WHILE OBAMA PROMISES TO TAX ONLY THE RICH, CONGRESS PLANS TO SPEND MORE MONEY ON WELFARE

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

THE ECONOMY IS STAGNANT, AND COULD GET WORSE IF BHO IS ELECTED, AND WITH HIM COME A DEMOCRAT SUPER MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS.
The most Liberal voting member of the Senate has promised he will eliminate the Bush tax cuts, and at the same time give all who pay no taxes a rebate of $500. If that is not enough to bring to a screeching halt the already slow moving economic engine of Our Country. His platform includes many tax payer funded socialism plans including medical care for all.

Add this to the train wreck that we are fast approaching in the wake of pushing into law a trillion-dollar bailout package (once total costs are tallied), House Democrats are proposing yet more spending. Who knew? And their rationale? Well, since a recession is imminent anyway, spending more now is preferable to losing that same money later as a result of reduced tax receipts and higher unemployment payments. So let’s get this straight: The same geniuses who were instrumental in setting up this train wreck want to help out by shoveling more coal into the boiler as the economy screams past the “Bridge Out” sign? Up to $300 billion in new “stimulus spending” is on the table in the House, including increases for food stamps and extensions of unemployment insurance—just what a failing economy needs".
Source: Patriot Post

Obama is proposing a trillion dollars in new spending. Where is he going to get the money, given the government's present huge budget deficit? From the filthy rich and blood-sucking corporations, that's where, he says. A terrific vote-getting scheme. But will it work?


Obama doesn't tell you that in the present world money is like water. It flows to the lowest ground. And the lowest ground for money is found in places where it can make more money -- not locations where it is seriously tapped by government. For example, Ireland where the corporate income tax rate is 11% and not the United States, which has the second highest rate in the world. As it is, one of the biggest reasons that many corporations set up their businesses abroad is the high cost of doing business here at home. Hence, a great many jobs are lost to overseas enterprises. SOURCE: AMERICAN THINKER.COM


Obama doesn't tell you that rich people didn't get to be rich by being stupid. The minute they hear him talk about "spreading the wealth around", they shift their money to safe havens where Obama can't get to it. Like those hedge funds run by George Soros and other big Democrat donors.

Queen Pelosi and Price Reid and their Democrat cohorts are drawing up plans to spend more money on welfare than the already massive Welfare Program the tax payer has to bear. The "bail-out" billions that socialised in part our banking institutions,left the Treasury with a vast shortfall of income taxes to spending. Yet the Democrats are going to give more money to those who contribute little if any to the economy.

If this is not a plan for economic disaster, I will eat my hat! Obama is not a Centrist as he wants You to believe. He and his mega-rich supporters are plotting a path toward total socialism, which because of their off shore bank accounts and trusts, they will not be affected. But JOE the Plumber and Bill the Office Worker will find his pay check a little lighter .. Government makes no money, and even if you could take all the money from the "RICH", the money would not make a dent in the spending frenzy that is going on in Washington!

It is time for a National referendum on term limits for all elected officials! Make them have to make a living in the real world!

THE STORY YOU WILL NEVER HEAR OR READ FROM THE "msm"

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

There is a decision pending in the Supreme Court that could make the November election moot! The case involves a challenge to the Democrat nominee and apparent choice of the Leftist media and malcontents of America, to the eligibility of BHO to run for the Presidency. The case is based upon his being a non-citizen!

Along these lines a breaking story, which also will never see the light of day on television or in the Big City Newspapers, is a story from the African Press International. It is a report of a telephone call from Obama's wife Michelle complaining about the news outlets story about her husband.

Without permission of the API I am including the entire article and some excerpts from another article published in today's Internet version.

"Accusing API of colluding with American internet bloggers in an effort to bring down her husband, Mrs Obama said she decided to call API because of what she termed, API’s help to spread rumours created by American bloggers and other racist media outlets in their efforts to damage a black man’s name, saying she hopes African Media was mature enough to be in the front to give unwavering support to her husband, a man Africans should identify themselves with.

When API told her that our online news media was only relaying what the American Bloggers and other media outlets had discovered through their investigations, Mrs Obama was angered and she came out loud with the following: “African press International is supposed to support Africans and African-American view,” and she went to state that, “it is strange that API has chosen to support the racists against my husband. There is no shame in being adopted by a step father. All dirt has been thrown onto my husband’s face and yet he loves this country. My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband’s adoption by His step father. The important thing here is where my husband’s heart is at the moment. I can tell the American people that My husband loves this country and his adoption never changed his love for this country. He was born in Hawaii, yes, and that gives him all the right to be an American citizen even though he was adopted by a foreigner; says Michelle Obama on telefon to API.”

This is a very interesting turn of events. The American man Dr Corsi was recently reported to have been arrested in Kenya because there was fear that he might reveal information on Obama when he wanted to hold a press conference in Nairobi.

The question now is why he was arrested and who ordered his arrest. Was Obama’s hand in this in any way? We will never know the truth but what is clear is that Dr Corsi was seen as a threat while in Kenya.

When API asked Mrs Obama to comment on why Dr Corsi was arrested by the Kenyan government and whether she thought Kenya’s Prime Minister Mr Raila Odinga was involved in Dr Corsi’s arrest, she got irritated and and simply told API not to dig that which will support evil people who are out to stop her husband from getting the presidency.

When asked who she was referring to as the evil people, she stated that she was not going to elaborate much on that but that many conservative white people and even some African Americans were against her husband, but that this group of blacks were simply doing so because of envy.

On Farakhan and his ministry, Mrs Obama told API that it was unfortunate that Mr Farakhan came out the way he did supporting her husband openly before the elections was over. That was not wholehearted support but one that was calculated to convince the American people that my husband will support the growth of muslim faith if he became the president, adding “even if my husband was able to prove that he is not a Muslim, he will not be believed by those who have come out strongly to destroy his chances of being the next President. Do real people expect someone to deny a religion when 80 percent of his relatives are Muslims?; Mrs Obama asked.

Mrs Obama asked API to write a good story about her husband and that will earn API an invitation to the inauguration ceremony when, as she put it , her husband will be installed as the next President of the United States of America next year".

Where there is smoke there is fire my father taught me long ago! Why did Michelle direct her tirade against a News Service in Africa, if she did not believe the story had credible evidence that her husband is in fact not eligible to be President.
I personally do not believe he is eligible because he is a Socialist with a long list of promises and little or no experience other than giving speeches!

He has developed a following as did James Jone of the Jones town mass suicide, and a paper hanger from Austria did to the German people in the 1930's. But he is a man of no substance with radical ideas so far afield of what this Country stands for, that he should never sit in the Oval Office. Yet I am afraid the voting majority will select him because the Main Stream Media has anointed him, and after all the "smoke clears" we will pay the consequences just as all the other peoples who have followed "leaders" who promised a CHANGE!

The other article that caught my attention was about what the radical Left intellectuals will do when Obama is elected. I include it to add emphasis to this Blog.

