Is Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Qualified for Head of State?

I’ve read and studied the Constitution a lot, but this is something I wasn’t aware of myself. Just one more thing to cause a firestorm if it isn’t done. Just like Obama and his birth certificate…if it is proved to be invalid there is no doubt there will be rioting in the streets…So many people just don’t want to follow the Constitution anymore….it hasn’t changed, we have.

---

---

CHANGING OF THE GUARD

Hillary to head State: Is it constitutional?

Founding Fathers included clause that prevents Clinton appointment

---

Posted: November 30, 2008
6:03 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Barack Obama, it has been reported, intends to announce Sen. Hillary Clinton as his choice for secretary of state, an appointment America’s Founding Fathers forbade in the U.S. Constitution.

The constitutional quandary arises from a clause that forbids members of the Senate from being appointed to civil office, such as the secretary of state, if the “emoluments,” or salary and benefits, of the office were increased during the senator’s term.

The second clause of Article 1, Section 6, of the Constitution reads, “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”

During Hillary Clinton’s current term in the Senate, the salary for Cabinet officers was increased from $186,600 to $191,300. Since the salary is scheduled to again be raised in January 2009, not only Hillary Clinton, but all sitting Senate members could be considered constitutionally ineligible to serve in Obama’s Cabinet.

James Madison’s notes on the debates that formed the Constitution explain the reason for the clause. Madison himself argued against “the evils” of corrupt governments where legislators created salaried positions – or increased the salary of positions – and then secured appointments to the cushy jobs they just created. Others agreed that such tactics were evident in Colonial and British government, and they wrote Article 1, Section 6 to prevent the practice.

Presidents in the past, however, have found a sometimes controversial way to skirt the clause and nonetheless fill their cabinet with constitutionally ineligible legislators.

n 1973, President Richard Nixon was able to appoint Sen. William B. Saxbe as his Attorney General, despite the fact the Saxbe was part of a Senate that nearly doubled Cabinet pay 1969, by convincing Congress to reduce Saxbe’s pay as Attorney General to its pre-1969 levels.

The sidestep, since known as the “Saxbe fix,” was also used by President Taft in 1909, President Carter and President George H. W. Bush, who actually implemented the fix to enable Sen. Lloyd Bentsen to serve as treasury secretary for President Clinton’s incoming administration.

The so-called “fix,” however, has been criticized as perhaps honoring the spirit of the law, but nonetheless violating a clearly written statute of the Constitution.

In the 1973 case, the Washington Post reports, 10 senators, all Democrats, voted against Saxbe’s appointment on constitutional grounds. Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., the only one of them who remains in the Senate, said at the time that the Constitution was explicit and “we should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the constitutional obstacle.”

“The content of the rule here is broader than its purpose,” Professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, a constitutional law expert at St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis, told MSNBC. “And the rule is the rule; the purpose is not the rule.”

“A ‘fix’ can rescind the salary,” Paulsen added, “but it cannot repeal historical events. The emoluments of the office had been increased. The rule specified in the text still controls.”

And at least one administration, that of President Ronald Reagan, chose to avoid the controversy of the Saxbe fix by striking Sen. Orrin Hatch from a short list of potential Supreme Court nominees because of Hatch’s ineligibility under Article 1, Section 6.

A 2008 executive order from President Bush created the increase, based on cost of living adjustments, leading some to argue that appointing Clinton doesn’t violate the spirit of the law in Article 1, Section 6, at all.

Andrew Malcolm, whose blog is featured by the Los Angeles Times, however, believes the Constitution needs to be strictly followed.

“We’re not lawyers. But we do speak English,” Malcolm writes. “And to our eyes that constitutional clause doesn’t say anything about getting around the provision by reducing or not benefiting from the increase of said ‘Emoluments.’”

Malcolm continues, “It flat-out prohibits taking the civil office if the pay has been increased during the would-be appointee’s elected term. Period. Which it has.”

Read the article at Worldnet Daily

Calling a Spade a Spade…unless it’s a UN Spade….

Folks, you’re being screwed behind your backs…and all the while going la, la, la – not listening.  Guess what, you will when BO signs us over to UN rule.  Oh that can’t happen?  Well, while our Supremes lollygag around the citizenship issue, and brainless people cheer BO on, we’re being flushed down the sewer.  Please, it’s time that Patriots who are left be vigilant and watchful!

 

Steve

 

 

The ultimate example of “the pot calling the kettle
black” has occurred at the United Nations. Muslim countries won
backing for a UN anti-blasphemy measure termed “Combating Defamation
of Religions” where it will be unlawful to say anything derogatory
about Islam. It passed with a vote of 85-50 with 42 abstentions in a
key UN General Assembly committee, and will enter into the
international record after an endorsement by the plenary later in the
year.

This resolution is part of a ten year plan launched in 2005 by the 57
Islamic states (you know, the states Obama said he wanted to
visit…oops, he meant the 50 United States). The aforementioned 57
states comprise the “Organization of Islamic Conference.” Since this
is a closed membership organization limited to Islamic countries, it
has no place in the UN, since religion is the sole determining factor
for membership.

To provide a quick glimpse into their charter, I will share just a
few key points here (the entire charter can be downloaded in PDF
format at this link):

Excerpted from Article 1:

1. To enhance and consolidate the bonds of fraternity and solidarity
among the Member States;

…

5. To ensure active participation of the Member States in the global
political, economic and social decision-making processes to secure
their common interests;

…

8. To support and empower the Palestinian people to exercise their
right to self determination and establish their sovereign State with
Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital, while safeguarding it’s historic
and Islamic character as well as the Holy places therein;

…

12. To protect and defend the true image of Islam, to combat
defamation of Islam and encourage dialogue among civilizations and
religions;

Excerpted from Article 2 (don’t laugh):

7. Member States shall uphold and promote, at the national and
international levels, good governance, democracy, human rights and
fundamental freedoms,and the rule of law;

Now, it is important to point out that “Article 3″ covers membership
which is held exclusively by and for Islamic states only.
Nonetheless, this is being reviewed by the UN, an organization that
is supposed to be representative of all nations, including non-
Islamic countries. The fact that the UN is actually involved in this
specific provision provides further proof, as if any more is needed,
of the utter uselessness of the concept of the United Nations
Assembly.

1. The Organization is made up of 57 States member of the
Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and other States which
may accede to this Charter in accordance with Article 3 paragraph 2.

2. Any State, member of the United Nations, having Muslim majority
and abiding by the Charter, which submits an application for
membership may join the Organization if approved by consensus only by
the Council of Foreign Ministers on the basis of the agreed criteria
adopted by the Council of Foreign Ministers.

The Charter goes on for pages and pages of Islamic promotion and
discrimination against non-Muslims.

It almost sounds as if the same author of the Muslim Brotherhood Plan
drafted this piece of garbage onto paper.

So what? you might ask.

