OBAMA’S GAMBLE: POSSESSION NINE TENTHS OF THE LAW

3 Comments

Although I”m not for McCain either……you have to wonder why is Obama being so elusive over revealing his birth certificate? Why not just get a copy recently when he was in Hawaii and end the questions….but instead the governor of Hawaii seals his birth certificate and government authorities in Kenya told Worldnet Daily that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4, 2008. What’s the big secret?

By: Devvy Kidd


October 30, 2008

© 2008 – NewsWithViews.com

While the disgraced mainstream media continues to ignore the constitutional crisis regarding Obama’s birth certificate, we the people will not be deterred from getting the truth.

Over the past two weeks I have received thousands of emails (which I cannot respond to one on one) from enraged Americans over Judge R. Barclay Surrick’s decision in Berg v. Obama, et al (see here). Americans are energized and faxed their state officials demanding Obama’s eligibility for ballot qualification be investigated. The responses from these elected public servants all provided basically the same response.

As Dr. Edwin Vieira pointed out in my conversation with him yesterday, an individual applying for a hunting license in Virginia must provide a real birth certificate, but an applicant for president of these united States of America doesn’t have to prove citizenship? Excellent point and it appears the states of the Union are willing to allow the DNC to defraud their citizens the right to vote for a legally eligible candidate because they fear riots by a certain race of voters.

The idiom, possession is nine tenths of the law, is EXACTLY what Obama is gambling on right now. If he can stall until November 4th when vote fraud will “elect him” if he’s the choice of the shadow government, Obama figures he’s home free. No doubt Obama is feeling empowered from the extreme bias by corporate media with one newspaper in New Mexico already declaring him the “winner.” In his bloated arrogance, Obama believes that if he’s “declared” the winner, he can just waltz into the Oval office because law enforcement, public officials and federal judges are scared black Americans will burn cities to the ground. In my opinion, they do an injustice to Americans of color. No doubt there are areas in some major cities which have the potential to go off the track, but not everyone of a certain race believes riots are the way to resolve an issue.

Obama’s gamble is that since this big hoax called an election is already underway with early voting, if he “wins” and is sworn into office, possession is nine tenths of the law and the hell with the Constitution. He’s now a step closer. One of the nine lawsuits filed at the state level has now been thrown out:

Judge tosses lawsuit over Obama citizenship

SEATTLE — “A King County judge said Monday that a lawsuit challenging Sen. Barack Obama’s qualifications to be president “may be a positive idea,” but threw it out because the law clearly prevents the secretary of state from getting involved..

Obama was in Hawaii from the afternoon of October 23rd to the morning of October 25th, ostensibly to visit his ailing grandmother. Hawaii is also the state Obama claims is his birthplace. In June, Obama released a copy of a birth certificate which was printed off a laser printer. It carries no state seal and cannot be verified.

While Obama was in Hawaii last week, he could have simply gone down to the Hawaii Department of Health on Friday, October 24th, requested a copy of the state sealed birth certificate, gone outside where the world’s media would be waiting since they follow him everywhere and presented the birth certificate for the world to see. Over, done, finished.

Instead, Obama flies back to the mainland leaving the issue unresolved. WND reports they were told by government authorities in Kenya that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4, 2008. What’s the big secret? Perhaps to black mail Obama down the road should he succeed in getting sworn in would be my guess. After all, Obama has a very cozy relationship with Odinga.

No sooner did Obama’s plane lift off the ground to return stateside, Hawaii “Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the candidate’s birth certificate under seal and instructed the state’s Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances.” The State of Hawaii says a birth certificate can be requested by the individual, authorized family members, authorized legal representative or by a court of law; see here.

When Phil Berg filed his lawsuit over two months ago, Obama could very easily have requested and obtained a ‘vault certificate’. That would have ended all this speculation and lawsuits to get to the truth. Instead, his high paid lawyers, along with defendants DNC and FEC, fought to get Phil’s lawsuit thrown out of court.

