE oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was informed by OFHEO “on the salaries paid to executives at both companies,” according to the Washington Post. Reportedly, “Fannie Mae threatened to sue Baker if he released it, he recalled. Fearing the expense of a court battle, he kept the data secret for a year.” “The political arrogance exhibited in their heyday, there has never been before or since a private entity that exerted that kind of political power,” he said.

July 2003
Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina) and John Sununu (R-New Hampshire) introduced legislation to address Regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill was blocked by Democrats.

September 2003
In an interview with Ron Insana for CNN Money, Rep. Baker warned, “I have concerns that if appropriate resources aren’t allocated for internal risk management, the consequences will be far more severe than just a real estate slowdown. The losses would fall quickly through the capital these companies have and down to shareholders and taxpayers. These companies have some of the lowest capital margins of any financial institution in the nation, yet, at the same time, they are two of the largest. The concern is that if something doesn’t work out the way they predict, the American taxpayer could be called on to pay off the debt in some sort of bailout.”

The New York Times reports that the Administration recommended “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago,” calling for new supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the Treasury Department. Reportedly, Congressional Democrats “fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.”

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): “I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. . . . I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury. . . . I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing and to set reasonable goals.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): “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.”

November 2003
Council of the Economic Advisers Chairman Greg Mankiw warned, “The enormous size of the mortgage-backed securities market means that any problems at the GSEs matter for the financial system as a whole.

Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE,” says a White House release.

February 2004
Fiscal Year 2005 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore . . . should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator,” reports a White House release.

June 2004
Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System,” the White House reports.

September 2004
OFHEO reported that Fannie Mae and CEO Raines had manipulated its accounting to overstate its profits. Congress and the Bush administration sought strong new regulation and authority to put the GSEs under conservatorship if necessary. Fannie Mae ran radio and television ads ahead of a key Senate committee meeting, depicting a Latino couple who fretted that if the bill passed, mortgage rates would go up.” Again, GSE pressure prevailed.

October 2004
Rep. Baker again warned about the coming crisis in the Wall Street Journal: “Then there’s the lesson of a company, Frankenstein-like, seemingly grown so powerful that it can intimidate and arrogantly flout all accountability to the very government that created it.”
Baker adds, “Although their bonds bear the disclaimer ‘not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government,’ the market does not believe it and looks right past the companies’ risk strategies to the taxpayers’ pockets.”
In a subcommittee testimony, Democrats vehemently reject regulation of Fannie Mae in the face of dire warning of a Fannie Mae oversight report.

Chairman Baker (R-Louisiana): “It is indeed a very troubling report, but it is a report of extraordinary importance not only to those who wish to own a home, but as to the taxpayers of this country who would pay the cost of the clean up of an enterprise failure.

Rep. Ed Royce (R-California): “In addition to our important oversight role in this committee, I hope that we will move swiftly to create a new regulatory structure for Fannie Mae, for Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks.”

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): “Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines.”

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-New York): “There’s been nothing that was indicated that’s wrong, you know, with uh Fannie Mae. Freddie Mac has come up on its own. And the question that then presents is the competence that, that, that, that your agency has, uh, with reference to, uh, uh, deciding and regulating these GSEs. Uh, and so, uh, I wish I could sit here and say that I’m not upset with you, but I am very upset because, you know, what you do is give, you know, maybe giving any reason to, as Mr. Gonzales said, to give someone a heart surgery when they really don’t need it.”

Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Missouri): “This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines.”

Rep. Artur Davis (D-Alabama): “So the concern that I have is you’re making very specific, what you have correctly acknowledged, broad and categorical judgments about the management of this institution, about the willfulness of practices that may or may not be in controversy. You’ve imputed various motives to the people running the organization.

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut): “And we passed Sarbanes-Oxley, which was a very tough response to that, and then I realized that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wouldn’t even come under it. They weren’t under the ‘34 act, they weren’t under the ‘33 act, they play by their own rules, and I and I’m tempted to ask how many people in this room are on the payroll of Fannie Mae, because what they do is they basically hire every lobbyist they can possibly hire. They hire some people to lobby and they hire some people not to lobby so that the opposition can’t hire them.”

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): “Uh, I, this, you, you, you seem to me saying, ‘Well, these are in areas which could raise safety and soundness problems.’ I don’t see anything in your report that raises safety and soundness problems.”

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): “But I have seen nothing in here that suggests that the safety and soundness are at issue, and I think it serves us badly to raise safety and soundness as kind of a general shibboleth when it does not seem to me to be an issue.”

