Marriage is the Domain of the Church and God – Obama – Gay Marriage – Glenn Beck – Church – Market Risk – Stock Market – Federal Deficit – Social Security – The BOPAC Report

Marriage is the Domain of the Church and God -

Market Risk is the Domain of Individuals and Business -

Neither is the Domain of the Federal Government.

This morning I heard Glenn Beck talking briefly about gay marriage, civil unions and the possibility that triad couples (between more than 2 people) could soon start demanding the same rights. After I finished rolling my eyes, I began thinking about the issue and quickly came to the same opinion that I hold concerning gay marriages and marriage in general.  Marriage is an issue for the church, consenting adults, and God.  If there are some churches that recognize gay marriages, fine (as long they are between freely consenting adults).  If there are some churches that recognize marriage between more than two people or communal families, fine (as long as they are between freely consenting adults).  I’m not in the religion or morality business as long as actions don’t hurt others or infringe upon their rights.

Why in the world is the government, any government, state or federal, in the business of sanctifying or recognizing any marriage?  It has always been clear to me that when government makes it possible for people who are “married” to have benefits and rights (social security or medical decision making) different from “non-married” people, it is a violation of both the equal protection clause (14^th Amendment to the Constitution) and the prohibition respecting the establishment of religion (1^st Amendment to the Constitution).

Social Security benefits accruing to surviving spouses are probably the main reason people are upset about the federal government not recognizing gay marriage in general.  I agree completely that gay and single couples both have a legitimate right to be upset.  Where does the idea and definition of marriage come from?  It comes from the church. (Particularly churches of the Judea/Christian tradition.)

In this country, the Christian church’s biblical interpretation that marriage is only between one man and one woman is engrained in literature and history as the rule.  However today, there are churches that recognize and perform marriages between couples of the same sex, transgender persons, and even between a man and a woman.  So, when official government process bestows benefits to those individuals who are in “traditional marriages”, the definition of which was establish by the Judea/Christian beliefs, there is clearly a preference being made for one religion’s or church’s definition of marriage over those found in other religions or churches.

When government goes down the “we benefit you, but not you” path; it sure seems like government is either involved in establishing  a particular religion or government is not providing equal protection and opportunity for “single” individuals who wish to consolidate and share their resources as “partners” or “significant others” the same as “traditionally married” people.  Government should either benefit people equally or don’t benefit anyone.

If Joe and Mary, or Joe and Sam, or Joe, Mary, & Jane said to the government that we want to pool our social security contributions from this date forward, then every participant’s individual social security contributions would be pooled and the sum would be divided by the number of people involved and that amount would be credited to each person’s individual social security earnings account.

This would allow the stay-at-home mom or dad to make contributions to their individual social security account as if they were “working” (half of the family’s income would be credited to each person in the relationship).  It would work the same way for gay couples or communal families.  Each person in such an arrangement would have some measure of protection vis-à-vis social security.  There would be no surviving spouse benefit because they would have their own social security. Primary income earners or those with a bigger income could direct part of their social security contributions to another’s account because they are committed to the other person (or people) and/or recognize the value of another person(s) non-monetary contributions such as raising children, gardening or taking care of the house.

I would think that most people would not have a problem with such a restructuring of Social Security because the government would be recognizing the limits of its power by saying we are not going to involve ourselves with the definition of the term marriage.  Marriage is within the domain of the church, the consenting individual(s), and their God.

It amazes me that the government doesn’t try harder to stay out of the business of limiting the rights of individuals more.  It seems like politicians want division so they can play each side off the other and maintain their grip on power.  Every time the government and politicians get involved in anything they create fear and uncertainty; and then use that uncertainty to their own advantage.  One only needs to look at the current financial mess that the economy is in.

Obama likes to say that he inherited the mess and he is only doing what has to be done.  However, the truth is that he and many Democrats in Congress share a great deal of the blame for the economic mess and Obama is using this crisis to get his political objectives accomplished.  The entire mess can be traced back to when government (mostly Democrats, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd) decided it wanted to get into the business of setting up regulations that created opportunities for groups like ACORN to pressure banks into lending to people who were not able to afford mortgages. This led to many of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s problems; which coupled with packaging these sub-prime assets into financial bundles and selling them round the world; it caused the global house of cards to collapse.

The government was trying to manipulate business RISK principles and it backfired.  Banks wound up being in the position of making risky loans that could be sold to the government (or guaranteed) and the bank’s RISK of losing its own money was greatly diminished.  It’s a lot easier to play fast and loose with other people’s money.