Obama’s campaign has been the most corrupt of my lifetime, surpassing even the Clinton duo. According to an investigation done by Kenneth R. Timmerman (see here): “More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won’t disclose.” I predict once investigations are underway by the FBI, we will see just how much money came in from unlawful sources – especially foreign donors. Obama doesn’t care at this point, he only need make it to coronation day and pay FEC fines later. After all, it’s not his money.

This brings me around to the issue of possible crimes being committed by both Gov. Lingle and Obama. If Gov. Lingle has seen a birth certificate or has been told by an official at the Hawaii Department of Health that “a” document will prove Obama does not meet eligibility requirements under Art. II, Sec.1 of the U.S. Constitution and she remains silent, is she guilty of defrauding the American people? She is the chief law enforcement officer for the State of Hawaii. If Gov. Lingle knows Obama is committing fraud by presenting himself as a natural born U.S. Citizen, isn’t she obligated under the law to expose such fraud?

I consulted with a friend who is a constitutional attorney with 30 years experience in federal court rooms about this very issue. If Obama has knowingly withheld his legal citizenship status in order to run for the presidency and has collected nearly a half billion dollars by perpetrating fraud, can he be charged and indicted?

This is my friend’s expert legal analysis:

“In the late 70s and early 80s, federal prosecutors often sought to indict and convict corrupt state officials by contending that such officials engaged in a “scheme to defraud” the citizens of a particular state of those public servants’ honest services. But in 1987, the Supreme Court held in McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987), that the mail and wire fraud statutes could not be stretched to encompass such a legal theory. In response, Congress adopted 18 U.S.C. §1346 to cure this defect in statutory language. Lots of corrupt local officials have been indicted and convicted for using the mails and wires to carry out a “scheme to defraud” the public via their “dishonest services.” See, as an example, United States v. Frega, 179 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 1999).

“A great controversy now exists regarding the constitutional qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, aka Barry Obama, aka Barack Dunham, aka Barry Dunham, to become President. The Constitution requires that any candidate for the office of President must be a natural born citizen. Yet, there is abundant evidence that this candidate is not natural born and thus is unqualified for that office. To address this specific problem, the Obama campaign has posted on its web site an alleged certified copy of his birth certificate (certificate of live birth?), thus clearly via use of interstate wires informing the American public that Obama does indeed possess the qualifications for President.

As Dr. Edwin Vieira wrote in his legal analysis, October 29, 2008:

Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that ought to be unnecessary. For Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise, he will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so.

I urge you to read Edwin’s full column because he shreds Judge Surrick’s absurd decision.

Lawsuit update (Hawaii), October 28, 2008: Andy Martin, J. D. and Professor of Law (Adj.):

Dear Judge Ayabe and Hon. Mark Bennett, Attorney General: “I spoke with the court’s judicial assistant on Monday, and today I am FedExing the original Order to Show Cause back to the court so I can obtain a new date. The court has indicated it will not hear me by phone on November 7th, so I must purchase airline tickets and clear several days to make a personal trip to Honolulu. That is a complicated process, particularly given the approaching holiday season. If I am assigned a new hearing date on October 29th (Wednesday), I can arrange to appear in person at a hearing in Honolulu on November 11th-14th (later in the week, Thursday or Friday, is better for me). I am also available November 18-21.”

As you can see, this is well after the massive vote fraud “election” coming up in a few short days.

I spoke briefly with Phil Berg yesterday. He and his colleague did not file their Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court due to time constraints, but will file today. He also mentioned some actions post Nov. 4th, but until we see the “declared” outcome I don’t feel I should comment on that right now. Phil also reinforced that there is no doubt in his mind that there is no birth certificate which will prove Obama’s citizenship and the Governor of Hawaii should be more careful with her choice of words.