"The best election result for the radical international non-American intellectual order, therefore, is for Obama to lose.

That would make sense, because it would confirm the dominant orthodoxy that America is racist; and/or that it has a very corrupt political system that allows the Republican-linked Establishment to steal elections.

An Obama victory would leave many Third World intellectuals and nationalists either jobless, struggling for relevance, or scurrying back to the drawing boards to explain an America led by a black president. Of course, they will also wish that he met some misfortune at the hands of a red-neck.

And to imagine that this “crisis” wouldn’t have happened if a Kenyan student called Barack Obama hadn’t gone to the US on scholarship, become a deadbeat dad, and left his son behind in America to be raised by his mother"!

SOURCE: Charles Onyango OBBO of API

I believe a postscript to this blog is appropriate. Therefore, I have included a letter to the editor who will remain unnamed for obvious reasons.
"Dear API Editor, I wrote a couple of days ago and commended you on your professionalism. I am still willing to give you the benefit of doubt even though others are saying this is a scam. My family has served in the United States military for generations and I have been a military wife for 28 years now.

My family has fought to protect not only the U.S. but other countries that have asked for our help! I have seen in news videos and read in Mr. Obama’s words the hatred he and his wife have for the United States and white people. There have been postings on the web by people who know or have known the Obamas and have called them Marxist and have seen their hatred toward white people and the very country he claims to want to help. I beg of you, please do not let the dedication of generations of my family and other families go to waste.

If the truth of this man is not made public and he is elected, I have no doubt this country will no longer be the free republic it is now. I’ve read your articles about
Raila Odinga and I’ve see the pictures of Obama supporting him–please, please don’t let him bring his genocide to the United States at the invitation of a President Obama. You know in your heart I am right. Please release the tapes unedited. Give us a chance to save our country, please".

I will close with this comment about Obama. It’s only taken him $620,000,000, a broken promise on public campaign financing, a bias media, a muzzled wife, an economic crisis started in part from his Acorn friends, and a class warfare to get your Messiah to these numbers. William Ayers who? Father Pfleger who? Rev. Wright who? Tony Rezko who? Odinga who? Farrakhan who? Sorry, I realize that asking your candidate about his past associations is off limits…but we should have the NY Times do a smear piece on Cindy McCain’s past pill popping habits. Or Todd Palin’s DUI 20 years ago. Or Troopergate. Give me a break!

THE CHOICE IS CLEAR, SOCIALISM OR FREE ENTERPISE?

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
This for the coming election has boiled down to one basic ingredient! Do the majority of Americans desire a Socialist government or do they want to maintain our Free Enterprise Capitalist system that is the foundation of OUR Republic?

All the hyperbole and promises to do one thing or another for special interest groups should not dissuade anyone from voting for or against the two candidates. Class hatred and racism has been a part of this dirty campaign, and it is notable for the fact that the Democrats have spent four times the amount of money for adds than the Republicans. More than both parties had spent in the past elections.

The real issue is do the majority, be it simple or a large number, of voters want this Country to be led by a Socialist? This is the question all voters must answer before they go into the voting booth!

The first really big lie Obama told was the evening of November 8, 2004 on the evening of his election to the U.S. State Senate, when he promised to serve out his full term beore attempting to camapign for a national ofice, because he was too inexperienced. Source:UTUBE
But two years after being elected to the senate he began his campaign for president!

Obama himself confessed that he is not ready to be president. It is amazing how George Soros was able to buy enough experience for Obama to run and defeat many far more qualified candidates, including his own VP. The question the American people will have to confront if Obama is elected is, “Who really owns Barack Obama?”


As Barack Obama was making his way from house-to-house in Toledo, Ohio, a young plumber, Joe Wurzelbacher, standing in front of his house, asked Sen. Obama a pretty straight forward question:
“Senator Obama, I’m going to have a business that makes $280,000 a year. You want to tax me. Why do you want to do that?”
And Obama gave him a pretty straight-forward, albeit chilling response:
“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody.”

“I think that when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody.” There is so much wrong with not only this statement but this ideology it’s hard to know where to begin, but I’ll start with this: Senator Obama...it’s not your money to give!

Wealth redistribution is one of the core tenets of Socialism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Expressing a desire to “spread the wealth around,” indicates that Sen. Obama favors the Socialist dogma of income or wealth redistribution. This means he favors social/economic engineering; where those who possess less are afforded more at the demise of those who dedicated themselves to earning more.

Milton Friedman, the American Nobel Laureate economist, famously and successfully argued that this code of belief, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," turns ability into a liability, and need into an asset. It rewards those who simply exist and punishes those that produce, with all due respect to Mr. Obama’s declaration that he doesn’t want to “penalize” that Ohio plumber.
source: NEW MEDIA JOURNAL

To quote Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Jr -- Barack Obama's confidant and close friend for over twenty years -- about the Senator,
"Obama's a politician and he says what he has to say as a politician."
I hope Americans do not fall for the main theme of the Obama/Biden campaign " George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush. Such a classic diversion. Feed on the people’s anger towards Bush, Blind their hearts and minds, prevent them from paying attention to Barack Obama’s complete inability to lead this country!

WE HAVE HAD PRESIDENTS WHO BECAME LIARS , NOW WE WILL ELECT A KNOWN LIAR!

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

Richard Nixon left the Presidency as a disgraced liar because of Watergate. President Bush has been accused of lying about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.Even though this has been proved to be true, the Leftist media and the Democrats still refer to him as a
liar.
Roosevelt denied he had any knowledge of the pending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and then there was "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky".
And then the infamous, "it all depends upon what the meaning of is is" to the grand jury by President Clinton!

Today we are approaching a new moment in history. A blatant liar apparently is going to be elected President, if you can believe the present polls.
Not only does Obama change his positions depending upon the group whom he is speaking. But the BHO man is getting away with blatant lies that the main stream media would expose in a moment if Senator McCain had uttered them.

Omama has promised that 95% of the people will get a tax cut if he is elected by taxing the "rich" more. This despite the fact that we already have a steeply progressive income tax, with the top 5 percent of earners paying 60 percent of the taxes (in 2006), and the top 25 percent paying 86 percent. And if that isn't enough to convince you. Tell me how he can take the $500 out of the general revenue fund that he plans to give to the millions of people who do not pay taxes, unless he robs the Social Security "trust fund"? By doing this he will precipitate disaster for Seniors who count on the SS check each month!

Obama wants to perform an experiment by confiscating more of the income of the most productive earners (who create the overwhelming majority of jobs) and distributing it to those who earn less. He calls it "spreading the wealth around"!

It's been done before,with dreadful results. Call it socialism if you like. But don't call it “fairness".

He says he is a Christian who attended Reverend Wrights church, but denies he ever heard any radical anti-American, racist sermons when attending Wright's services. He qualifies his position by saying he wasn't a regular attendee at Sunday services, which if true does not represent a person who is a strong Christian person.