Market Risk is the Domain of Individuals and Business.

Now, people are getting excited that the stock market appears to be signaling the end of the crisis.  Think again.  The news of the past few days paints a much bleaker picture.  Consider the following:

With passage of Obama’s budget, the government will have to borrow almost 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year.

The Federal deficit will be greater than 1.8 trillion dollars this year.

Social Security and Medicare financial projections have been revised to reflect that they are going broke sooner than expected.  Medicare is already losing money by the truckloads and Social Security will be sending out payments faster than money coming in by 2016. That’s only 7 years away! Congress is not only spending money like drunken sailors but they are also so afraid of risking the votes of senior citizens that they are unwilling to effectively address the Social Security/Medicare problem.  (That’s the problem with creating dependency for voter loyalty, the bill always comes due. Then it comes down to who can be blamed.  With the American media’s proclivity for supporting Democrats, blame usually finds it way to Republicans regardless of facts to the contrary.)

Last week, the Treasury auction went poorly and Treasury yields soared.  This means that the government has to pay much more interest on the amounts they are borrowing.

This week, the government was buying their own securities to bring the yields back down some.  Where are the funds coming from to for the Fed to do all this buying? They have the printing presses running overtime.  This will, in the not too distant future, damage severely the value of the dollar and cause a substantial rise in inflation.  The price of everything will go up and foreign countries will be reluctant to purchase our debt to keep the charade going.

China, who holds a great deal of our debt, will be looking for treasuries paying higher interest in order to entice them to purchase more debt.

The more the government prints money out of thin air, the more the dollar’s value will be affected.  There will more money available to buy the same number of goods – causing inflationary pressure. Demand will likely take a downturn once consumers figure out they need to be protecting bank balances.  However, with a decline in dollar’s value, it means that many goods will cost more to produce because the materials required for production will cost more. Therefore producers will either need to raise prices, lower profit margins, lower labor costs (lower wages and/or cut jobs), and/or relocate to areas where the costs of production (taxes etc.) are lower.  However, even with these actions, consumers may not buy at higher prices (or even current prices) and businesses will go under.

So why are stock going up? I believe that many people are being led to think the crisis is ending by Obama and the media and they want to be in on the bull market.  I also believe that many people are moving out of U.S. Securities because the yields are relatively low right now, some stocks price/earnings ratios look attractive comparatively and some investors are starting to believe that Treasuries are too risky and could collapse in the future.  I think people are buying stocks because they feel like they are buying something tangible like buildings, machinery, etc. I bet buyers are looking at companies that don’t have high debt to equity ratios.  Stocks just look better than most of the other choices right now.  Now is the operative word because once interest rates on government securities are forced to rise to 6 or 7%, a lot of investors will shift back trying to stay ahead of the calamity that’s nearly certain to come.  This amount of debt and planned taxation is not sustainable.

This crisis can only be overcome by returning to sound economic principles now. Congress and Obama must stop trying to spend and tax our way out of this. The media needs to be telling the story of how to work toward healthy long term economic fundamentals and not just promoting Obama’s plan.  Obama’s massive stimulus is a short-term feel good illusion; but like social security, the bill will come due.

The media should encouraging Tea Parties instead of attacking them.  The media needs to tell the truth about Obama and his real objectives.  The media needs to investigate & report factually about Obama’s eligibility issue, Rezko, Ayers, Larry Sinclair’s allegations, Obama’s associations with ACORN, and the numerous other issues and scandals from Obama’s past. Before America can come together, these questions must be addressed fully. The media generated Obama “fairy tale” must stop because America’s future is at stake. The media needs to tell the truth and report the news.

We need to support companies like Ford who are not feeding off tax payers and taking direction from self-serving politicians.  Boycott companies like GM, Chrysler, Citigroup and others who undermine ingenuity and lead America to mediocrity.

Neither marriage nor market risk should be within the domain of the Federal Government.

NoQuarter Post – Obama Votes “Present” On Mortgage Reform

This excellent article about the Mortgage Crisis and Obama is found at NOQuarter:

Obama Votes “Present” On Mortgage Reform

In the Wall St. Journal,, Peter J. Wallison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, argues that Senator Obama voted “Present” on mortgage reform when it counted:

In each of the first two presidential debates, Barack Obama claimed that “Republican deregulation” is responsible for the financial crisis. Most viewers probably accepted this idea, especially because Republicans generally do favor deregulation.