While I wanted to send a fax, the FBI operators wouldn’t give me a number, so I sent a letter, along with Edwin’s column (printer friendly) to James Burrus, Chief Investigator of Election Fraud, Federal Bureau of Investigation, J. Edgar Hoover Building, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20535-0001. Because time is of the essence, I sent it over night mail; it should arrive in Burrus’ hands by Monday. My letter was short and to the point: Barack Obama refuses to provide proof of citizenship, which he could have done in less than an hour when he was in Hawaii last week. This issue is building into a constitutional crisis and if no one else will investigate, then the FBI has a duty to determine if Obama is committing federal crimes as outlined above. If enough pressure is brought to bear on the FBI, let them issue a subpoena for whatever documents are being held by the Hawaii Department of Health and then let’s see what Obama has to say.


Read entire articla © 2008 – NewsWithViews.com

Banks Pay $108b in Bonuses With Bailout Money Questioned

3 Comments

Gosh……talk about a sweet deal! Get billions from the federal government of taxpayer money and use over $100b of it for bonuses….what a great use of our money to say them from bankruptcy…..I’m about to post another article…Morgan Chase Exec Brags Bailout Is for Takeovers, Restructuring, Not Lending”

By Lorraine Woellert and Christine Harper

Oct. 28 (Bloomberg) — Congressional investigators demanded Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and seven other banks justify billions of dollars in pay and bonuses after they accepted $125 billion as part of a taxpayer-funded bailout.

In letters to the nine firms today, Representative Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said they collectively will pay $108 billion in employee compensation and bonuses in the first nine months of 2008, almost the same amount as last year.

“I question the appropriateness of depleting the capital that taxpayers just injected into the banks through the payment of billions of dollars in bonuses, especially after one of the financial industry’s worst years on record,” Waxman wrote. He cited an Oct. 27 Bloomberg News article detailing how Goldman, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch & Co. have already accrued $20 billion to pay bonuses this year.

The letter was also sent to Bank of America Corp., Bank of New York Mellon, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, State Street Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. Waxman asked the firms to supply the information by Nov. 10.

Citigroup “will adhere to the requirements in the government program including restrictions on executive compensation,” said Michael Hanretta, a New York-based spokesman of the bank, in an e-mail.

Spokespeople for the other firms declined to comment or didn’t immediately reply to requests for comment.

Senator Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican, issued a statement today saying she was “deeply frustrated by Wall Street’s plan to distribute billions of dollars” in pay and bonuses. “Financial institutions that have accepted federal assistance should be required to face consequences from their earlier bad decisions and cancel these bonuses,” she said.

Waxman also asked for the number of employees paid or projected to be paid more than $500,000, as well as the total and projected compensation for the banks’ 10 highest-paid employees.

Great Expectations

More than one-third of Wall Street employees surveyed by a recruitment Web site expect a bigger bonus this year than last year even amid the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

The online survey of 1,300 people was conducted between Oct. 13 and Oct. 21, according to an e-mailed statement from eFinancialCareers, owned by New York-based Dice Holdings Inc.

To contact the reporters on this story: Lorraine Woellert in Washington at lwoellert@bloomberg.net; Christine Harper in New York at charper@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: October 28, 2008 22:03 EDT

Read entire article at Bloomberg.com

Morgan Chase Exec Brags Bailout Is for Takeovers Not Lending

5 Comments

As you read this you might be interested to know that the depression in 1929 was also caused by the bankers doing pretty much the same thing then.……….have we the U.S. citizens learned anything from the past……..well we might have if we’d been told the truth in the first place.

Oct. 26, 2008 (EIRNS)—In an internal bank conference call last week, a JP Morgan Chase executive, unaware that his conversation would be heard and published by a reporter, confirmed exactly what Lyndon LaRouche has said about the Hank Paulson bail-out: It has nothing remotely to do with extending lending to the U.S. economy, but is concerned with the Mussolini-like corporatist restructuring of the U.S. banking system, turning over the “smaller banks” to the totally bankrupt big banks, so that they can digest the smaller banks’ assets, and survive perhaps a few more weeks.