Then there is his association with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn. The Weatherman bombers who not too long ago said they were sorry they didn't bomb more!
Obama alleges he was 8 years old when they did their anti-American act. This is true, but he denied on National television that he launched his Senatorial campaign at a fund raiser in the Ayers/Dorn home, when in fact he did!

And to top it off he served on the Annenberg Board of Directors with Bill Ayers during the Clinton Administration.
Then board member, presidential candidate Barack Obama and William Ayers, a former 1960s and 1970s radical turned college professor and education activist, was part of a $500 million initiative by Philadelphia publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg to aid schools around the country.The half-billion-dollar "gift," as it was described by President Bill Clinton at a 1993 White House ceremony, would go on to provide 2-to-1 matching-fund grants to 18 school districts around the nation. Called the Annenberg Challenge, the fund provided $50 million to the Philadelphia School District and $49.2 million to Chicago.source:Wikapedia

Tell me that a person serving on a board of directors of an organisation, disbursing $49.2 million, does not have a personal relationship with his board membership!

In 1992, Obama was director of Project Vote in Chicago, which helped register 150,000voters on the city's South Side. Obama's successful work was credited in multiple media reports with helping to elect Democratic Senator Carol Moseley Braun.

Obama's campaign claims ACORN was "not part of" Project Vote, but the organization's incorporation papers, obtained by WND, show Project Vote is a trademark name whose parent company is registered at the same New Orleans address in which ACORN and multiple ACORN affiliates are housed.

Obama himself previously connected Project Vote to ACORN.

"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 drives in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work," Obama was quoted on his own campaign website as saying at an ACORN meeting, according to a post by official Obama website blogger Sam Graham-Felsen.source: World Net Daily

These are just a few of the LIES that Obama has told the electorate. When he is in the Oval Office, GOD forbid, he will continue to lie by blaming everything he does wrong on the previous administrations mess he inherited, You can take that to the bank!

EXHALING MAY BE AGAINST THE LAW IF OBAMA IS ELECTED

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

Every one with at least a high school education knows that to stay alive we humans must inhale and exhale air to stay alive. When we exhale we expel CO2, because if it builds up in our lungs we will fall into unconsciousness!

Well, if Obama is elected President we may have to regulate our breathing patterns! Just this month, one of Obama's chosen advisers, Jason Grumet, gave an interview for the press,during which he stated that when Obama is elected he will mandate the curbing of CO2 emissions.
The following is an excerpt from today's edition of The New Media Journal.

" Barack Obama will classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant that can be regulated should he win the presidential election on Nov. 4.
This will open the way for new rules on greenhouse gas emissions. The Democratic senator from Illinois will tell the Environmental Protection Agency that it may use the 1990 Clean Air Act to set emissions limits on power plants and manufacturers, his energy adviser, Jason Grumet, said in an interview. President George W. Bush declined to curb CO2 emissions under the law even after the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the government may do so. If elected, Obama would be the first president to group emissions blamed for global warming into a category of pollutants that includes lead and carbon monoxide".

Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, has not said how he would treat CO2 under the act. Obama "would initiate those rulemakings,'' Grumet said in an Oct. 6 interview in Boston. "He's not going to insert political judgments to interrupt the recommendations of the scientific efforts.''

Placing heat-trapping pollutants in the same category as ozone may lead to caps on power-plant emissions and force utilities to use the most expensive systems to curb pollution. The move may halt construction plans on as many as half of the 130 proposed new US coal plants.This would raise the cost to the consumer an exorbitant amount, so not only will Obama tax the middle class to support his SPREAD The WEALTH, but the cost of heating our homes will sky rocket!

This Socialist and his Communist thinking backers must be defeated at the polls if we hope to maintain our quality of life and freedoms! VOTE McCAIN And PALIN< please!

COLIN POWELL PLAYS ":BRUTUS" AGAIN!!

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

Despite his contrary positions on President George H.Bush's policies, he was retained as Secretary of State, and for this support he has rewarded the Bush family with sticking a knife in the back of the designated candidate for President, Senator McCain!

Powell stepped down from the position after President Bush's reelection to a second term. His four year tenure as Secretary of State was marked by disagreements with other Administration officials over policy. The following quotation from a February 20, 2004 address at Princeton University provides an excellent example of Colin Powell's statesmanship:

“We must build a better future even as we deal with the security challenges before us. That is how we'll overcome those challenges, because it's not enough to fight against a negative, like terrorism. We must focus on what inspires us, on what brings the good people of the world together. We've got to fight for the positive — for liberty, for freedom, for democracy.”

This quote explains why Powell betrayed the party that made him the first Black Secretary of State, that gave him a place in the history books.
It is apparent that the appeal Powell has for Obama is his "ONE WORLD" approach to politics. Both seem to have an affinity to worry about solving the worlds problems more than the problems here at home.

It certainly could not be Obama's experience or his past association with known terrorists that make the General(ret.)think Obama is qualified to be President.
I do not want to believe that a man of his stature, would base his decision on the color of Obama's skin as the reason he has endorsed Obama, but when I try to fathom the reasons why he waited so long to endorse Obama.
I can not conceive of any qualifications that would make Gen. Powell appear on National television to endorse Obama 16 days before the election. Maybe it is to repair the damage caused by the revelation that Obama's favoring a Socialistic economic approach by supporting tax cuts and tax credits, while raising taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut; it's just another government giveaway!

Perhaps it could be Powell and his wife Alama, a long time Democrat Liberal, decided that "Joe The Plumber" had exposed Obama as a true Socialist, and Colin had to rescue Obama from the Damage caused by Obama's "SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND"!

OBAMA CAMPAIGN HAS NO SHAME IN QUEST FOR VICTORY

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

The Obama campaign has spent more millions of dollars on advertisements and propaganda to get their "messia" elected than any other candidate or President in our history.
Many adds were negative attacks on Senator McCain and especially on Vice-President candidate Gov. Sara Palin.But they have not stopped with attacks on the opposition candidates. They also have advocacy adds targeting special interest groups. Once such add was designed to target American Jewish voters. A group that Obama has prior to his nomination, often maligned in favor of Obama's pro-Palestinian position.

The following article appeared in today's edition of Asharq Alawsat a leading English version of Arab International News. It details how three high ranking Israeli persons were duped into making an add to be used to entice Jewish voters.

"Three Israeli security figures said Monday they were duped into taking part in an ad supporting Barack Obama made by the same group that was behind comedian Sarah Silverman's "Great Schlep."

Uzi Dayan, a retired army general, and Efraim Halevy, a former Mossad chief, were among eight high-ranking retired members of Israel's security establishment in a pro-Obama film. Former Mossad agent Yossi Alpher also said he was misled.

The three said they were unaware they were being interviewed for a political campaign and thought they were commenting on the regional strategic affairs that will face the next U.S. president. All insisted they have not endorsed either Obama nor his Republican rival, John McCain.