The point to all of this is that Muslims and Islamic nations are
trying (and succeeding) to make it unlawful to speak out again Islam.

These are the same Muslim nations where it is unlawful to own a
Bible, where you are forbidden to wear such Christian items as a
cross around your neck, or possess or display Christian items on your
person or your clothing. Get caught with a Bible in Saudi Arabia…
get arrested.

But apparently that’s not enough. The Muslim nations want to UN to
make it unlawful to speak out against such intolerance.

If you’re still not convinced of the intolerance of Islam and the
agenda at play here, perhaps this little known fact might be an eye
opener:

During our liberation of Kuwait from Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf
War, American soldiers, our brave men and women who were wounded in
combat and requested that Last Rites be administered to them, were
forced to wait until they were out of Kuwait’s airspace because this
non-Muslim religious practice was not permitted on Muslim soil. What
a shining example of the Islamic double standard. They want us to
tolerate them yet they refuse to tolerate other religions.

Anyone out there that doesn’t see what is happening is ignorant,
blind or stupid. This underlying promotion of an “Islamic Ummah” is
only being touted at the UN for now, but just wait. It won’t be long
before some Muslim like Rep. Keith Ellison will try to get this same
type of idiocy introduced into legislation here in the United States.
It’s only a matter of time before they introduce a bill similar to
this into Congress and the White House to further disintegrate and
destroy the US Constitution.

C’mon, it’s not like Barack Hussein Obama, our Black Muslim future
Oval Office seat polisher will stand against it. Between well placed
kisses on Jeremiah Wright’s and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s backside
he’ll sign off on it before the afternoon basketball game at the
White House, while Bill Ayers tends bar for the afternoon before
retiring to the Lincoln bedroom.

You might wonder why I keep pounding on how our free speech is in
danger. It’s because I still can, at least until January 20, 2009
when Barack Hussein Obama gets the keys to the house of the people.

Be safe. Stay vigilant.

 

Randy Taylor, Independent Analyst

Jefferson – A Warning

Bill Foster sends me this one…it’s a shame we haven’t paid attention to the founders!

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe .
Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson


I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson


My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson

Very Interesting Quote

In light of the present financial crisis, it’s  interesting to read what Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

‘I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

Obama’s Poverty Act Would Put US Under UN Mandate

For a lot of us this is not new, but just in case some of our newer people haven’t heard about the Global Poverty Act sponsored by Obama….I thought I’d post an article about it……the poverty act isn’t a good thing………….

SENATE BILL S. 2433 THE GLOBAL POVERTY ACT

According to David Bossie, President of the group ‘Citizens United for American Sovereignty’, based out of Merrifield Virginia, website: http://www.citizensunited.org/

The above- mentioned Senate Bill (S. 2433) is a piece of legislation in the works that all Americans need to know about and know now!

This bill, sponsored by none other than Sen. Barack Obama, with the backing of Joe Biden on the Foreign Relations Committee, and liberal democrats in Congress, is nothing short of a massive giveaway of American wealth around the world, and a betrayal of the public trust, because, if passed, this bill would give over many aspects of our sovereignty to the United Nations.

The noble sounding name of this bill, ‘The Global Poverty Act’ is actually a Global Tax, payable to the United Nations, that will be required of all American taxpayers. If passed in the Senate, the House has already passed it, this bill would require the U.S. to increase our foreign aid by $65 BILLION per year, or $845 BILLION over the next 13 years! That’s on top of the billions of dollars in foreign aid we already pay out!

In addition to the economic burdens this potential law would place on our precarious economy, the bill, if passed in the Senate, would also endanger our constitutionally protected rights and freedoms by obligating us to meet certain United Nations mandates.

According to Senator Obama, we should establish these United Nations’ goals as benchmarks for U.S. spending. What are they?

The creation of a U.N. International Criminal Court having the power to try and convict American citizens and soldiers without any protection from the U.S. Constitution.

A standing United Nations Army forcing U.S. soldiers to serve under U.N. command.

A Gun Ban on all small arms and light weapons –which would repeal our Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The ratification of the ‘ Kyoto ‘ global warming treaty and numerous other anti-American measures.

Recently, the Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Relations (where Sen. Joe Biden sits) approved this plan by a voice vote without any discussion! Why all the secrecy? If Senators Obama and Biden are so proud of this legislation, then why don’t they bring it out into the light of day and let the American people have a look at it instead of hiding it behind closed doors and sneaking it through Congress for late night votes.

It may be only a matter of time before this dangerous legislation reaches a floor vote in the full body of the Senate.

Please write or call, email your representatives, the White House, the media, or anyone you think will listen, and express your opinions regarding this Global Tax giveaway and betrayal of the American people at a time when our nation and our people are already heavily burdened with the threats to our freedoms and economic prosperity.

Please send this email to as many folks out there in your networks as you can.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2433/text

Sharia Finance Coming to America ?

Here’s an eyeopening article about Sharia Law and how it may get it’s foot in the door here in America. It’s a long article, but good.

Sharia Finance: Last Gasp of a Doomed American Economy

November 11, 2008 | From theTrumpet.com

Forget forced Islamic compliance and the risk of extortion; America may not be able to survive without sharia money. By Robert Morley

Over the next year, the U.S. government will need to borrow somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 trillion, the most ever by far. Estimates go as high as $2 trillion, depending on how quickly the economy cools and how fast tax revenues fall. The simple question most of America has not asked is this: Where is the money going to come from? The federal government already knows the answer to that question, and it has implications Americans are not ready for but will soon be faced with.

America is going cap in hand to Middle East oil exporters. What government officials are not telling you is this: Islamic money comes with strings attached. Yes, sharia law “stipulates that money must not be used for a purpose incompatible with Islam” (Financial Times, April 26, 2007; emphasis mine). America will increasingly have to comply with sharia law, and what that entails isn’t pretty.

Sharia law is the religio-political-legal code that political Islam seeks to impose worldwide. With regard to banking, it bans the payment and collection of interest (a principle taught in the Bible as well), restricts what type of companies investors can be involved with (meaning no pork or alcohol handlers, etc.) and, in some cases, is blatantly used for the express purpose of working toward overthrowing the U.S. Constitution and government in favor of Islamic rule.

So it is astounding that Washington is embracing a set of foreign laws that have the potential to radically change life in America.

The stage has already been set, the Washington Times has reported. Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Robert Kimmitt recently visited Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Persian Gulf states for the express purpose of convincing the Arabs to recycle oil money back into America. While in Riyadh, Kimmitt said the government is studying how useful Islamic banking could be in fighting the current world economic crisis.

And now the Treasury Department has announced it will begin teaching “Islamic Finance 101″ to Congress, U.S. banking regulatory agencies, and parts of the executive branch.

“Evidently, the price demanded by his hosts is that the U.S. government get with the Islamist financial program,” says Frank Gaffney Jr., Washington Times columnist and president of the Center for Security Policy.