New York Times reporter Joe Nocera obtained the call-in phone number on which the Oct. 17 Morgan Chase conference call took place, only 4 days after JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon had agreed to take $25 billion in a U.S. government capital injection. In an article in the Oct. 25 Times, entitled “So When Will Banks Give Loans?” Nocera quoted the unnamed JP Morgan Chase executive who gave the conference call, as follows:

“Twenty-five billion dollars is obviously going to help the folks who are struggling more than Chase,” he began. “What we do think it will help us do, is perhaps be a little bit more active on the acquisition side, or opportunistic side, for some banks who are still struggling. And I would not assume that we are done on the acquisition side, just because of the Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns mergers. I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way. And obviously depending on whether recession turns into depression or what happens in the future, you know, we have that as a backstop.” [emphasis added]

Read the entire article at Executive Intelligence Review:

‘Obamamania’ may assault Second Amendment, bring Fairness Doctrine

Comments Off

I know I’ve posted one article already on the “fairness doctrine”, but this one includes more “stuff” Obama could likely do as far as new laws and legislation that could be passed………Hold on to your hats as you read this one!

By Douglas Wellman Sr.

For The News-Sentinel

“Obamamania” having swept the nation through the anointing of Barack Obama by the liberal media and the money from likeminded socialists, it is, indeed, possible Obama will be our next president. Obama’s election will bring about an assault on many of our cherished American rights and freedoms.

I predict one of the first things we see will be the most draconian gun control bill introduced by Sen. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that will be supported by Obama. I predict this bill will make the unconstitutional gun ban enacted in 1994 and dubbed the “Clinton gun ban” look mild.

Obama’s record on the Second Amendment is as follows: 1. He has supported a complete ban on handguns; 2. He voted to ban most rifle ammunition; 3. He refused to sign a brief supporting an individual right in the “Heller” case; 4. He supported the lawsuits that were designed to destroy the firearm industry; 5. He opposes the right to carry for self-defense; 6. He supports gun registration (which in Germany before WWII was used to disarm the Jews and used in Australia to disarm its citizens); 7. He served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, a rabidly anti-Second Amendment organization; 8. He voted to allow prosecution of citizens for using firearms for self-defense in their own homes.

These are just a few of the problematic facts relating to Obama’s stand on the Second Amendment. He takes these positions despite the fact that wherever concealed- carry laws have been adopted, there has been a reduction in crime. You can also look forward to an international gun ban treaty, being funded by self-anointed messiah George Soros and put together by Rebecca Peters, who was behind the gun confiscation in Australia, to be presented eventually to the Senate for ratification.

Sadly, Obama’s position on the Second Amendment wasn’t even addressed in the debates. The reason for this is that when all of the facts are known, it’s a losing cause for the liberals.

You can also look for the liberals in Congress to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine will be an attempt to stifle conservative views by forcing the stations that air talk radio to provide equal airtime to the liberal viewpoints, which are everywhere every day except for talk radio.

The liberals for years have had control of the mainstream media. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The L.A. Times, USA Today, etc., have spewed forth liberal propaganda for years. The problem for them now is that there is talk radio and the Internet. They can’t stand the fact that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, Glen Beck and others have a venue to air their opinions. They are upset that many of their pet programs went down in defeat because they were exposed for what they were. How many times has the switchboard in Washington, D.C., been shut down with such a large volume of callers forcing a change in direction?

The Internet provided the platform to expose Dan Rather using a forged document in an attempt to influence an election.

Liberals attempted to compete in the market with conservative talk radio with their “Air America.” George Soros also kicked in several million dollars to get it off the ground. It failed because no one was listening. They could not get advertising as a result.

And let us not forget Obama’s plan for economic redistribution. Taking Americans’ hard-earned money and giving it to someone else. That is the only way he can give tax cuts to 95 percent of Americans.

Our Constitution will be under assault as it never has been before. James Madison, chief architect of the Constitution and our fourth president, said the following: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Be concerned. Be very concerned.