"This is pure and simple deceit," said Dayan. "I never expressed support for Obama, his approach or his opinions. I've also never expressed support for McCain."

The eight-minute video, aimed at American Jews, was produced by the Jewish Council for Education and Research. The nonprofit group supports the Democratic presidential candidate, but says it is not connected to Obama's presidential campaign.

The group is also behind "The Great Schlep" — a Web site featuring Silverman encouraging young Jews to go to Florida to persuade their grandparents to vote for Obama.

Mik Moore, a co-founder of the political action committee, said the video quoting the Israelis was aimed at "setting the record straight" about Obama's approach to Israel.

Moore said participants were informed the film makers supported Obama, and the video didn't claim everyone in it endorsed him. He promised, however, to "address their concerns."

The video, which includes clips from Obama's visit to Israel, concludes with a black screen reading: "The people who have kept Israel alive offer you their choice."
This is just another example of the lies and deceptions that are part and parcel of the whole Obama campaign.


And then there is this news about the American Communist party, and it's glee that Obama apparently is going to capture the Presidency.
The Agency France_Prasse one of the oracles of the Communist party, and it's recent editorial contained these comments about the pending Presidential election.
"An Obama election will boost The struggle to defeat the ultra-right and turn our country on a positive path" and "shift the ground for successful struggles going forward.""None of the people's struggles — from peace to universal health care to an economy that puts Main Street before Wall Street — will advance if (John) McCain wins in November," says the editorial, listing issues that sound a lot like the concerns of the Democratic Party's platform.
The Communist Party's dedication to Obama is not new. During the primary season in March, the party noted in a news release that the Obama "campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change."

And although the AFP reports that they don't endorse Obama( they never have endorsed a Presidential candidate),they acknowledge that many of the "workers" at Party headquarters wear Obama buttons on their lapels.

Americans wake up and smell the stink of corruption and see the darkness of the Lies!

THE ACORN/OBAMA CONNECTION

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

In order to understand how Barack Obama and ACORN are among those who are responsible for the mortgage meltdown. You first have to understand what ACORN is and how Barack Obama was affiliated with them...and make no mistake; Barack Obama was most definitely affiliated with ACORN.

The Roots of ACORN
From a comprehensive and thoroughly researched piece by Stanley Kurtz in the National Review titled, Inside Obama’s ACORN, we come to understand that ACORN has its roots in the anti-capitalist tenets of the 1960s radical left group the National Welfare Rights Organization. This groups’ goal was to force a radical reconstruction of what they described as “America’s unjust capitalist economy” by forcing the elimination of eligibility restrictions for those trying to attain inclusion on the welfare roles, thus creating an overloaded system, a crisis, so as to affect that reconstruction.source:wikapedia

Over the years, ACORN "morphed" its mission into one that champions a diverse set of objectives, all with an overriding goal based on the tenets of anti-capitalism and the destruction of the US Capitalist system. The group targets privately owned companies in their pursuit of cleverly public mandated "living wage" laws that have literally driven companies from some areas where jobs are badly needed.

They continue their campaign to eliminate welfare role eligibility restrictions(ie. illegal aliens) as they push to roll back welfare reform. And, in an area directly related to our subject, they actively employ coercive tactics to manipulate financial institutions into abandoning best business practice by affording low-interest loans to unqualified/minority borrowers.

In 1977, the Community Reinvestment Act was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter. This law requires financial institutions to offer credit, including home ownership opportunities, to under-served populations. Simply put, the Community Reinvestment Act forced financial institutions to offer credit – mortgages – to unqualified borrowers. To add teeth to this law, provisions were included to punish financial institutions that did not embrace the horrific business practice of lending money to those unable to pay it back. source:Congressional record

Because of the Community Reinvestment Act, any financial institution that wants to expand or merge,and any financial institution that has earned the right to grow because of its utilization of good business practices,has to prove it has complied with the Community Reinvestment Act. Otherwise the growth move can be blocked through regulation set-up to enforce the law.

ACORN, under the guise of affecting “affordable housing for the poor” routinely employs intimidation tactics (both physical and verbal), public charges of racism and threatens to use the Community Reinvestment Act to block business expansion. These actions have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and “organizational contributions” (read: extortion) from America’s financial institutions.

The actions of ACORN by their intimidation of financial institutions that make up the mortgage banking industry, serve as the chief catalyst for the mortgage crisis and the financial meltdown we are experiencing today. By coercing the mortgage banking industry into lending to those who were unqualified to borrow.

ACORN instigated the collapse of the housing market and, as a result, is directly responsible for qualified borrowers(you and I) being nearly unable to secure legitimate lines of credit today.

But how does this relate to Barack Obama?

Barack Obama’s Connection to ACORNWhen a young Barack Obama was first starting in his career as a “community organizer,” he caught the eye of Madeleine Talbot, the Chicago chapter head of ACORN. Talbot was so impressed with Obama’s organizational skills in his effort to attain asbestos abatement at a low-income housing project that she invited Obama to help train her own staff in the art of community organizing.

In an article by Toni Foulkes, a Chicago ACORN leader and a member of ACORN’s National Association Board, published in Social Policy titled, Case Study: Chicago. The Barack Obama Campaign shows that Barack Obama is a key figure in ACORN’s yearly leadership-training seminars. Foulkes also exposes the fact that the much-touted Project Vote campaign which Obama takes credit for organizing was, in fact, in direct partnership with ACORN!

Barack Obama was retained to represent ACORN in a legal action regarding an Illinois law addressing what has come to be known as “motor-voter” voter registration. He was intentionally and specifically sought because of his days working with Madeleine Talbot.

After Obama officially left ACORN and began to craft his political career he tapped into his time at ACORN to field his volunteer staff. Having trained many of the ACORN leaders in Chicago there was a cadre of enthusiasm for his candidacies throughout the organization. This includes his 1996 congressional campaign, his 2000 State Senate campaign, his 2004 US Senate campaign and today’s 2008 presidential campaign. It should be noted here that Obama sought and received endorsements from ACORN’s political arm for his political contests.

A minimal effort into researching then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama’s pet projects reveals that on several occasions he introduced legislation complimentary to ACORN’s goals including legislation addressing the municipal living wage and the financial sector. And when Obama sat on the boards of the Woods Foundation and the Joyce Foundation he was afforded the wherewithal to direct grants to ACORN, which he did.Source: Chicago Tribune

HotAir.com’s Ed Morrissey, points out that, “It’s important not to get too carried away with the ACORN connection in the collapse. The real trigger came when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up all of these loans and converting them into securities.”

"But a gun doesn’t shoot without bullets and ACORN’s manipulation of the mortgage banking community in securing low-interest loans for unqualified borrowers manufactured the “bullets” that were shot by the gun owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." With the assistance of Congressman Bernie Franks and Senator Dodd, the two responsible for oversight of the "Freddies"!

The mortgage crisis and the subsequent financial meltdown that has caused hundred-point slides in the stock market in recent days, was started with training people. Community activists and their coordinators were taught how to coerce financial organizations into employing bad business practices by providing loans to people who could never, ever pay them back.