So the U.S. Treasury Department is submitting itself to sharia banking law because America desperately needs money. And the oil-rich Arabs have it. As Proverbs 22:7 says, “The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.”

But sharia-compliant finance is dangerous, especially the principal of zakat—which mandates that profits must be “purified” by donating 2.5 percent to approved “Islamic charities.” The charities are chosen by select sharia scholars such as Sheik Qaradawi, a premier sharia authority in the field of economics.

Qaradawi, for his part, recently stated that U.S.-style capitalism should be replaced with an “Islamic economic system.”

He is also currently banned from entering the United States and United Kingdom because of his links with terrorism.

Some of these “approved charities” are connected to militant Islam, and have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to terrorist organizations such as Hamas, al Qaeda, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the Algerian Armed Islamic Group, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian Gama’a al Islamiya, and the Tunisian An-Nahda.

“Sharia-compliant finance is a program that has been described by its leading practitioners as ‘financial jihad’ against the United States,” says the Coalition to Stop Sharia, a bipartisan coalition of public policy organizations and human rights groups.

Imagine the prospect of hundreds of U.S.-based companies contributing to Islamic charities and unknowingly funding anti-American organizations because they have taken sharia money from Islamic lenders. The amounts we are talking about could be astounding.

Sound far-fetched?

You may not have to imagine much longer. The U.S. banking crisis has struck hard. Washington isn’t the only one out of money. Many American companies are facing unprecedented credit crunches and are turning to foreign investment to keep daily operations running. And, like the U.S. government, many of these companies have plugged the gap with Islamic financing.

Even Boeing, the U.S. military contractor and largest aerospace company in the United States, announced October 31 that it had entered into talks with Gulf banks to obtain sharia-compliant funding. A report from the Royal Bank of Canada earlier this year said that hundreds of U.S. financial institutions were at risk of failure. These are companies that desperately need cash injections if they are to survive.

The simple reality is that the money needs to come from somewhere. And those with the money are those who dictate the terms.

Yesterday, the U.S. government announced it was giving aig another $40 billion loan. Taxpayers already own 80 percent of this company, but what taxpayers may not know is that aig is the mother company of aig Takaful Enaya, a sharia-compliant insurance company.

American taxpayers already obey sharia law.

But the bigger worry is that the U.S. Treasury may encourage troubled U.S. financial institutions that are already hungrily eying Arab petrodollars into even tighter agreements with Islamic lenders.

Thanks to the extraordinary power conferred on it since the approval of the $700 billion bailout package in September, the Treasury “is now in a position to impose its embrace of sharia on the U.S. financial sector,” Gaffney continues. The Treasury’s nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the purchase of—at last count—17 banks, and the ability to choose who gets loans and who doesn’t can translate into enormous coercive power. This is made all the more real since Assistant Treasury Secretary Neel Kashkari is intimately involved with the Islamic Finance 101 program.

Wall Street is broken, and Treasury officials realize the size of the crisis may exceed the government’s ability to contain it. As a result, the Treasury is doing everything it can to make foreign money available.

Unfortunately, the consequences of foreign indebtedness will not be contained to Wall Street.

“Sharia-compliant finance serves as a leading edge of the spear for those seeking to insinuate sharia into Western societies,” says Gaffney. Sharia law may be coming to a home near you.

Britain offers a good case in point. Earlier this year, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams invoked a storm of controversy when he said that it was “unavoidable” that sharia would be practiced in his country. His main support for this was that the UK had already submitted itself to sharia-compliant finance and that the social and religious aspects of sharia law were already flowing out from there.

Once you are the debtor, you increasingly lose the ability to resist the influence of the foreign lender—economically, socially, politically and otherwise. How do you say no to your creditors? In biblical terminology, the lender becomes the head and the borrower becomes the tail (Deuteronomy 28:44).

Now Britain is increasingly dealing with an internal Islamic society with its own parallel judicial system run by Islamic lawmakers. Her Majesty’s government has allowed the establishment of at least five sharia courts to hear family law cases. And polygamists in the UK can now also get public welfare for each of their wives as long as the second, third and/or fourth marriages were performed overseas.

In Canada, the quasi-legal, self-interest-group-dominated Human Rights Commission now has the power to levy fines and other punishments if it deems certain companies have offended Islamic practitioners. You can read about how the Canadian Islamic Congress dominates the Human Rights Commission in Canada, restricting freedom of speech and even religious expression, in “Canada’s War on the Bible and Free Speech.”

In America too, Islamic groups are pushing for a parallel legal system in which sharia law would be practiced. The American Muslim argues that American Indian tribal courts are a precedent that could be used as a model for an Islamic arbitral system in the U.S.

If sharia law coming to America doesn’t shock you, it is probably because you are unfamiliar with its full ramifications. Here are some of its more controversial aspects, as reported by WorldNetDaily:

• A woman is eligible for only half the inheritance of a man.
• A virgin may be married against her will by her father or grandfather.
• A woman may not leave the house without her husband’s permission.
• A Muslim man may marry four women, including Christians and Jews; a Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim.
• Beating an insubordinate wife is permissible.
• Adultery [or the perception of adultery] is punished by death by stoning.
• Offensive, military jihad against non-Muslims is a religious obligation.
• Apostasy from Islam is punishable by death without trial.
• Lying to infidels in time of jihad is permissible.

If you think living in America during the current economic downturn isn’t fun, think of what living in sharia America would be like.

Americans should be asking themselves some serious questions—and ones that go beyond whether or not they want to be subjugated to sharia law. Americans should ask why this country is even considering dealing with Islamic lenders in the first place. What has happened to this great nation that was once not just the lender to the world, but also the picture of prosperity?

Why are we in such a state that we are willing to go to such extremes as subjugating ourselves to aspects of sharia law? The truth is, sharia money is a last-ditch effort by the U.S. government to prop up America’s slowly falling economy.

What have we done to turn the world’s greatest lender into the world’s neediest borrower? You can find the answers to these critically important questions in The United States and Britain in Prophecy.

America being forced to go cap in hand to the Islamic Middle East for money? America’s forefathers would be astounded. The sad thing is that the economy is in such a precarious position that if foreigners stopped lending, the economy would seize up, businesses would collapse and the standard of living in America would revert multiple decades overnight. The borrower is servant to the lender. It is increasingly evident that America is a servant to its foreign creditors. •

Read the article here

Once again, Not Just our Words

Here is an example again on the case for Barack Obama’s citizenship.  For all those who doubt, riddle me this:  Why can’t he just present the certificate?  Carl sends me this from Family Security Matters and the article is by Joan Swirsky:

The Great Birth Certificate Scandal-Cover-Up of the 2008 Election

Joan Swirsky

 

This week, newscasters reported that al Qaeda’s #2 terrorist disparaged the election of Barack Obama, and hurled racial slurs at Obama himself. “The report has not been confirmed by the State Department,” they all said, but they reported it anyway.