Douglas H. Wellman Sr. is a resident of Fort Wayne.

Most Presidents Ignore the Constitution

Comments Off

This is an excellent article by Andrew Napolitano whom you can watch on Fox News at times…..this article is from the Wall Street Journal and  Napolitano pulls no punches here:

The government we have today is something the Founders could never have imagined.

In a radio interview in 2001, then-Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama noted — somewhat ruefully — that the same Supreme Court that ordered political and educational equality in the 1960s and 1970s did not bring about economic equality as well. Although Mr. Obama said he could come up with arguments for the constitutionality of such action, the plain meaning of the Constitution quite obviously prohibits it.

[Commentary] Getty Images

FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court.

Mr. Obama is hardly alone in his expansive view of legitimate government. During the past month, Sen. John McCain (who, like Sen. Obama, voted in favor of the $700 billion bank bailout) has been advocating that $300 billion be spent to pay the monthly mortgage payments of those in danger of foreclosure. The federal government is legally powerless to do that, as well.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt first proposed legislation that authorized the secretary of agriculture to engage in Soviet-style central planning — a program so rigid that it regulated how much wheat a homeowner could grow for his own family’s consumption — he rejected arguments of unconstitutionality. He proclaimed that the Constitution was “quaint” and written in the “horse and buggy era,” and predicted the public and the courts would agree with him. (Horse and buggy era….now that sounds familar doesn’t it! Now days they tell us the Constitution is flexible and can change with the times…..that’s not what the founding fathers thought.)

Remember that FDR had taken — and either Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain will soon take — the oath to uphold that old-fashioned document, the one from which all presidential powers come.

Unfortunately, these presidential attitudes about the Constitution are par for the course. Beginning with John Adams, and proceeding to Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush, Congress has enacted and the president has signed laws that criminalized political speech, suspended habeas corpus, compelled support for war, forbade freedom of contract, allowed the government to spy on Americans without a search warrant, and used taxpayer dollars to shore up failing private banks.

All of this legislation — merely tips of an unconstitutional Big Government iceberg — is so obviously in conflict with the plain words of the Constitution that one wonders how Congress gets away with it.

In virtually every generation and during virtually every presidency (Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland are exceptions that come to mind) the popular branches of government have expanded their power. The air you breathe, the water you drink, the size of your toilet tank, the water pressure in your shower, the words you can speak under oath and in private, how your physician treats your illness, what your children study in grade school, how fast you can drive your car, and what you can drink before you drive it are all regulated by federal law. Congress has enacted over 4,000 federal crimes and written or authorized over one million pages of laws and regulations. Worse, we are expected by law to understand all of it.

The truth is that the Constitution grants Congress 17 specific (or “delegated”) powers. And it commands in the Ninth and 10th Amendments that the powers not articulated and thus not delegated by the Constitution to Congress be reserved to the states and the people.

What’s more, Congress can only use its delegated powers to legislate for the general welfare, meaning it cannot spend tax dollars on individuals or selected entities, but only for all of us. That is, it must spend in such a manner — a post office, a military installation, a courthouse, for example — that directly enhances everyone’s welfare within the 17 delegated areas of congressional authority.

And Congress cannot deny the equal protection of the laws. Thus, it must treat similarly situated persons or entities in a similar manner. It cannot write laws that favor its political friends and burden its political enemies.

There is no power in the Constitution for the federal government to enter the marketplace since, when it does, it will favor itself over its competition. The Contracts Clause (the states cannot interfere with private contracts, like mortgages), the Takings Clause (no government can take away property, like real estate or shares of stock, without paying a fair market value for it and putting it to a public use), and the Due Process Clause (no government can take away a right or obligation, like collecting or paying a debt, or enforcing a contract, without a fair trial) together mandate a free market, regulated only to keep it fair and competitive.

It is clear that the Framers wrote a Constitution as a result of which contracts would be enforced, risk would be real, choices would be free and have consequences, and private property would be sacrosanct.