January 2005-July 2006
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), co-sponsored by Sens. Sununu and Dole and later Sen. McCain, re-introduced legislation to address GSE regulation.
“The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006,” reports the Wall Street Journal.

Greenspan testified that the size of GSE portfolios “poses a risk to the global financial system. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to bail out the lenders [GSEs] . . . should one get into financial trouble.” He added, “If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis . . . We put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States, a key ingredient of support for homeownership.”
Greenspan warned that if the GSEs “continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road . . . We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.”

Bloomberg writes, “If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. . . . But the bill didn’t become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn’t even get the Senate to vote on the matter. That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then.”

April 2005
Treasury Secretary John Snow again calls for GSE reform, “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America. . . . Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system,” from a White House release.

May 2005
At AEI Online, Wallison warned that “allowing Fannie and Freddie to continue on their present course is simply to create risks for the taxpayers, and to the economy generally,…

January 2006
Chairman Greenspan, in a letter to Sens. Sununu, Hagel and Dole, warned that the GSE practice of buying their own MBS “creates substantial systemic risk while yielding negligible additional benefits for homeowners, renters, or mortgage originators.” He stated, “. . . the GSEs and their government regulator need specific and unambiguous Congressional guidance about the intended purpose and functions of Fannie’s and Freddie’s investment portfolios.”

March 2006
Sens. Sununu and Hagel introduced an amendment to a Lobbying Reform Bill directing GAO to study GSE lobbying and requiring HUD to audit the GSEs annually.
May 2006
After years of Democrats blocking the legislation, Sens. Hagel, Sununu, Dole and McCain write a letter to Majority Leader William Frist and Chairman Richard Shelby expressing demanding that GSE regulatory reform be “enacted this year” to avoid “the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the Housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”

May 2006
Sen. McCain (R-Arizona) addressed the Senate, “Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were ‘illusions deliberately and systematically created’ by the company’s senior management. . . . Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. . . . OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.”
McCain stressed, “If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole. I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.”

April 2007
In “A Nightmare Grows Darker,” the New York Times writes that the “democratization of credit” is “turning the American dream of homeownership into a nightmare for many borrowers.” The “newfangled mortgage loans” called “affordability loans” “represent 60 percent of foreclosures.”

September 2007
President Bush: “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs . . . the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.”
2007-2008
The housing bubble began to burst, bad mortgages began to default, and finally the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac portfolios were revealed to be what they were, in collapse.

September 2008
Rep. Arthur Davis, whose testimony is found above in October 2004, now admits Democrats were in error: “Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.”

From an article by M. Jay Wells: ‘Why the mortgage crises happened’

WHAT DOES THAT LAST SENTENCE MEAN!?!? SCARY!!

2008-10-23T21:20:00.000-05:00

John Tennant wrote on John McCain's Facebook page
at 9:13pm on 10/23/08

“Mark my words,” Biden told donors at a Seattle fund-raiser Sunday night.
“It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America.
“Watch. We’re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.
“And he’s going to need help . . . to stand with him. Because it’s not going to be apparent initially; it’s not going to be apparent that we’re right.”

Two main things abou Biden's statement concerns me: 1st- he isn't talking to the " public" but to supportors. 2- WHAT DOES THAT LAST SENTENCE MEAN!! He is basically saying " We (obama & dems) are going to do something and you may not think its the right thing but TRUST us, it will be right.

Obama Thinks He's Gonna 'Fix' Washington Politics???????

2008-10-23T20:29:00.001-05:00

Richard Semrau (UIllinois) wrote on John McCain's Wall on Facebook
at 7:42pm - 10/23/08

Chicago Politics

Body Count In The Last Six Months

292 Murdered In Chicago

221 Killed In Iraq

Our Leadership In Illinois ;

Sen. Barack Obama

Sen. Dick Durbin

Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.

Gov. Rod Blogojevi Ch

House Leader Mike Mad Igan

Atty. Gen Lisa Madigan

Mayor Richard Daly

All Democrats

Thank You For The Combat Zone In Chicago

Of Course They Are Blaming Each Other.

Can't Blame The Republicans, Because There Aren't Any!!!!!

State Pension Fund $44 Billion In Debt, Worst In The Nation.

Cook County (Chicago) Sales Tax 10.25%, Highest In The Nation.

Chicago School System One Of The Worst In The Nation.

This Is The Political Machine That Obama Says He Comes From In Illinois .

And Now

Obama Saya He's Gonna 'Fix' Washington Politics!?!?!?!?!?