 

Last week, Fox News reporter Carl Cameron told viewers that three “anonymous” insiders of Sen. McCain’s campaign said that Sarah Palin was, in essence, a diva and a dunce. He – and dozens of others who picked up the story on other channels – never identified, or even verified, the sources of the quotes, but they reported them anyway.

 

Contrast these shabby examples of “journalism” with the legions of identifiable, verifiable and credible sources who for months have been investigating the disturbing allegation that Barack Obama is ineligible for the presidency because he has failed to meet one of the three requirements that the U.S. Constitution mandates, specifically that he provide proof of his “natural born” U.S. citizenship.

 

What follows is a partial list of people and organizations that have challenged Obama’s eligibility. Further on I will comment on how egregious the media’s failure to cover this story has been. And last, I will speculate on the reason for the cover-up of this full-blown scandal.

 

Attorney Philip J. Berg, former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania and a longtime Democrat partisan, sued Obama and the Democratic National Committee for what he alleged was the DNC’s failure to vet Obama, and Obama’s failure to provide an authentic and verifiable U.S. birth certificate. The suit was dismissed as “too vague…” Berg filed a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct.30, to force Obama to produce his birth certificate. On Nov. 3, Justice David Souter rejected Berg’s emergency appeal for the court to halt the tabulation of the 2008 presidential election results, but set a schedule for a response from Obama, the DNC and all co-defendants on or before Dec. 1. Berg claims to have a tape recording of Obama’s Kenyan grandmother saying that she was present at Obama’s birth in Kenya, along with his half-brother and half-sister. Here is his website.

 

According to WorldNetDaily, blogger Jeff Schreiber said a second case was presented to the Supreme Court on the same issue, i.e., the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has waived its right to respond to a complaint brought by attorney Philip Berg, possibly – among other reasons – because they liked their odds of Berg’s petition getting denied. Berg said that if the FEC filed not solely on its own behalf but “on behalf of the DNC and Barack Obama too, it reeks of collusion.”

 

Dr. T.B. Bradley, a forensic psychologist, stated, as part of the Berg case, that, “Upon reading all of the books written by or about Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. aka Barry Soetoro (hereinafter Obama) Applicant discerned that Obama was not a natural born citizen of the United States or if he was a natural born citizen that he had lost his citizenship when his biological mother married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia. Obama then became a citizen of Indonesia as a result of his mother’s expatriation of herself and her son, by self declaration on legal public educational records that Obama was formally known as Barry Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia [and] was not US Constitutionally qualified to hold the Office of the United States Senator from Illinois or the Office of the President of the United States.”

 

Author, radio host, blogger, and Chicago attorney Andy Martin filed a suit in Hawaii’s Supreme Court to compel Gov. Linda Lingle to release a certified copy of Obama’s vital statistics record. His request was denied. On Nov. 18, he petitioned a judge in Hawaii for access to Obama’s original 1961 birth certificate, and reported that “the judge reserved judgment.” But when he arrived back in the states, he learned that Judge Bert Ayabe had dismissed the case.

 

Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes filed a suit with the California Secretary of State asking that the state’s 55 Electoral College votes not be cast on December 15 until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. Keyes’ suit was filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, along with California Electors Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson. The action states: “Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States, and, thereby, his election declared void….(a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.” Former California Secretaries of State have reviewed background documents to verify the eligibility of candidates.

 

In 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for POTUS. Then Secretary of State, Frank Jordan, found that according to Cleaver’s birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the age needed to be on the ballot. Mr. Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. Cleaver unsuccessfully challenged this decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California and to the Supreme Court.

 

Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan, a retired 23-year veteran of the Army, National Guard, and Air Force filed another suit in North Carolina, which claimed Obama should not have been on the state’s election ballot because his citizenship is in doubt.

 

David M. Neal of Ohio filed a suit in Warren Common Pleas Court to force the Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

 

Cort Wrotnowski of Connecticut asked the court to order Secretary of State, Susan Bysiewicz, to verify Obama’s citizenship before allowing the candidate to appear on the state ballot. The case was denied.

 

Steven Marquis filed a suit Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State, Sam Reed, to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day, claiming the Hawaii birth certificate reveals neither the hospital where Obama was born nor a doctor’s name the baby’s footprint. The case was denied.

 

Rev. Tom Terry of Georgia appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court the day before the election to determine authenticity of Obama’s original birth certificate and his qualifications to be president. Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter denied Terry’s request for an injunction against Secretary of State Karen Handel.

 

Author Jerome Corsi, who has written extensively about this case, traveled to Hawaii and Kenya. He learned that the Certification of Live Birth that the Obama campaign posted is, according to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, not the same as a Certificate of Live Birth, which authenticates Hawaiian birth.

 

Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. In November 2004 she said he was born at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, but in February 2008, she said he was born in the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children. Before the election, the Internet site, WorldNetDaily, retained a private investigator in Hawaii to visit both hospitals, but he reported that sheriff’s deputies were stationed at both hospitals to fend off inquiries.

 

Leo C. Donofrio a retired attorney, started a website (supporting link) and filed a suit in New Jersey on November 3, asking Secretary of State, Nina Mitchell Wells, for an emergency stay prohibiting Obama, Sen. McCain, and Socialist Worker’s Party candidate Roger Calero, from appearing on New Jersey’s ballot, claiming all three are not “natural born citizens.” On Nov. 6, Supreme Court Justice David Souter denied Donofrio’s application. But the case has now entered the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice Clarence Thomas has decided to send it to conference on December 5th! This means that only 10 days before the Electoral College votes, the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will meet privately to discuss Donofrio’s case.

 

Douglas J. Hagmann, director of HomelandSecurityUS.com, has reported that 17 lawsuits in 12 states are challenging the eligibility of Obama to become the next President of the United States.

 

Numerous activist groups have undertaken letter-writing campaigns to the Supreme Court Justices, members of the Electoral College, and elected officials, as well as sending urgent appeals to the White House and the Department of Justice.

 

Websites like Citizens for the United States Constitution, We The People, PeoplesPassion, America Must Know, and Faith2Action have sprung up in passionate defense of our Constitution’s integrity. The last of these has even posted the names and addresses of Electoral College members from each state, as well as an ad in The Washington Times.

 

Dozens of petitions, like this one, have been circulated.

 

And dozens of mostly-conservative writers (including Devy Kidd and Miichelle Malkin), bloggers and journalists have written about his strange case and potential Constitutional crisis, as I have in a series of articles – here and here and here and here.

 

Coverage of the above by the media: Zero.

 

A DEAFENING SILENCE

 

It is no mystery that the leftist media have refused to mention this potentially looming Constitutional crisis in virtually all of their print and electronic coverage. Having shilled for Obama for the past two years – dismissing his longtime radical associations, obfuscating his radical voting record, and taking a pass at their jobs of vetting a presidential candidate - their failure to cover the most explosive story of the 2008 campaign speaks volumes about collusion of the highest order.