But one essential fact was missing from the senator’s narrative: While there has been significant deregulation in the U.S. economy during the last 30 years, none of it has occurred in the financial sector…

If Sen. Obama had been asked for an example of “Republican deregulation,” he would probably have cited the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (GLBA), which has become a popular target for Democrats searching for something to pin on the GOP. This is puzzling. The bill’s key sponsors were indeed Republicans, but the bill was supported by the Clinton administration and signed by President Clinton. The GLBA’s “repeal” of a portion of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 is said to have somehow contributed to the current financial meltdown. Nonsense.

Adopted early in the New Deal, the Glass-Steagall Act separated investment and commercial banking. It prohibited commercial banks from underwriting or dealing in securities, and from affiliating with firms that engaged principally in that business. The GLBA repealed only the second of these provisions, allowing banks and securities firms to be affiliated under the same holding company. Thus J.P. Morgan Chase was able to acquire Bear Stearns, and Bank of America could acquire Merrill Lynch. Nevertheless, banks themselves were and still are prohibited from underwriting or dealing in securities.

Our resident economics expert, Larry Doyle* agrees:

The repeal of Glass-Steagall (GLBA) is a total non-event in the midst of the current economic turmoil. What this repeal did was allow commercial banks to get more deeply involved with investment banking activities. Thus, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Bank of America were able to utilize their significant balance sheets and capital bases to become a force on Wall St. Fast forward ten years and it is those institutions that are now thankfully supporting and bailing out our system.

I asked Mr. Doyle to elaborate, to help make sense of the current situation regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (“F/F”). This also serves to clarify Senator Obama’s ‘non-role’ in working to get us out of this mess and makes clear that John McCain actually stood up when he said he did:

Throughout the 90s and into the early part of this century, F/F were utilizing their significant lobbying power to gain an ever increasing portion of the overall U.S. mortgage market. They had the enormous advantage of being able to borrow at just marginally over U.S, government rates given the “implied” but not explicit backing of Uncle Sam. I mean come on that worst case scenario could never come to pass!!

While F/F were designed to provide liquidity to the market in the form of bundling mortgages into securities, charging a guarantee fee for return of principal to the investors in these Mortgage Backed Securities (“MBS”), and then selling the MBS into the private market, they decided to take a different path. What path was that? Given their ability to borrow at very cheap rates they decided to effectively grow their own internal portfolios. This business model was nothing more than a massively levered hedge fund under the guise of “helping the homeowner”.

In order to grow these portfolios, though, they needed more mortgages. Thus they went directly to the mortgage originators and worked with them to increase the mortgage terms and types that they would buy.

As Freddie and Fannie were executing this strategy, there were 3 groups that stood up and said that this activity was getting out of control. Who were they?? On Capitol Hill, Senator Richard Baker (R-LA) carried the torch. There were actually a number of large banks including Chase and Citi that formed a group called FM Watch that complained that Freddie and Fannie were taking market share from them in their own mortgage origination business. This group was conflicted because the investment banking arms of these institutions were pressured by Freddie and Fannie to quell their complaints or they would refrain from doing business with them. Lastly, the Wall St. Journal was vociferous in their complaints that these entities were getting out of control. Freddie and Fannie responded that they were merely trying to fulfill their mission of providing affordable rates to potential homeowners.

Well how was the impact of Freddie and Fannie on the overall mortgage rates that passed through to the consumer? A number of private studies put the “benefit” of Freddie and Fannie to the American homeowner at between 2 and 4 basis points. In layman’s terms, if a homeowner would have gotten a 6.75% rate then having Fannie/Freddie on the scene helped them get a 6.72% rate.

Now wait a minute, you mean the system was taking all that risk and F/F grew their internal “hedge fund” portfolios of north of 1.5 trillion for a benefit of 3bps. How does that work? Well, the benefits accrued to the shareholders and the executives including Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson.

And as we know, these two gentlemen have been linked to Barack Obama. More good judgment?

As this scenario played out, Senator Baker and then Senator McCain and other Republicans started to get up in arms about the enormous “systemic” risk that was developing. To be fair, Freddie Mac did work to root out the most egregious “predatory lending” that had been undertaken. That said, Freddie was the buyer of the bulk of sub-prime product in the market and without their bid the “overly aggressive” lending would not have taken place to the extent that it did. Fannie was the buyer primarily of Alt-A product which included a lot of the loans without full documentation.

Both F/F were effectively cooking their books. Freddie actually made more money than they were reporting (putting revenue away for future years) while Fannie had truly pathetic risk management and grossly overstated earnings. Both firms reporting of earnings were totally driven by “maximizing” executive bonus packages. Very simply, heads I win, tails you (meaning Uncle Sam and taxpayers) LOSE!!