Save America

OUTSTANDING piece of investigative work

2008-10-23T10:43:00.001-05:00

This is an OUTSTANDING piece of investigative work by two young conservative journalist. Very comprehensive with solid supporting evidence:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/21/the-comprehensive-argument-against-barack-obama/

Pass it on!!

This Should Make Us All Think!

2008-10-23T07:50:00.000-05:00

This was posted on John McCain's Wall on Facebook by a lady named Anna.

I had never even thought of this but WOW does it make me go HMMMMMMM!
________________________

Barack Obama has put out an ad that simple-minded John McCain cannot use
a computer.

Well guess what: Barack cannot land a jet plane on an aircraft carrier
at night.

If Barack Obama would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret
Service, he would be disqualified because of his past association with
William Ayers, a known terrorist.

If he became an officer in any of the Armed Services, he would not
qualify for a top secret security clearance.

If he is elected President he would not qualify to be his own body
guard!
(And sadly, one-half of all Americans are ready to vote him into the
highest office in the land.)

Howard Stern Exposes Why Black People Support Barack Obama

2008-10-20T19:03:00.000-05:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg4Njtmbb10

Is it actually possible that people are REALLY going to Vote on something OTHER than the ISSUES??? UNREAL!

Lawsuit Filed Against Obama-Does Not Qualify For President

2008-10-16T09:59:00.000-05:00

LETTER THAT I SENT TO MY STATE'S REPRESENTATIVES

2008-09-26T09:15:00.000-05:00

If you are as fed up as I am . . . .then please let your representatives know!!

************************************************************

I am a conservative and I have absolutely HAD IT with all of your Partisan Nonsense!! You Democrats just Have to criticize McCain's decision to suspend his campaign. Of course You Republicans just Have to come back and defend him and then criticize Obama for Not suspending His campaign. I was really hopeful that just for once our elected officials could work together in a bipartisan manner in order to get something done . . .especially during a crisis! So Much For That!

I swear . . .I am going to pour through all of my representative's voting records, (Democrat AND Republican), and if it shows that they have always voted along party lines and have never even tried to work across the aisle to accomplish the work of the people, I am going to campaign for whoever is running against them. There will not be another politician to get my vote unless they PLAY WELL WITH OTHERS ! ! !

I REALLY DO WISH that we did Not have two main parties, then we could vote on the individual and not the party. Perhaps Maybe . . .Just MAYBE our government could actually stop the bickering and do the job that THE PEOPLE hired them to do ! ! !

I PROMISE ALL OF YOU THAT I WILL DO EVERYTHING THAT I CAN TO VOTE OUT ANY POLITICIAN, (DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN), THAT DOES NOT PLAY WELL WITH OTHERS ! ! !

Please feel free to spread the word amongst yourselves . . . .because I assure you that I intend to!

WE DESERVE IT DIVIDEND ! ! ! !

2008-09-25T21:51:00.001-05:00

I just received this in an email . . . . .Thanks Dana! WOW . . . .Wouldn't it be nice! LOL!
__________________________________________________

Pure Brilliance!!!.... Anything is better than putting
those who caused it- government especially plus
some wall street folks - in charge of fixing their
own mess. I don't know where this originated
but it's good...for left or right side -

***************************************************************
To my fellow Americans......

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.

Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in
a We Deserve It Dividend.

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000
bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+.

Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman
and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a
We Deserve It Dividend.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free.
So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.
That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.

But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.
A husband and wife has $595,000.00.

What would you do with $297,500.00 to
$595,000.00 in your family?
Pay off your mortgage – housing crisis solved.
Repay college loans – what a great boost to new grads
Put away money for college – it'll be there
Save in a bank – create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
Buy a new car – create jobs
Invest in the market – capital drives growth
Pay for your parent's medical insurance – health care improves
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean – or else

Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks
who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company
that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.

If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...

If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S
Citizen 18+!

As for AIG – liquidate it.
Sell off its parts.
Let American General go back to being American General.
Sell off the real estate.
Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.

Sure it's a crazy idea that can 'never work.'

But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!

How do you spell Economic Boom?

I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion
We Deserve It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC.

And remember, this plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is
returned
instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.

PS: Feel free to pass this along to your pals as it's either good for a laugh
or a tear or a very sobering thought on how to best use $85 Billion!!

Bar Stool Economics

2008-09-25T08:01:00.002-05:00

I received this in an email this morning:
_________________________________________________

We need to send this to all of our legislators and Barak Obama as an economics lesson. They and he specifically seems to think that the Presidents job is income redistribution and not revenue enhancing tax policies

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

This is PURE TREASON . . .Using OUR TROOPS for Political Gain!!!!