 

Then there are the late-night comics, as well as snarky “humorists” like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart, who take pride in being irreverent and “outing” both people and subjects that others avoid. Not a word.   

 

But what about the failure of the powerful conservative media – how to explain their total blackout of this story? Let’s look at their reactions:

 

Fox News: Total Silence. Did the healthy shares that Saudi Arabia bought of Fox influence the network’s non-coverage of this story? After all, it’s no secret which candidate the Saudis endorsed! We know that TV shows, including Fox, are on a seven-second delay, the better to bleep out offensive or inappropriate material. Doesn’t it strike Fox viewers as strange that not one of their outspoken guests, even once, mentioned this story? Who warned them not to?

 

Rush Limbaugh: Total Silence. Why has the Excellence-in-Broadcasting’s “Dr. of Democracy” – the man who eats sacred cows for breakfast – not touched this story?

 

Mark Levin: Total Silence. Why has this popular radio host, commonly known as “the Great One,” abandoned his well-deserved reputation as a Constitutional scholar to studiously not address this Constitutional issue?

 

Laura Ingraham: Total Silence. Here is another radio powerhouse and former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas taking pains not to mention this case…not a word!

 

Bill O’Reilly: Total Silence. Yes, the guy who claims he’s “just looking out for the folks”…voiceless!

 

Sean Hannity: Total Silence. The iconic radio and TV host who tackles every controversial subject under the sun…missing in action!

 

I could go on and on, but you get the picture. The very people – the so-called loyal opposition – who should have been shouting this story from the rooftops for months on end went mute. Ordinarily they would be the first to tell you that our Republic has no more precious document than the U.S. Constitution – a document that set the stage for the greatest experiment in human freedom since the beginning of recorded history. People like me – and multi-millions of others – are aware of what happens when the “salami tactics” of tyrants are employed in the service of leftwing ideology.

 

First, there is a charismatic character promising “change” and “hope,” but who changes his tune once in power. Second there is a whittling down of the laws of the land and the arrogant dismissal of the documents on which the nation was founded. Third there is the blacking-out of all media that disagree with Dear Leader’s message. And fourth there is the rounding-up and incarceration – or worse – of all dissidents.

 

This is not theory. This is history. But while both left and right media thought it appropriate to comment at length about Obama’s seven-page Questionnaire for those seeking work in his administration – a probing that makes a Pap Test, mammogram, colonoscopy, and endoscopy in one visit seem mild by comparison – not one of these cowardly journalists has asked the simple question: Mr. Obama, where is your birth certificate?

 

Or were they not cowards but patriots?

 

SCROUNGING FOR ANSWERS

 

I’ve written several books, not one of them fictional. And thousands of articles, not one of them based on sinister suspicions or conspiracy theories. But the case of the U.S. media’s complete non-coverage of this major story has gotten me to speculate on what – or who – may be behind this phenomenon. What force could be so powerful as to silence our country’s putative guardians of free speech – the titans of the Fourth Estate?

 

Perhaps the mystery goes back to 2004, when President Bush won his second term in office and in his first press conference in the White House said that he had “earned political capital and intended to spend it.”

 

Then – suddenly and inexplicably – he went into a year-long hibernation. He rarely appeared in public and gave no major speeches. Finally he reemerged – albeit weakly – in late November or early December of 2005

 

Could it be that shortly after the president’s reelection, he and major government officials received highly credible evidence from America’s ruthless Islamist enemies that they had a number of devastating (probably nuclear suitcase) weapons – set up and ready to be activated in as many as six-to-10 of our major cities – unless he (the president) tacked left and played nice for the following two years?

 

Was America taken hostage?

 

The president, one could speculate, had only two choices: (1) play “chicken” and possibly sacrifice the lives of millions of Americans and the destruction of major American cities, or (2) opt for the lesser of two evils, the second being to pave the way for a dangerous Trojan Horse – qualified or not – to capture the White House.

 

Could it be that the media blackout of the most explosive story of any presidential election in American history has been choreographed by none other than the current POTUS – the most powerful man in the entire world? This would certainly explain why President Bush has not “been himself” since January 20, 2005. It would also explain why the all-powerful media have taken his marching orders – including the New York Times, which takes particular pleasure in undermining and sabotaging the president, even when it comes to national security issues.

 

If this happened, it would have had to involve the highest echelon in our intelligence services, who might have paid personal visits to publishers throughout the United States, as well as to top TV and radio executives, who themselves would have passed down iron-clad orders – to their anchors, broadcasters, even comedians – to follow the blackout order or face Draconian consequences. Clearly, they followed their marching orders.

 

On November 4 – Election Day – the Dow was above 9,000. It is now plummeting to below 7,000, suggesting that even the “globalists” among us prefer tax cuts and capitalism to tax hikes and not creeping but galloping socialism – or what the esteemed Dr. Jack Wheeler insists is fascism. 

 

Buyers’ remorse is in the air. America has been hijacked. What a price we will pay if the Supreme Court and the Electoral College abandon their oaths to uphold the U.S. Constitution by capitulating – as the media have – to our enemies. God Save America!

Does Sharia Law Threaten America ?

---

---

HOMELAND INSECURITY

Campaign warns Americans about looming Shariah code

Detroit billboard says religious law imposed by Islam threatens rights

---

Posted: November 28, 2008
1:35 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Shariah, or Islamic law, may be spreading around the world, but it isn’t going to be established in the United States without opposition, vow members of the United American Committee.

Officials with the non-profit have erected a 48-foot-long billboard just outside of Detroit, home to one of the largest groups of Muslims in the U.S.

“SHARIA LAW THREATENS AMERICA,” warns the sign.

The UAC says it’s “dedicated to awakening the nation to the threats of radical Islam” and works to “educate Americans on the nature of Islamic extremism.”

The group’s mission is to battle against “the ideological aspects of the war on terror to counter elements of radical Islam in America.”

“Shariah law is a legal system recognized in many Islamic countries such as the former Taliban regime of Afghanistan, and currently Saudi Arabia, and is a legal system which dictates beheadings, stonings, and other punishments for what are listed as crimes under Shariah such as homosexuality and adultery, and according to critics views women as inferior granting them little rights,” the organization stated.

Tom Trento, a spokesman, said, “Muslims are the biggest victims of Shariah law in the world. We hope this message inspires the Muslims of America who came to this country to escape Shariah to stand up against it.”

The organization’s website, whose address is featured on the billboard, highlights a video of Wafa Sultan, a Syrian Muslim who escaped the Middle East and has become a fierce critic of Islam and Shariah.

“At times, it feels to me that Shariah is following me to the United States,” Sultan says in the video, referring to radical Islamic charities and organizations operating in the U.S.

Sultan also points out that in Britain and France Shariah is being enforced in various ways in certain communities. Britain recently sanctioned the establishment of Shariah courts for civil matters among Muslims, the UAC noted.