Barack Obama trained Madeleine Talbot’s budding ACORN staff how to organize people to action. He returned yearly to provide leadership-training seminars. And after ACORN employed the practice of coercing financial institution into providing low-interest loans to unqualified recipients Obama served as their legal counsel.

Of course, like every other legitimate charge brought against the Democrat "messia", this will be denied, but the Internet has all the facts for those who are willing to research it as I did.

Despite these facts I must say I believe we have a majority of voters who have welcomed the government "cradle to grave" concept, and this smooth talking con-man will occupy the Oval Office!

FACTS NOT REPORTED ABOUT THE "Bailout"

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

In the US, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department are, contrary to free-market capitalistic logic, making all the major strategic decisions in the financial sector. Fear and panic have taken over as the beacon of world capitalism resorts to socialism and socialist measures of dealing with disaster. State intervention reigns supreme with the rescue of the American International Group (AIG) by the Bush administration. In other words, the US government has effectively nationalised banks, mortgage and lending institution and insurance companies.

By taking over AIG, and engineering the Bank of America's takeover of Merrill Lynch, Washington acknowledged that socialism is the solution in times of crisis. "We have to pay for the sins of the past," conceded Klaus Schwab, the organiser of the World Economic Forum.

Neo-liberal and laissez-faire measures have proved to be inadequate and incapable of securing effective regulatory mechanisms. The golden age of capitalism appears to be coming to an ignominious close.

Socialists and the champions of state intervention in the economy have been vindicated. This is the principal lesson for developing countries. Contrary to the supposed logic of capitalism, stagflation -- the coexistence of low growth with high inflation -- has taken hold of the economies of the North.

The Asian financial crisis of 1997-98 and the dubious role played by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the US Treasury Department comes to mind, with the deluge of foreign funds designed to garner the quickest and highest returns, i.e., the real estate and stock markets. Needless to say, stock and real estate prices are now plummeting, prompting the panicked withdrawal of funds, which of course merely makes things worse, wiping out billions of paper values. By 1997, the emerging markets of East Asia lost $100 billion in a couple of months. Capital flight not surprisingly induced an IMF bailout of foreign speculators. East Asia plunged into a deep recession in 1998. Only Malaysia, sensibly fixing its currency and taking firm government action, survived more or less unscathed.

This Wall Street bailout -- yes, bailout, not "rescue" -- is yet another boondoggle by the Congress, pulled out of bankers' back pockets, and being enacted in an atmosphere of panic orchestrated and spread around the world to make sure it got passed ASAP. A bankers' 9/11: implode a few bank towers to make sure the system as a whole survives.

As the dust settles, it is clear that nothing much about our casino capitalism is about to change at all. But what is to be expected from the likes of United States President George W Bush?
Joseph Stiglitz comments, "This 'cure' is another one of these rearrangements: by stripping out the bad assets from the banks and paying fair market value for them, the value of the banks will soar." It is a ruse based on the "trickle-down economics" made famous by president Ronald Reagan. Throw enough money at Wall Street and a few drops are sure to hit Joe Public.

Legislation that shows a corner is being turned, a new leaf turned over, would require addressing issues such as the trade deficit, the very debt-based system of money creation -- none of which got the time of day as legislators prepare to end their final working session this year.

Even Barack Obama would not be able to extricate himself from the spider's web that is the US political system today, as his hearty support for the bill and support of President George W Bush show. Funny how Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, accompanied by Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson, seemed to pull the $700 billion 450-page Emergency Economic Stabilisation Act out of his hat like a magician.

Was this plan in the wings, just waiting for its chance in the spotlight? And does it make sense to let the fox work out a plan to save the chickens as they come home to roost? Isn't it more likely that he will ensure the long life of his progeny first, always keeping in mind that enough chickens must be kept alive to reproduce and feed the foxes? To use another metaphor, does it make sense to put the pilot who hit the iceberg in charge of the lifeboats?

Adam Smith writes in The Wealth of Nations : "The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order [profit takers], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

Instead, it was railroaded through Congress and the Senate in a mood of hysteria, irresponsibly orchestrated by the very foxes who created the problem. The plan is intended to infuse the financial system with cash to "thaw" frozen credit markets (as if it is a natural process) and prevent a deep recession. Isn't printing more dollars like pouring water through a sieve?

The program will send the federal deficit through the roof, even as it approaches record levels. The Treasury will have to borrow the money, requiring a bill increasing the government's legal debt limit by -- surprise -- $700 billion, to $11.3trillion.

Then there is also "the Buffett model": Warren Buffet put money into Goldman Sachs, getting preferred shares and warrants, i.e., both protection when prices slide and participation when they stabilise. This would have worked better as a way to save the banks and protect taxpayers, even if it didn't address the underlying problems.

Two bright spots: insurance for deposit accounts was increased from $100,000 to $250,000 and pay for senior executives at firms participating in the programme was capped. CEO salaries have skyrocketed in the past two decades; for instance, Lehman Brothers' Richard Fuld received $466 million from 1993-2008 and a whopping $62 million "golden parachute" exit pay on resigning last month, as his firm chalked up a $6 billion loss and declared bankruptcy. Executive "pay" does not include the de rigueur hefty stock options and perks.

The Treasury may now ban excessive salaries and bonuses, as well as these golden parachutes for executives at firms that receive direct infusions of federal cash. Companies that sell assets in government auctions will lose tax deductions if salaries for their top executives exceed $500,000 a year, and outgoing managers who take severance packages triple their annual salaries will be required to pay a 20 per cent excise tax. But over all it was still a bad deal, and the Congress is to blame,on both sides of the isle!
source:Investors Business Daily

TIME TO EXPLORE THE JESSIE JACKSON/OBAMA CONNECTION

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


Jessie Jackson gave a speech recently to the first World Policy Forum in Europe,
during the speech, Rev..Jackson said he thinks he knows what Obama has in mind, . Amir Taheri of the New York Post has the story, cleverly titled "The O Jesse knows" source: Thomas Lifson

Reverend Jacksonm warns that he isn't an Obama confidant or adviser, "just a supporter." But he adds that Obama has been "a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family." Jackson's son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson's daughter went to school with Obama's wife Michelle.
"We helped him start his career," says Jackson. "And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged."

A book every voter should read is "SHAKEDOWN", the story exposing the Real Jesse Jackson, by Kenneth R. Timmerman. It is shocking because the truths exposed in the book were never deep, dark secrets to anyone except to the American public. The information presented, meticulously backed up by documents and interviews, was always available to journalists and columnists who made the effort to find it and had the integrity to write about it. But the few who dared were viciously attacked by the liberal media, and at times by Jesse's close friends, the Black P Stone Rangers, a violent Chicago street gang.