The $700 billion bailout of large banks (click here) that Congress recently enacted runs afoul of virtually all these constitutional principles. It directly benefits a few, not everyone. We already know that the favored banks that received cash from taxpayers have used it to retire their own debt. It is private welfare. It violates the principle of equal protection: Why help Bank of America and not Lehman Brothers? It permits federal ownership of assets or debt that puts the government at odds with others in the free market. It permits the government to tilt the playing field to favor its patrons (like J.P. Morgan Chase, in which it has invested taxpayer dollars) and to disfavor those who compete with its patrons (like the perfectly lawful hedge funds which will not have the taxpayers relieve their debts).

Perhaps the only public agreement that Jefferson and Hamilton had about the Constitution was that the federal Treasury would be raided and the free market would expire if the Treasury became a public trough. If it does, the voters will send to Congress those whom they expect will fleece the Treasury for them. That’s why the Founders wrote such strict legislating and spending limitations into the Constitution.

Everyone in government takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. But few do so. Do the people we send to the federal government recognize any limits today on Congress’s power to legislate? The answer is: Yes, their own perception of whatever they can get away with.

Mr. Napolitano, who served on the bench of the Superior Court of New Jersey between 1987 and 1995, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His latest book is “A Nation of Sheep” (Nelson, 2007).

Read the article at the Wall Street Journal .com

You Really, Really Want to Know…or do you want to keep listening to the Dems?

6 Comments

OK…all you economic philosophers…what caused it all?  Greed?  George Bush?  The Bush economic policies?  There’s a lot of stones being thrown…now lets hear it from the horses mouth.  I have told you all from day one…wait, be patient and do research.  You will find the answer if you look hard enough and get your head out of that dark place.

Steve

 

Letter from an ex-Banker

 

Letter from an ex-Banker

 

To: My children, grandchildren, siblings, and all those I care about so very much.

The news that we hear about the coming election and the economic situation is certainly difficult to understand, and has very much captivated our interest level.

As the election gets closer, I think it’s important to understand the factors that contributed to America ‘s economic debacle.

I become very angry when I see Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, and Barney Frank extolling the virtues of how they have designed a relief package for the U.S. economy that will save us all from a financial nightmare.  I assure each and every one of you that these individuals will do anything, including a plan that is not in the best interests of average Americans, to propel their plan and get their party elected  – no matter what.

The above named individuals and others want you to believe that President Bush and wild greed and market failures and the lack of government regulations are what led us into this awful mess.  They also want you to believe that it was the sleazy bankers and real estate agents who created this scheme.

Well, perhaps there is some reason to blame those institutions, but there is much more to this story.

In 1992, I was employed as the Senior Executive responsible for mortgage loan production for the The Huntington Mortgage Company. I managed more than 200 loan originators through a network of 31 production offices operating in 17 states in the Midwest and along the Eastern Seaboard from Boston to Naples, Florida .

In 1993, we produced more than $1.5 Billion in loans to people purchasing homes in those markets.  These borrowers either placed a minimum of 20% cash (not borrowed) down or paid 10% down and obtained outside and independent mortgage insurance for the difference. But in no case less than 10% of their own money went into the purchase.

At that time, borrowers had to provide verification of where the down payment came from, and prove that it was not borrowed. They also had to provide documentation of their income, with no more than 28% of their income being allowed for mortgage payment, taxes, and insurance.

Additionally, an appraisal and other research about the property was required. This system worked. Only a very few loan defaults resulted over the years, but most of these loans had been refinanced with the much more liberal procedures created in the late 90′s and early 2000′s by the US Congress and President Bill Clinton.

Beginning in 1992, Congress pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their purchases of mortgages going to low and moderate income borrowers. HUD gave Fannie and Freddie explicit targets for this type of financing. By 2005, 52% of all mortgages that Fannie and Freddie purchased were for borrowers whose stated income was a minimum of 20% less than the median income within a census tract.