Even in the midst of this, while Baker, McCain, the WSJ and others were railing on how these agencies were managed, regrettably the necessary regulations and oversights never got out of committee because the Democrats, primarily Sen. Chris Dodd, Sen. Chuck Schumer, and Rep. Barney Frank crushed it.

At this juncture, Barack Obama votes present. He was not willing to stand up to his party because he was in bed with Fannie/Freddie and was well on his way to being the second greatest beneficiary of their largesse only after Chris Dodd. To think that this crowd is now going to hold hearings to “review” this crisis is akin to the “inmates running the asylum!!

Continue Reading Article:

Comment:

The media continues to put out misinformation regarding culpibility for the financial crisis and Sen. Obama role.  Where are they? AWOL and in the tank for Obama at the cost of America.

The Media’s behavior is shameful. What about the allegations that Obama used cocaine and engaged in consensual gay sex with Larry Sinclair in November of 1999?   Will the MSM stop taking sides in the election and do their jobs? Will they investigate Mr. Sinclair’s allegations?  Will they dig into Obama’s past as hard as they have jumped on Sarah Palin? Will they look deeply into Obama’s relationships with William Ayers, Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, Acorn, and all the rest? Will they look into the Democratic involvement in Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac failures? Will they call Sen. Obama to task for his possible violations of the Logan Act in Iraq and Kenya?

To find information the media is not telling the public, go to:

CitizenWells

Obambi

The Real Barack Obama

TexasDarlin

NoQuarter

ObamaCrimes

Andy Martin

Obama’s Community Development Work and Social Engineering Caused Financial Crisis

Excellent Article in The Jamestown Sun: (Emphasis Added)

Social engineering derailed our economy

Diana West, The Jamestown Sun
Published Wednesday, October 08, 2008

…Obama is up in the polls not because of the economic crisis, but because the reason for the economic crisis, the festering root of it all that has twisted the U.S. financial system beyond recognition, is being ignored in our narrative…

…Obama can only stay up in the polls as long as this all-important reason remains an unspoken, murky kind of secret…

…if American citizens become too widely acquainted with the fact that race-based social engineering virtually created the sub-prime mortgage industry that has transformed the U.S. economy into The Titanic, Obama will sink in the polls. That’s because race-based social engineering is what Obama both advanced as a so-called community organizer, and later funded as an official of Chicago’s Woods Fund, where he served alongside unrepentant terrorist and political ally William Ayers — another phantom political fact citizens now pondering their presidential votes are not supposed to consider.

… how exactly did the government overlay of race-based goals onto the real estate marketplace help create the sub-prime mortgage industry, which, having imploded, triggered the current economic crisis, and what did Obama have to do with it?

The answer goes back to one of those totalitarian drawing boards where social engineers draft their human havoc. Not “enough” minorities owned homes, the social engineers decided, because not “enough” minorities were eligible for mortgages, the social engineers concluded. Therefore, in the bean-counting name of what “should” be, the social engineers effectively junked all bottom-line, non-racial markers of mortgage eligibility, from steady employment and clean credit to the all-important down payment, that banks have traditionally relied on to determine the difference between a good and a bad credit risk. This paved the way for increasingly unconventional “sub prime” loans for all (including rubber-check-writing deadbeats, speculators and novices-in-over-their-heads of all races). The social engineers claimed victory for what they called “affordable housing” -which also paradoxically created a vast market of extremely unaffordable housing -but it was just a house of cards. The real estate bubble popped, the bad loans came crashing down, and the world markets came tumbling after.

…Stanley Kurtz described some of the techniques community organizers use to intimidate banks into making bad loans: “In the name of fairness to minorities, community organizers occupy private offices, chant inside bank lobbies, and confront executives at their homes -and thereby force financial institutions to direct hundreds of millions of dollars in mortgages to low-credit customers.”

He continued: “In other words, community organizers help to undermine the U.S. economy by pushing the banking system into a sinkhole of bad loans. And Obama has spent years training and funding the organizers who do it.”

Kurtz went on to detail the nature of that training and funding in concert with ACORN … an essential component in the drive to force banks “kicking and screaming” … into the risky loan business. At one point, Kurtz reported, “Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott’s drive against Chicago’s banks.”