“Our Constitution is not compatible with Shariah,” Sultan said. Under the religious rules, “Women and children are deprived of rights we in the West take for granted.”

“Homeless in America is more attractive to me than living as a woman under Shariah,” she added. “I don’t want to face again the hell that I had kicked off 20 years ago. My biggest obligation is to preserve the free spirit of this wonderful country and not allow destructive forces to ruin it.”

The UAC billboard is in Luna Pier, 10 miles north of Toledo and 20 miles south of Detroit on Interstate 75, officials said.

The announcement about the sign comes as Islam expert Daniel Pipes warns in a report in the Jerusalem Post Shariah is advancing one step at a time into Western Europe and North America.

Pipes cited the recent case of a Scottish judge who “bent” the law to acknowledge a polygamous household, a status allowed under Shariah.

“The case involved a Muslim male who drove 64 miles per hour in a 30 mph zone – usually grounds for an automatic loss of one’s driving license. The defendant’s lawyer explained his client’s need to speed: ‘He has one wife in Motherwell and another in Glasgow and sleeps with one one night and stays with the other the next on an alternate basis. Without his driving license he would be unable to do this on a regular basis,’” Pipes reported.

“Sympathetic to the polygamist’s plight, the judge permitted him to retain his license,” he said.

The report said the ruling suggests monogamy, “long a foundation of Western civilization, is silently eroding under the challenge of Islamic law.”

Pipes reported at least six Western jurisdictions now accept harems, including Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Australia and Canada. Canada, for example, acknowledges “a marriage that is actually or potentially polygamous, if it was celebrated in a jurisdiction whose system of law recognizes it as valid.”

WND reported just days ago a Heritage Foundation expert’s warning the U.S. also needs to maintain active opposition to plans for “religious anti-defamation” laws both within its borders and on an international scale or face consequences.

In a report published on the foundation’s website,  Steven Groves said the U.S. “must remain wary of continuing efforts by U.N. member states to gain wider acceptance of the ‘defamation of religions’ concept.” The proposal primarily targets any criticism of Islam.

Proponents “will continue to push the ‘defamation of religions’ agenda at the U.N. Human Rights Council, the U.N. General Assembly, and at other international forums such as the April 2009 Durban Review Conference,” Groves warned.

Groves is the Heritage Foundation’s Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies.

He also said within its own borders, the U.S. should refuse to recognize “a new legal cause of action that bans insults or criticism of religion,” because it would provide no benefit whatsoever.

States already have laws to condemn religious discrimination and prosecute acts of incitement to violence, he argued. The federal government “should tread extremely lightly where disputes over religious doctrine are concerned. The U.S. does not need a national speech code that would restrict the First Amendment rights of Americans, no matter how offensive that speech may be to any particular religious denomination.”

Groves cited the 2005 attempt by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., who wanted to require that the Islamic holy book, the Quran, be treated with “dignity and respect.”

“Any attempt to establish a criminal or civil ‘defamation of religions’ law in the United States … must be strongly opposed,” Groves said. “Attempts to introduce such legislation may be incremental – notably, in May 2005, when a group of U.S. congressmen sponsored a resolution,” he said. “Such piecemeal legislation must be closely guarded against.”

WND previously reported the original U.N. plan that could turn ordinary Christians in America into international criminals.

U.S. Department of the Treasury

WND also has reported the Treasury Department has announced it will teach “Islamic finance” to U.S. banking regulatory agencies, Congress and other parts of the executive branch.

According to its announcement, the “Islamic Finance 101″ forum is “designed to help inform the policy community about Islamic financial services, which are an increasingly important part of the global financial industry.”

The Treasury Department has collaborated with Harvard University’s Islamic Finance Project to coordinate its instructions.

Revealingly, a recent report in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND, said Britain’s MI6 intelligence service identified a group that raises funds with impunity in London as the organization whose militia members in Somalia imposed a Shariah death sentence on a 13-year-old rape victim.

The report describes how the group recently imposed the brutal punishment on a child in the Somalian town of Kismayo.

A 13-year-old girl, described in an intelligence report as “little more than a pretty child,” was sentenced to be stoned to death by the all-male court.

It imposed the sentence on Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow after she had complained to the local Shariah court that she had been gang-raped by, among others, her cousins.

But the court found her guilty of adultery and sentenced her to death by stoning.

She was taken from the courthouse to a local sports stadium. There she was buried up to her neck in sand and then stoned in front of a 1,000-strong crowd.

Read the article at Worldnet Daily

Want the Truth about the Bailout?

Here’s another one from my friend Carl.  I will include his comments as well.  Please, open your eyes.

Remember when we were assured the liquidity problem would be corrected with only a 750 to 800 billion dollar one-time bail-out of the ailing banking and mortgage lending system??  Boy, were many of us suckers.  Most of us BELIEVED those sharks, Bernanke and Paulson!!  Read all about the REAL cost of this bail-out below and try to figure out what is REALLY going to happen because of it…  

…and don’t take any politician’s word for it.  When their lips are flapping, they’re almost certainly lying to us, excepting Dr. Ron Paul.  Last time they lied to us, they accomplished the greatest money and power grab in the history of America.  What will their next lie do to us?? 

Perhaps it’s finally time to abolish the Federal Reserve System which is NOT Federal and has NO reserve.  It’s a major lie that WILL be corrected sooner or later.  If sooner, we may have a country left that can be salvaged.  If later, it will be after America is deceased as a sovereign nation…

Carl

=================

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=arEE1iClqDrk

U.S. Pledges Top $7.7 Trillion to Ease Frozen Credit (Update2)

Email | Print | A A A

 

By Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry

Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. government is prepared to provide more than $7.76 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers after guaranteeing $306 billion of Citigroup Inc. debt yesterday. The pledges, amounting to half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.

The unprecedented pledge of funds includes $3.18 trillion already tapped by financial institutions in the biggest response to an economic emergency since the New Deal of the 1930s, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The commitment dwarfs the plan approved by lawmakers, the Treasury Department’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Federal Reserve lending last week was 1,900 times the weekly average for the three years before the crisis.

When Congress approved the TARP on Oct. 3, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson acknowledged the need for transparency and oversight. Now, as regulators commit far more money while refusing to disclose loan recipients or reveal the collateral they are taking in return, some Congress members are calling for the Fed to be reined in.

“Whether it’s lending or spending, it’s tax dollars that are going out the window and we end up holding collateral we don’t know anything about,” said Congressman Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican who serves on the House Financial Services Committee. “The time has come that we consider what sort of limitations we should be placing on the Fed so that authority returns to elected officials as opposed to appointed ones.”

Too Big to Fail

Bloomberg News tabulated data from the Fed, Treasury and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and interviewed regulatory officials, economists and academic researchers to gauge the full extent of the government’s rescue effort.

The bailout includes a Fed program to buy as much as $2.4 trillion in short-term notes, called commercial paper, that companies use to pay bills, begun Oct. 27, and $1.4 trillion from the FDIC to guarantee bank-to-bank loans, started Oct. 14.