Even as the national media was increasingly drawn to Jesse's theatricality and bombastic racist statements serving to promote his non-profit organizations, Jesse used the muscle of the street gang to shake-down Chicago businesses for 'contributions'. His non-profits, Operation Breadbasket and PUSH,were merely vehicles for providing Jesse with a power base and were the illegal source of his personal income.

After tapping out Chicago businesses, Jesse moved on, during the Carter administration, to bilking the American taxpayers out of billions of dollars in federal minority set-aside contracts (those awarded to Jesse's family and friends were usually subcontracted to white businesses) and federal grants to non-profits. This was money never adequately accounted for, money that Jesse considered his own (illegal) private purse for his fabulously luxurious lifestyle. Several of those in the Carter administration who worked at the Commerce Department and the Labor Department, shoveling those grants and contracts to Jesse, went to work for him after Carter left office.

To the dismay of many black leaders, the mainstream media crowned Jesse Jackson as the primary civil rights leader and spokesman for America's black community. His non-profits were supposed to provide services to America's black poor and inner-city children. No one in the media seemed to notice or care that few benefits ever accrued to those for whom the set-asides and grants were legally intended, though Jesse got richer and more famous, and his relatives and a few well-to-do black business friends made out like bandits. (Until President Reagan cut off funds to questionable organizations like Jesse's.) But Jesse just moved on, to mau-mauing (Timmerman's term) big American corporations.

The mainstream media was Jesse's leverage when he put the arm on the corporations. No longer did he need to call on his half-brother Noah Robinson (whom Jesse had introduced into the Black P Stone Rangers and who is now serving a life sentence for murder) to provide gang members to intimidate Chicago businessmen or to bulk up demonstrations and boycotts. Jesse now had available much more powerful 'muscle' to enforce his demands.

Big business caved when Jesse threatened to shame them....in the press....as racists. One corporate executive told Timmerman that businessmen would rather be called child molesters than to be charged with racism because the media outrage was greater! Corporate bosses knew the media was uncritical of Jesse's statements and would not investigate the charges.

Jesse blackmailed the companies into 'covenants' promising to hire, on Jesse's recommendations, black executives, to give business to specified black companies, and to make contributions to Jesse's non-profit organizations. The few blacks who profited from Jesse's brokering also made contributions to his non-profits and to his personal finances. He was making money from both sides and in the process extending his power and patronage.

The "mau-mauing" of corporate America was easy and lucrative, and became more so when Jesse took it to the heart of Wall Street in the nineties. Corporations, banks, even Alan Greenspan were soft touches for Jesse's increasingly sophisticated blackmailing. Why not? The media was far more effective and powerful as enforcers than his Chicago gang friends had been. Jesse's statements about 'diversity' and 'access' (buzz words replacing the old 'minority set-asides') were trumpeted as God's own truth by solemn talking heads on the TV nightly news.

The New York Times and the L.A. Times, which are the source of news for many newspaper conglomerates around the nation and for the world, praised Jesse as the leading civil rights leader even though nothing Jesse was doing benefitted the black poor. Precious little of the millions he collected trickled down to provide services to or to educate and train blacks. Jesse and a very few black businessmen profited. That was the goal and that was the accomplishment of his raid on Wall Street.

A devastating section of Timmerman's book is that devoted to Jesse's activities in Africa. Jesse never met a dictator anywhere in the world that he didn't like, if the dictator wisely cut Jesse and his friends in on the exploitation of the dictator's country -- in return for Jesse's support of him in the United States. By the mid-nineties, Jesse and President Clinton had settled their differences and Clinton named Jesse as the Special Envoy to Africa.

OBAMA has disavowed his association with Reverend Wright, Weathermen Ayers and Dorn,
and he and his campaign have repeatedly denied he was ever a Muslim. But we must question this despite Obama's claims that he is a Christian and adamantly denies that he was ever a Muslim.
Yet his sister, with whom he lived as a child has disclosed "my whole family was Muslim." His 1968 registration at a Catholic school lists him as "Barry Soetoro," a citizen of Indonesia, and his religion is Islam. He himself admits that later he studied the Koran at a public school in Jakarta. Only Muslim children studied the Koran there, and his former principal recalls that Barry studied mengaji - recitation of the Koran in Arabic, an advanced form of study.

Now the alleged greatest extortionist in modern times, Jesse Jackson, claims: " We helped him start his career, and then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged."
Just how much has "JJ" helped Obama "move forward", to what extent and when?

OBAMA AND SOCIALISM GO HAND IN HAND

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

October 13, 2008 Why Obama's socialism matters By Bookworm
For conservatives opposed to an Obama presidency, the last few days have brought the wonder of the smoking gun: Obama really was a socialist. Combine that hidden paper trail with his Ayers affiliation, and it's reasonable to believe that Obama still holds these socialist political views.

Conservatives' excitement at finally having found the real socialist hiding inside that empty suit is tempered by one thing -- outside of conservative circles, nobody really seems to care. The media, of course, is very aggressive about not caring, but the malaise seems to affect ordinary Americans as well.

In order to stir ordinary Americans to the sense of outrage those of us in the blogosphere feel, we need to remind them that socialism is not simply a more liberal version of ordinary American politics. It is, instead, its own animal, and a very feral, dangerous animal indeed.

It helps to begin by understanding what socialism is not. It isn't Liberalism and it isn't mere Leftism. The terms Liberal and Conservative date back to Victorian England, when Liberals were pushing vast social reforms, such as the end of child labor, while Conservatives were all for maintaining a deeply hierarchical status quo. Considering that modern "liberals" are seeking a return to 20th Century socialism, those phrases too scarcely seem like apt descriptors.

The original Utopians did not yet look to the state for help establishing a world of perfect equality. Instead, they relied on each enlightened individuals moral sense, and they set up myriad high-minded communes to achieve this end. All of them failed. It took Marx and Engels to carry socialism to the next level, in which they envisioned the complete overthrow of all governments, with the workers of the world uniting so that all contributed to a single socialist government, which in turn would give back to them on an as needed basis.

Assuming that you're not big on individualism and exceptionalism, this might be an attractive doctrine as a way to destroy want and exploitation, except for one thing: It does not take into account the fact that the state has no conscience.

Once you vest all power in the state, history demonstrates that the state, although technically composed of individuals, in fact takes on a life of its own, with the operating bureaucracy driving it to ever greater extremes of control. Additionally, history demonstrates that, if the wrong person becomes all-powerful in the state, the absence of individualism means that the state becomes a juggernaut, completely in thrall to a psychopath's ideas.

Herewith some examples:
First, consider Nazi Germany because so many people forget that it was a socialist dictatorship. Or perhaps they're ignorant of the fact that the Nazi's official and frequently forgotten name was the National Socialist German Worker's Party. In other words, while most people consider the Nazi party to be a totalitarian ideology arising from the right, it was, in fact, a totalitarian party arising from the left.
Practically within minutes of the Nazi takeover of the German government, individuals were subordinated to the state.