2008-09-18T08:10:00.000-05:00

Barrack Obama is NOT President "YET!"

He DOES NOT determine Foreign Policy "YET!"

He should be under investigation and tried for this TREASON!!!

OUR TROOPS are NOT PAWNS to be used for Personal, Political Gain!!!

It is Absolutely UNBELIEVABLE the lengths that he will go to in order to win the Presidency!!

_____________________________________________

This is One article that I found on this and I will include a couple of additional article links at the end of this article:

http://swordattheready.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/obama-works-to-stall-iraq-troop-withdrawal-so-he-can-be-seen-as-the-one-who-brought-troops-home/

Obama Works to Stall Iraq Troop Withdrawal So He Can Be Seen As The One Who Brought Troops Home

In another honest age and time, this would be known as Treason.

But not today, when the world is upside down and Marxists are on the verge of a complete takeover.

Barrack The Hussein Obama, the Annointed One of the Marxist Left actively worked behind the scenes in Iraq to undermine U.S. Policy there, even before elected to the office of President, in order to set the stage for exiting U.S. forces from Iraq during HIS Presidential Administration in 2009-2010.

Amir Teheri reports that while campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, The annointed messiah, Sen. Barack Obama tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

Obama tried to deny and rebut this news story spending more than five hours on Monday attempting to figure out the best refutation of the explosive New York Post report.

However Obama campaign sources admitted that the report was true.

There were at least three other people in the room with Obama and Zebari to confirm the conversation, and there was concern that there were enough aggressive reporters based in Baghdad with the sources to confirm the conversation that to deny the comments would create a bigger problem.

Instead, Obama’s national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi told reporters that Obama told the Iraqis that they should not rush through what she termed a “Strategic Framework Agreement” governing the future of U.S. forces until after President Bush left office. In other words, the Iraqis should not negotiate an American troop withdrawal.

According to a Senate staffer working for Sen. Joseph Biden, Biden himself got involved in the shaping of the statement. “The whole reason he’s on the ticket is the foreign policy insight,” explained the staffer.

Obama told NBC News at the time: “The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that’s currently made… and my concern is that if the Bush administration negotiates, as it currently has, and given that we’re entering into the heat of political season, that we’re probably better off not trying to complete a hard-and-fast agreement before the next administration takes office…“

So beyond all the lying spin and cleverly crafted obscurity that Obama is famous for throwing out to cloud his changing positions, this one is plain: Obama tried to DEMAND of Iraqi government officials that Iraq not agree to any troop withdrawals of American forces until HIS Administration takes office.

That way, Obama can take the credit for “getting us out of Iraq”.

How can a sitting Senator go to Iraq, talk with Iraqi officials to undermine or make policy to stall decisions the President and the military commanders made when he is not the Executive yet, if at all?

Is Obama wishing for our country’s foreign policy to fail in Iraq, or is he working actively to cause it to fail? the following element of U.S. Code Title 18 might be of interest:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

At one time, there would have been a trial for this treason.

But not today.

Today, Democrat Elities routinely commit treason, including visiting our enemies and denouncing America from foreign soil. Pelosi did so from Syria, Obama does so from Iraq and Berlin.

Update: More reports on this breaking story

Fox News: “Obama Tried to Delay Withdrawal Agreement of U.S. Troops”

_________________________________________________

Be sure to check out the links above as well as the links to articles below:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75438

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/15/obama-camp-denies-he-tried-to-delay-withdrawal-agreement-of-troops-from-iraq/

WE REALLY NEED TO THINK ABOUT THIS . . . .

2008-09-12T02:33:00.000-05:00

I posted this on April 23, of 2007 and thought it was very appropriate to post again.

_________________________________________________________

Here is another email that I received around 8 months ago. I believe that we can learn a lot from our past . . . .and this email certainly did SHOCK me and made me think and quite frankly, made me afraid for our future.

_________________________________________________________

THINK ABOUT THIS

About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;

2. From spiritual faith to great courage;

3. From courage to liberty;

4. From liberty to abundance;

5. From abundance to complacency;

6. From complacency to apathy;

7. From apathy to dependence;

8. From dependence back into bondage

"Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million; Bush: 143 million;

Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000; Bush: 2,427,000

States won by: Gore: 19; Bush: 29

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2; Bush: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare...

"Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the"complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

Pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

PS . #9 If the Senate grants Amnesty and citizenship to 20 million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then goodby USA in less than 5 years.