William Poole, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, said the two programs are unlikely to lose money. The bigger risk comes from rescuing companies perceived as “too big to fail,” he said.

‘Credit Risk’

The government committed $29 billion to help engineer the takeover in March of Bear Stearns Cos. by New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. and $122.8 billion in addition to TARP allocations to bail out New York-based American International Group Inc., once the world’s largest insurer.

Citigroup received $306 billion of government guarantees for troubled mortgages and toxic assets. The Treasury Department also will inject $20 billion into the bank after its stock fell 60 percent last week.

“No question there is some credit risk there,” Poole said.

Congressman Darrell Issa, a California Republican on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said risk is lurking in the programs that Poole thinks are safe.

“The thing that people don’t understand is it’s not how likely that the exposure becomes a reality, but what if it does?” Issa said. “There’s no transparency to it so who’s to say they’re right?”

The worst financial crisis in two generations has erased $23 trillion, or 38 percent, of the value of the world’s companies and brought down three of the biggest Wall Street firms.

Markets Down

The Dow Jones Industrial Average through Friday is down 38 percent since the beginning of the year and 43 percent from its peak on Oct. 9, 2007. The S&P 500 fell 45 percent from the beginning of the year through Friday and 49 percent from its peak on Oct. 9, 2007. The Nikkei 225 Index has fallen 46 percent from the beginning of the year through Friday and 57 percent from its most recent peak of 18,261.98 on July 9, 2007. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is down 78 percent, to $53.31, on Friday from its peak of $247.92 on Oct. 31, 2007, and 75 percent this year.

Regulators hope the rescue will contain the damage and keep banks providing the credit that is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy.

Most of the spending programs are run out of the New York Fed, whose president, Timothy Geithner, is said to be President- elect Barack Obama’s choice to be Treasury Secretary.

‘They Got Snookered’

The money that’s been pledged is equivalent to $24,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. It’s nine times what the U.S. has spent so far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Congressional Budget Office figures. It could pay off more than half the country’s mortgages.

“It’s unprecedented,” said Bob Eisenbeis, chief monetary economist at Vineland, New Jersey-based Cumberland Advisors Inc. and an economist for the Atlanta Fed for 10 years until January. “The backlash has begun already. Congress is taking a lot of hits from their constituents because they got snookered on the TARP big time. There’s a lot of supposedly smart people who look to be totally incompetent and it’s all going to fall on the taxpayer.”

President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal of the 1930s, when almost 10,000 banks failed and there was no mechanism to bolster them with cash, is the only rival to the government’s current response. The savings and loan bailout of the 1990s cost $209.5 billion in inflation-adjusted numbers, of which $173 billion came from taxpayers, according to a July 1996 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office, now called the Government Accountability Office.

‘Worst Crisis’

The 1979 U.S. government bailout of Chrysler consisted of bond guarantees, adjusted for inflation, of $4.2 billion, according to a Heritage Foundation report.

The commitment of public money is appropriate to the peril, said Ethan Harris, co-head of U.S. economic research at Barclays Capital Inc. and a former economist at the New York Fed. U.S. financial firms have taken writedowns and losses of $666.1 billion since the beginning of 2007, according to Bloomberg data.

“This is the worst capital markets crisis in modern history,” Harris said. “So you have the biggest intervention in modern history.”

Bloomberg has requested details of Fed lending under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and filed a federal lawsuit against the central bank Nov. 7 seeking to force disclosure of borrower banks and their collateral.

Collateral is an asset pledged to a lender in the event a loan payment isn’t made.

‘That’s Counterproductive’

“Some have asked us to reveal the names of the banks that are borrowing, how much they are borrowing, what collateral they are posting,” Bernanke said Nov. 18 to the House Financial Services Committee. “We think that’s counterproductive.”

The Fed should account for the collateral it takes in exchange for loans to banks, said Paul Kasriel, chief economist at Chicago-based Northern Trust Corp. and a former research economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

“There is a lack of transparency here and, given that the Fed is taking on a huge amount of credit risk now, it would seem to me as a taxpayer there should be more transparency,” Kasriel said.

Bernanke’s Fed is responsible for $4.74 trillion of pledges, or 61 percent of the total commitment of $7.76 trillion, based on data compiled by Bloomberg concerning U.S. bailout steps started a year ago.

“Too often the public is focused on the wrong piece of that number, the $700 billion that Congress approved,” said J.D. Foster, a former staff member of the Council of Economic Advisers who is now a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. “The other areas are quite a bit larger.”

Fed Rescue Efforts

The Fed’s rescue attempts began last December with the creation of the Term Auction Facility to allow lending to dealers for collateral. After Bear Stearns’s collapse in March, the central bank started making direct loans to securities firms at the same discount rate it charges commercial banks, which take customer deposits.

In the three years before the crisis, such average weekly borrowing by banks was $48 million, according to the central bank. Last week it was $91.5 billion.

The failure of a second securities firm, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., in September, led to the creation of the Commercial Paper Funding Facility and the Money Market Investor Funding Facility, or MMIFF. The two programs, which have pledged $2.3 trillion, are designed to restore calm in the money markets, which deal in certificates of deposit, commercial paper and Treasury bills.

Lehman Failure

“Money markets seized up after Lehman failed,” said Neal Soss, chief economist at Credit Suisse Group in New York and a former aide to Fed chief Paul Volcker. “Lehman failing made a lot of subsequent actions necessary.”

The FDIC, chaired by Sheila Bair, is contributing 20 percent of total rescue commitments. The FDIC’s $1.4 trillion in guarantees will amount to a bank subsidy of as much as $54 billion over three years, or $18 billion a year, because borrowers will pay a lower interest rate than they would on the open market, according to Raghu Sundurum and Viral Acharya of New York University and the London Business School.

Congress and the Treasury have ponied up $892 billion in TARP and other funding, or 11.5 percent.

The Federal Housing Administration, overseen by Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Steven Preston, was given the authority to guarantee $300 billion of mortgages, or about 4 percent of the total commitment, with its Hope for Homeowners program, designed to keep distressed borrowers from foreclosure.

Federal Guarantees

Most of the federal guarantees reduce interest rates on loans to banks and securities firms, which would create a subsidy of at least $6.6 billion annually for the financial industry, according to data compiled by Bloomberg comparing rates charged by the Fed against market interest currently paid by banks.

Not included in the calculation of pledged funds is an FDIC proposal to prevent foreclosures by guaranteeing modifications on $444 billion in mortgages at an expected cost of $24.4 billion to be paid from the TARP, according to FDIC spokesman David Barr. The Treasury Department hasn’t approved the program.

Bernanke and Paulson, former chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, have also promised as much as $200 billion to shore up nationalized mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a pledge that hasn’t been allocated to any agency. The FDIC arranged for $139 billion in loan guarantees for General Electric Co.’s finance unit.