Even industries that remained privately owned (and there were many, as opponents of the Nazis = socialist theory like to point out), were allowed to do so only if their owners bent their efforts to the benefit of the state. Show a hint of individualism, and an unwillingness to cooperate, and you'd swiftly find yourself in Dachau, with a government operative sitting in that executive chair you once owned.

Then there's another example: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. From its inception, the Soviet state brutalized people, whether it was the upper echelon party purges or the mass slaughter of the kulaks -- all in the name of collectivism and the protection of the state envisioned by Lenin and Stalin.

Most estimates are that, in the years leading up to WWII, the Soviet socialist state killed between 30 and 60 million of its own citizens. Not all of the victims died, or at least they didn't die instantly. Those who didn't receive a swift bullet to the head might starve to death on collective farms or join the millions who ended up as slave laborers in the gulags, with most of the latter incarcerated for thought crimes against the state.

Another example is the People's Republic of China, another socialist state. One sees the same pattern as in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia: individuals were instantly subordinated to the needs of the state and, as the state's needs became ever more grandiose, more and more people had to die. Current estimates are that Mao's "visionary" Great Leap Forward resulted in the deaths of up to 100 million people. The people died from starvation, or were tortured to death, or just outright murdered because of thought crimes. The same pattern, of course, daily plays out on a smaller scale in socialist North Korea.

Those are examples of hard socialism. Soft socialism is better, but it certainly isn't the American ideal. Britain springs to mind as the perfect example of soft socialism. Britain's socialist medicine is a disaster, with practically daily stories about people being denied treatment or receiving minimal treatment.

Invariably, the denials arise because the State's needs trump the individual's: Either the treatment is generally deemed too costly (and there are no market forces at work) or the patients are deemed unworthy of care, especially if they're old.
British socialism has other problems, aside from the dead left behind in her hospital wards. As did Germany, Russia, and China (and as would Obama), socialist Britain took guns away (at least in London), with the evitable result that violent crime against innocent people skyrocketed.

The British socialist bureaucracy also controls people's lives at a level currently incomprehensible to Americans, who can't appreciate a state that is constantly looking out for its own good. In Britain, government protects thieves right's against property owner's, has it's public utilities urge children to report their parents for "green" crimes; tries to criminalize people taking pictures of their own children in public places; destroys perfectly good food that does not meet obsessive compulsive bureaucratic standards; and increasingly stifles free speech. (Impressively, all of the preceding examples are from just the last six months in England.)

Both history and current events demonstrate that the socialist reality is always bad for the individual, and this is true whether one is looking at the painfully brutal socialism of the Nazis or the Soviets or the Chinese, with its wholesale slaughters, or at the soft socialism of England, in which people's lives are ever more tightly circumscribed, and the state incrementally destroys individual freedom. And that is why Obama's socialism is so scary!

Regardless of Obama’s presumed good intentions, socialism always brings a society to a bad ending. Americans who live in our free society that allows people to think what they will, do what they want, and succeed if they can, will not willingly hand themselves over to the socialist ideology.

They must therefore be reminded, again and again and again, that socialism is not just another political party; it’s the death knell to freedom. So remember, while McCain wants to change DC, Obama wants to change America! source: The American Thinker

CONCEALING FACTS IS THE SAME AS LYING

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

It is difficult keeping up with Obama's promises to the voters. There have been so many changes and the package he promises voters is reported in the pliant Media in such a positive way, that the sum total is bewildering.
One thing I can say with certainty, is that he promises a shift toward the welfare state like nothing our Republic has experienced since the Constitution was ratified.

Obama adds continually hype the fact that anyone who makes less than $250,000 a year will not have their taxes raised. What he doesn't tell the voters is that those millions who do not pay taxes, will get a REBATE check! Where the money will come from is of course out of the pockets of the hard working middle class.

Mr. Obama's campaign promise, which he has repeated in his speeches and in the presidential debates, stems from his "Making Work Pay" tax cut that will give a $500 refundable tax credit to every worker or $1,000 to each working couple. But because this provision in his economic-recovery plan is "refundable," a large number of middle- to lower-income workers who have no income-tax liability after taking tax credits and deductions the that Internal Revenue Service allows, will be given the equivalent of the tax cut in the form of direct payments from the US Treasury - funded by higher-income taxpayers.

Because the IRS says that nearly 46 million tax filers - one-third of all filers - had no tax liability in 2006, there is the question of how millions of Americans can receive an income "tax cut" when they pay no taxes. "It's got to raise alarm bells when you claim you are going to cut taxes for 95 percent of working families when more than 40 percent of them pay no income taxes," said Phil Kerpen, policy director at Americans for Prosperity, a grass-roots free-market advocacy group...The freshman senator's campaign Web site defines the Democrat's tax-relief proposal only in terms of offering workers "middle class tax cuts" and "for 10 million low-income Americans, will completely eliminate their federal income taxes."

But in a recent research paper on federal taxpayers, Scott Hodge, president of the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, said, "There will be 47 million tax returns with zero-income tax liability in 2009 under current law. That's one-third of all tax returns and those 47 million tax returns represent 96 million individuals. "source:Investors Business Daily

His "tax cuts" are base lined against the Clinton era brackets and ignore the President Bush tax cuts. The result will a huge tax increase for millions of middle class taxpayers. The one hundred million taxpayers that he claims are being ignored pay no income taxes now, only the payroll (Social Security) tax. He intends to give them a break even on this tax through a massive income redistribution scheme which is nothing more than welfare! These are facts not my opinions!


Then there is the fact that we may be electing an Apostate to the Presidency, despite all the claims by Obama and his campaign handlers that he is not or was not a Muslim.The following is an excerpt from an article written by Lt.Col.Michael Burket(Retired)

"The point here is that the religion of the foreign mother is on no consequence in the Muslim world. The status of my wife’s religion was never asked. It was assumed I’m sure, her religion was the same as mine. That’s the way it is in the Muslim world. Women are not afforded much in the way of status in the Muslim world, and Obama’s mother was no exception.

Islamic law is consistent throughout the Muslim world. Children of a Muslim father, even secular Muslims, those who rarely attend Mosque services, rarely keep the Ramadan fast, the Eid holidays etc. are automatically Muslims. The child of a Muslim father, is a Muslim. There is no wiggle room here. Koranic law is the law!


Barack Hussein Obama lived in Indonesia as a child. His mother, no doubt was a convert to Islam, as a Muslim will not marry a non-Muslim, at least not publicly or officially. Obama’s mother was married twice—to Muslim men! Young Barack Hussein would not have lasted long in a Madrasa, if he weren’t a Muslim. Peer pressure alone would have been intolerable, yet young Obama attended the Madrasa for several years. Make no mistake about it; he attended AS A MUSLIM. There would have simply been no other way.

During Obama’s childhood in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, he attended an Islamic school, we know as a Madrasa. Young Barack Hussein would have studied the Koran, the Haddith and the Sunna. He would have received indoctrination in the Muslim faith, just like the other boys his age and at his level of schooling. Young Barack Hussein would have participated in the five daily prayers, either in a prayer room at his Madrasa, or at a local Mosque.