In 1994 and 1995, our mortgage company was besieged by the US Justice Department and the US Comptroller’s office, which had the responsibility for examining the practices of all nationally chartered banks.  Our company was charged with failure to make a satisfactory number of these loans in several census tracts, and Financial and operational penalties were imposed.  We were punished because we did not originate enough “bad” loans.  As a result of this prolonged examination and the subsequent penalties imposed, the senior management of our company was dismissed with one exception – yours truly.

However, I was replaced in the mortgage production position by another person. Instead, I was given the option to take another job with a 40% pay cut, and I was thus  significantly damaged financially. I stayed on only because I was close to retiring.

This was all a result of the US Congress, led at that time by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who were focused on strengthening The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. In the process they caused an increase of 80% in the number of bank loans going to low and moderate income families, who could never have qualified for the amounts they borrowed under our former policies. This gave birth to the practice of the recently discontinued “no Income, no asset” loans, and to the “no down payment loan” or 100% financing.

Today in the media you don’t hear that Frank and Dodd and other politicians played the primary role in creating artificially high housing prices and extremely risky assets in the form of Inflated housing values. Nor do you hear that subsequent efforts by more responsible politicians to put controls on Fannie and Freddie were beaten back by Frank and Dodd and their cronies, until a few weeks ago, when the house of cards collapsed.

When Frank and Dodd say that this is the fault of the Bush Administration, they are just out and out lying.

Our current crisis is the result of “class warfare” launched by bad politicians who gave their constituents something for nothing, in exchange for their own continued re-elections.

In any event, ponder what I am saying here, and understand that I know that it is true. I also know that continuing to elect people like this is not in any of our best interests. Handouts for votes can only result in more of this, as we experience the worst financial crisis since 1929.

Be extremely careful when you pull that lever on November 4,
2008.

 

Sincerely, Ross W. Walker

 

Just A Reminder as you Get The Vote Out

Comments Off

I can’t say it this well….thanks Carl!

My fellow Americans:


  
As your future President I want to thank my supporters, for your mindless support of me, despite my complete lack of any legislative achievement, my pastor’s relations with Louis Farrakhan and Libyan dictator Moamar Quadafi, or my blatantly leftist voting record while I present myself as some sort of bi-partisan agent of change.
  
I also like how my supporters claim my youthful drug use and criminal behavior somehow qualifies me for the Presidency after 8 years of claiming Bush’s youthful drinking disqualifies him. Your hypocrisy is a beacon of hope shining over a sea of political posing.
  
I would also like to thank the Kennedys for coming out in support of me. There’s a lot of glamour behind the Kennedy name, even though JFK started the Vietnam War, his brother Robert illegally wiretapped Martin Luther King, Jr. and Teddy killed a female employee with whom he was having an extra marital affair and who was pregnant with his child. And I’m not going anywhere near the cousins, both literally and figuratively. And I’d like to thank Oprah Winfrey for her support.  Her love of meaningless empty platitudes will be the force that propels me to the White House.
  
Americans should vote for me, not because of my lack of experience or achievement, but because I make people feel good.  Voting for me causes some white folk to feel relieved of their imagined, racist guilt.   I say things that sound meaningful, but don’t really mean anything because Americans are tired of things having meaning.  If things have meaning, then that means you have to think about them.

Americans are tired of thinking. It’s time to shut down the brain, and open up the heart.  So when you go to vote, remember don’t think, just do.   And do it for me.   
  
  
 
Thank You.
 
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. 

I Wonder How the Wealth is Spread here?

4 Comments

I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired of hearing people say that Barack Obama knows what change really means.  I just watched a commercial of him saying he knew what it was like to grow up poor.  Well, he may have, but his wife…hmmmm!