Automakers Struggle

The tally doesn’t include money to General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC. Obama has said he favors financial assistance to keep them from collapse.

Paulson told the House Financial Services Committee Nov. 18 that the $250 billion already allocated to banks through the TARP is an investment, not an expenditure.

“I think it would be extraordinarily unusual if the government did not get that money back and more,” Paulson said.

In his Nov. 18 testimony, Bernanke told the House Financial Services Committee that the central bank wouldn’t lose money.

“We take collateral, we haircut it, it is a short-term loan, it is very safe, we have never lost a penny in these various lending programs,” he said.

A haircut refers to the practice of lending less money than the collateral’s current market value.

Requiring the Fed to disclose loan recipients might set off panic, said David Tobin, principal of New York-based loan-sale consultants and investment bank Mission Capital Advisors LLC.

‘Mark to Market’

“If you mark to market today, the banking system is bankrupt,” Tobin said. “So what do you do? You try to keep it going as best you can.”

“Mark to market” means adjusting the value of an asset, such as a mortgage-backed security, to reflect current prices.

Some of the bailout assistance could come from tax breaks in the future. The Treasury Department changed the tax code on Sept. 30 to allow banks to expand the deductions on the losses banks they were buying, according to Robert Willens, a former Lehman Brothers tax and accounting analyst who teaches at Columbia University Business School in New York.

Wells Fargo & Co., which is buying Charlotte, North Carolina-based Wachovia Corp., will be able to deduct $22 billion, Willens said. Adding in other banks, the code change will cost $29 billion, he said.

“The rule is now popularly known among tax lawyers as the ‘Wells Fargo Notice,’” Willens said.

The regulation was changed to make it easier for healthy banks to buy troubled ones, said Treasury Department spokesman Andrew DeSouza.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said he was angry that banks used the money for acquisitions.

“The only purpose for this money is to lend,” said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. “It’s not for dividends, it’s not for purchases of new banks, it’s not for bonuses. There better be a showing of increased lending roughly in the amount of the capital infusions” or Congress may not approve the second half of the TARP money.

The Times, they are a’changin!

I just got this from my friend Carl…who always sends me articles that ring true with a lot of what I tried and tried to tell folks on the show.  This guy didn’t hear my show, but he was obviously on the same page.  Read this, and then pray for strong Christian, patriots to stand against the storm that’s coming!

 

Steve

 

I am a student of history. Professionally. I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied it all my life. I think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.

Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten – fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.

We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?

We learn just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has “loaned” two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three times the 700B we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of “we the people,” who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not.

We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why?

We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?

We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?). We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is medicare and our entire government, our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking about)­the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x ten. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.

And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla, Alaska. All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more imporant.)

Mr. Obama’s winning platform can be boiled down to one word: change.

Why?

I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.

This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.

And that is only the beginning.

And I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his “brown shirts” would bully them into submission. And then, he was duly elected to office, a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for the military- industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world.

He did it with a compliant media­ – did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and . . . change. And the people surely got what they voted for.

(Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.)

Read your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though.

Don’t forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years­, a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency, ­it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them.

As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me.

Some people scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe ­and why I believe it.

I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am.

http://idobama.ning.com/forum/topics/something-is-happening-of

Obama to fail 1st economic test

---

FROM JEROME CORSI’S RED ALERT

Obama to fail 1st economic test

Future leader of largest free-world market absent from crucial 20-nation meeting

---

Posted: November 17, 2008
11:16 am Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Editor’s Note: The following report is excerpted from Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert, the premium online newsletter published by the current No. 1 best-selling author, WND staff writer and columnist. Subscriptions are $99 a year or $9.95 per month for credit card users. Annual subscribers will receive a free autographed copy of “The Obama Nation,” the blueprint for Obama’s first term in office.

As its first major challenge, the Obama administration may face what is shaping up to be a worldwide depression not seen since the 1930s, according to a new report from Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert.

Obama, the next leader of the largest free-world economy, was absent at a key 20-nation summit Saturday, where world leaders agreed to put tighter controls on financial markets and slow the spreading economic crisis. The nations agreed to meet once again April 30, 2009, giving the Obama administration exactly 101 days to prepare for one of the most important challenges facing any U.S. administration since the Great Depression.

Now Red Alert’s author, whose books “The Obama Nation” and “Unfit for Command” have appeared atop the New York Times best-sellers list, is predicting Obama and the Democrats will fail when it comes to economic results.

(I’m adding a audio clip from the November 10, 2008 Alex Jones Show with Dr. Corsi as his guest…during the roughly 13 minute interview Dr. Corsi discusses Obama, the bailout, the economy and the Youth Brigades. Hope you take time to listen to it….it will be worth your time…you can hear all four clips here:)

Corsi’s book “The Obama Nation” pressed the campaign for details it refused to release during the election.

“With the reluctance of the Obama campaign to answer questions, we know far more about those who dared ask questions than we do about Obama himself,” Corsi wrote. “For instance, we know which colleges Obama attended, but we have no idea if he took a single economics course, let alone what grades he may have received.”

While Corsi doesn’t doubt the president-elect’s advisers will be well versed in economics, he said their guidance may be questionable, especially since Obama took offense every time anyone mentioned his relationships with key advisers who helped shape his intellectual development – including radical Weatherman bomber Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky and Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Corsi said April’s meeting is urgent, especially with economic data reporting that globalism has failed to prevent country after country from heading into a downward spiral.

Red Alert predicts Obama will blame any continued worldwide economic crisis on policies set in place by his immediate predecessor, George W. Bush. He may also fault Hillary Clinton, should it become necessary for the Democrats to take blame for the subprime mortgage crisis and the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which allowed the crisis to grow to the enormous proportions.

Obama will be tested virtually within his first 101 days in office to assist the world in finding a solution to the global economic crisis, Corsi wrote. Even should Obama pick the most brilliant economic team available, he has a remarkably short time to develop the type of working relationship needed to effectively handle a global crisis of this magnitude.

For these reasons, Red Alert predicts Obama will fail in the first major economic challenge of his administration April 30 at the international meeting.

Corsi received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972. For nearly 25 years beginning in 1981, he worked with banks throughout the United States and around the world to develop financial services marketing companies to assist banks in establishing broker/dealers and insurance subsidiaries to provide financial planning products and services to their retail customers. In this career, Corsi developed three different third-party financial services marketing firms that reached gross sales levels of $1 billion in annuities and equal volume in mutual funds. In 1999, he began developing Internet-based financial marketing firms, also adapted to work in conjunction with banks.

In his 25-year financial services career, Corsi has been a noted financial services speaker and writer, publishing three books and numerous articles in professional financial services journals and magazines.

For more on these economic predictions, read Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert, the premium, online intelligence news source by  the WND staff writer, columnist and author of the New York Times No. 1 best-seller, “The Obama Nation.”

For the complete report and full immediate access to Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert, click here