Obama has attempted to mask his early religious training and affiliation but anyone who knows anything about the Muslim religion easily sees through the charade. So what you say. Why should we care about all of this? The reason is simple. In the Muslim world, Barack Hussein Obama is an APOSTATE. An apostate is a person who has turned his back on Islam. In short, you can’t quit the Islamic faith. It is simply not allowed in Islam!

Of course there are many men and women who do just that. They convert to other faiths for a variety of reasons and for the most part, do so with impunity. However, each and every man or woman who quits Islam and professes belief in another faith, such as Christianity, Judaism or whatever is subject to being killed, in the name of Allah! The Koran demands that an apostate be killed.

Is it of any consequence you continue to ask that Obama was once a Muslim, but is now a Christian? Obama is an apostate and it’s a very serious issue with 1.4 Billion Muslims around the world. Experts on Islam generally agree that someone who is born a Muslim (in effect, someone who had a Muslim father), who later renounces Islam, is considered an apostate, and vile enemy of Islam. Again, it’s Islamic law almost universally.

Should Obama become U.S. commander in chief, there is a strong likelihood that Al-Qaida’s media arm, As-Sahab, will exploit Obama’s background to argue that an “apostate” is leading the Global War on Islam and is attacking and killing fellow Muslims!" source: The New Media Journal

Although I realize that my message is received by too few people, and am literally "preaching to the choir". Wake up Americans and spread the message to your friends and neighbors before we awaken in the new Marxist state!

A Fact Check of Democrats Big Lie!

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

The Democrats are using the same lie that they have used for decades. Blaming the Republicans for any economic slow down!
Even the New Deal did not save Americans from the Great Depression. It was World War II that put thousands of people to work and built the still dominant military industrial complex.

Obama is trying to ride the housing crisis into the oval office by stating it is a time for change. What he does not tell you is that the mess we find ourselves in today, was caused by the Democrats. The following time line will show the truth about why and who caused our housing crisis and the continuing failure of too many banks!


1977: Pres. Jimmy Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act into Law.
The law pressured financial institutions to extend home loans to those who would otherwise not qualify. The Premise: Home ownership would improve
poor and crime-ridden communities and neighborhoods in terms of crime,
investment, jobs, etc.


Results: Statistics bear out that it did not help.

How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market?
Answer: Bill Clinton wanted it that way.

1992: Republican representative Jim Leach (IO) warned of the danger that
Fannie and Freddie were changing from being agencies of the public at
large to money machines for the principals and the stock holding few.

1993: Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's rules
turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized
monopolies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic voting blocks &
handing favors, jobs and contributions to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and now the collapse of Freddie and Fannie.

1994: Despite warnings, Clinton unveiled his National Home-Ownership Strategy which broadened the CRA in ways congress never intended.

1995: Congress, about to change from a Democrat majority to Republican, Clinton orders Robert Rubin's Treasury Dept to rewrite the rules. Robt. Rubin's Treasury reworked rules, forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-prime
and minority loans to get a satisfactory CRA rating. The rating was key to
expansion or mergers for banks. Loans began to be made on the basis of
race and little else.

1997 - 1999: Clinton, bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew Cuomo, then
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, allowing Freddie and Fannie
to get into the sub-prime market in a BIG way. Led by Rep. Barney Frank & Sen. Chris Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by easing capital limits and
allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments vs.
10% for banks. Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks their
enterprises boomed.

With incentives in place, banks poured billions in loans into poor communities, often "no doc", "no income", requiring no money down and no
verification of income.
Worse still was the cronyism: Fannie and Freddie became
home to out-of work-politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. 384 politicians got
big campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie. Over $200 million had been
spent on lobbying and political activities. During the 1990's Fannie & Freddie
enjoyed a subsidy of as much as $182 Billion, most of it going to
principals and shareholders, not poor borrowers as claimed.

Did it work? Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners
but many of those loans have gone bad and the minority home ownership rates are
shrinking fast.

1999: New Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at Fannie
and Freddie's excesses. Congress held hearings the ensuing year but nothing
was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen
and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place. "We
manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and
interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton
official and current Barrack Obama advisor, bragged to investors in 1999.

2000: Secretary Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to Congress seeking an end to the "special status". Democrats raised a ruckus as did
Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically connected CEO's who knew how to reward
and punish. "We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the
nation's housing and mortgage markets" Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said. It
was the last chance during the Clinton era for reform.

2001: Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie but Democrats blocked any attempt at reform; especially Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees and were huge
beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants.

2003: Bush proposes what the NY Times called "the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and
loan crisis a decade ago". Even after discovering a scheme by Fannie and Freddie to
overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost their bonuses, the Democrats
killed reform.

2005: Then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress: "We are placing the total financial system at substantial risk". Sen. McCain, with two others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, "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". Sen. Harry Reid accused the GOP ;of
trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie and Freddie to carry out their mission of
expanding home ownership" The bill went nowhere.

2007: By now Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of the $12
trillion US mortgage market. The mortgage giants, whose executive suites
were top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had been working with Wall St.
to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors. As the housing market
fell in '07, sub prime mortgage portfolios suffered major losses. The
crisis was on, though it was 15 years in the making.

2008: McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the behemoths, Bush urged reform 17 times. Still the media have repeated Democrats' talking points
about this being a "Republican" disaster. A few Republicans are complicit
but Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats,
largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats. That's why taxpayers are now
being asked for $700 billion!! source:Investors Business Daily

If you doubt any of this, just click the links below and listen to your
lawmakers own words. They are condemning!

_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68D9XrqyrWo&feature=related_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68D9XrqyrWo&feature=related) #
(http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/financial_crisis_08_democrat_policy_comes_home_to_roost/)

The chronology and facts above are not only fair but entirely accurate. The only thing I would add is that the bad loans were also sold to foreign banks and it is these troubled foreign banks that pressured the feds to step in with the bail out, not just “Wall Street”. That’s the dirty little secret. This is an international banking and investment bail out. Bush was getting pressure from the Europeans to back Fanny and Freddy bad debt instruments.

But it won’t matter. The majority of journalists are Socialist idealists who still delude themselves with fantasies that “if only we were in charge, we could make everything fair”. They ignore the misery and slavery these utopian fantasies have created around the world, and believe they can do it better. They are in the tank for Obama, so you won’t hear the truth on your local broadcast station, CNN, The New York Time or Comedy Central.

Hang on; things are going to get a LOT worse… Bush, McCain and the rest of the Republicans are inept at communicating this message and most Americans these days either have their hands out to the government or are too stupid to turn off Comedy Central and MTV. We are going to FEEL another colossal socialist experiment failure before everyone wakes up. In fact we are already feeling it, because Fanny and Freddy are a socialist experiment. We just might not be able to come back from this one without another revolution, after the democrats stack the Supreme Court and the federal bureaucracies with socialists. source:Ann and WM. Namgew