If you can’t see the amount for a mid afternoon lobster snack at the Waldorf….$447.39.  (Click the Image to Enlarge it) My pies aren’t THAT expensive…

 

 

Steve

EU President Calls For “Global Governance” To Solve Financial Crisis

Comments Off

Well now we have the EU president calling for Global government to solve our problems and everyone says this “new world order” talk is conspiracy theory stuff, but the EU president is saying it as well.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

The economic turmoil will be the focus of the two-day, 43-nation Asia-Europe Meeting, which opens Friday in Beijing, according to European Union President Jose Manuel Barroso, speaking at the EU’s Beijing office Thursday.

Leaders hope this week’s summit in China will help bring agreement on a response to the crisis ahead of a November 15 meeting hosted by U.S. President George W. Bush in Washington.

“We need a coordinated global response to reform the global financial system. We are living in unprecedented times and we need unprecedented levels of global coordination,” The Associated Press reported Barroso as saying. “It’s very simple. We swim together or we sink together.”

Barroso outlined no specific proposals but said a solution needed to be based on transparency, responsibility, cross-border supervision and global governance. He also said the world’s financial system needed “major reform.”

Read the full article at CNN here:

Democrat senator thinks America ‘well-served’ by Fairness Doctrine

2 Comments

Well here we go……Steve’s been predicting it and now it’s beginning to rear it’s ugly head…..What am I talking about? The Fairness Doctrine of course, which is anything, but fair…..


MEDIA MATTERS

Limbaugh fights ‘Hush Rush’ push

Democrat senator thinks America ‘well-served’ by Fairness Doctrine


Posted: October 22, 2008
7:50 pm Eastern 

By Joe Kovacs
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

On-the-air comments by a Democratic senator looking to bring back the Fairness Doctrine are sparking new fears the voices of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Savage could be silenced if Democrats control the White House and Congress.

Speaking on Albuquerque station KKOB, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., told host Jim Villanucci,”I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view, instead of always hammering away at one side of the political [spectrum].”

Instituted in 1949 when radio ruled the airwaves, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to allot airtime for controversial public matters, as well as time for opposing viewpoints. It was repealed in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan’s Federal Communications Commission, leading to an explosion in the numbers of talk shows and hosts.

Bingaman said when the doctrine was in effect, “there were a lot of talk stations that seemed to do fine.”

“For many, many years, we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country. I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since.”

Limbaugh, the most-listened to radio host in American history, blasted Bingaman’s comment that there were “a lot of talk stations” before 1987.

“A hundred twenty-five radio stations talking about carrot cake recipes for the holidays,” Limbaugh said. “Senator Bingaman, do you know how many talk-radio stations there are in America today? Try over 2,000 since the Fairness Doctrine was lifted, and on those 2,000 radio stations are countless points of view, from the extreme communist left to the wacko whatever it is way out on the fringe right. They’re all over the place.”

Limbaugh said it was clear that Bingaman “wants all of this kind of conservative talk, because it’s effective, shut down.”

Brian Maloney, who runs the Radio Equalizer blog, stated:

If enacted, the Fairness Doctrine (which is anything but) would create logistical nightmares for radio programmers, leading quickly to shuttered stations. The need to “balance” every viewpoint presented would also destroy the entertainment value of talk radio, driving away the audience.

With most major operators currently in deep financial trouble for unrelated reasons, these new restrictions on free speech could represent the final blow for the commercial broadcasting industry.

Even when confronted with the fact that Albuquerque is home to conservative and liberal commercial outlets, as well as public and satellite radio offerings, Bingaman still indicated he would support the move to silence talk radio.

In August, a poll by Rasmussen Reports found 47 percent of Americans believe the government should require stations to “balance” the political viewpoint expressed over the airwaves.

Rasmussen found, however, 71 percent say it is already possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media.

President Bush believes the so-called Fairness Doctrine is “Orwellian” and disagrees with its very concept.

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has expressed his opposition to bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, and an Obama aide told Broadcasting and Cable magazine in June that the debate is “a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible.”

Read the article here at Worldnetdaily

Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 396 other followers