Will America elect someone this far left wing to take charge of the Federal Reserve Bank? Terrifying thought. To be sure, it wasn’t just community shakedown artists who brought our current crisis about. They had massive help along the way, as “affirmative action lending” practices were foisted on the banking industry at the national level, particularly during the presidencies of Carter, Clinton and, yes, George W. Bush. These lending practices were further institutionalized once government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, under the astronomically well-paid leadership of Fannie CEO James A. Johnson, began snapping up high-risk loans and repackaging them for sale on the world market. Johnson, whom Obama, of course, chose to lead his vice-presidential selection committee (until financial shenanigans over a sweetheart housing loan forced him out) even set a goal for Fannie Mae to buy up $1 trillion in low-income loans to ensure that, as CNSNews.com quoted him as saying, “every American who wants to get a mortgage will have their loan approved.”

Well, they did. And it didn’t work out so well, did it? Such is the human cost of social engineering, whether on Wall Street, Main Street or Red Square. No wonder Obama doesn’t seem to want to discuss the pesky details. “The main thing is to just move away from this hyper-political environment and recognize the house is on fire,” he recently said.

That’s the main thing? “Let’s put out the fire first,” he added, “and we can figure out what caused it.”

Later, he means. A lot later. Like after Election Day when it’s too late to vote for the other guy. Because what voters in their right minds would expect the man who likes to set the fires to put them out?

Diana West is a columnist for The Washington Times. Read Complete Article

End of Article

Where is the rest of the media on this? AWOL

The Media’s behavior is shameful. What about the allegations that Obama used cocaine and engaged in consensual gay sex with Larry Sinclair in November of 1999? Will the MSM stop taking sides in the election and do their jobs? Will they investigate Mr. Sinclair’s allegations? Will they dig into Obama’s past as hard as they have jumped on Sarah Palin? Will they look deeply into Obama’s relationships with William Ayers, Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, Acorn, and all the rest? Will they look into the Democratic involvement in Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac failures? Will they call Sen. Obama to task for his possible violation of the Logan Act?

Larry’s assault on media bias and Sen. Obama’s “fairy tales” that he is telling America. Sunday, October 5, 2008

Larry Sinclair is continuing to get his story out on Sen. Obama’s campaign trail. Mr. Sinclair is dogging the Senator at Chicago and Trinity United Church Of Christ asking the Senator where is was and what was he doing on the dates that Larry says that he and Sen. Obama were doing cocaine and having consensual gay sex. Everyone needs to stay tuned to Mr. Sinclair’s most excellent adventure trying to break through the media’s wall of See No Obama Scandals, Hear No Obama Scandals, Speak No Obama Scandals. Go to: http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/ to keep up Larry’s assault on media bias and Sen. Obama’s “fairy tales” that he is telling America. (To quote President Clinton)

I hope Mr. Sinclair will be extremely careful today.  CitizenWells reports that Mr. Sinclair will try to attend a service at Trinity United Church of Christ. This is the church that Sen. Obama and his family attended for many years and from where America heard “God Damn America” spewing from the Rev. Wright’s pulpit.  I hope Larry Sinclair will be treated well by the members of Trinity United Chruch of Christ.

It seems that Larry Sinclair is already receiving threats regarding his proposed visit.

The media is once again AWOL regarding this story and any other negative issue that may cause Obama to stumble. 2008 is the year American Journalism died.

Larry’s assault on media bias and Sen. Obama’s “fairy tales” that he is telling America.

Larry Sinclair is continuing to get his story out on Sen. Obama’s campaign trail. Mr. Sinclair is dogging the Senator at Chicago and Nashville asking the Senator where is was and what was he doing on the dates that Larry says that he and Sen. Obama were doing cocaine and having consensual gay sex. Everyone needs to stay tuned to Mr. Sinclair’s most excellent adventure trying to break through the media’s wall of See No Obama Scandals, Hear No Obama Scandals, Speak No Obama Scandals. Go to: http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/ to keep up Larry’s assault on media bias and Sen. Obama’s “fairy tales” that he is telling America. (To quote President Clinton) Maps of Mr. Sinclair’s adventure are on his site.

This is from Larry Sinclair:

I WILL BE LEAVING THIS AFTERNOON FOR CHICAGO/NASHVILLE

I will be leaving shortly for Nashville with a brief stop in Chicago, IL. The schedule and route has changed slightly for maximum impact. It is important to be in Nashville on Monday.

This story will be reported by way of the local media markets. Here is the link to The Grand Rapids, MI WSNX FM 104.5 interview from the Obama event on Thursday. http://www.wsnx.com/cc-common/podcast.html

Larry Sinclair’s Excellent Adventure on Sen. Obama’s “Fairy Tales” Campaign Trail

Larry Sinclair is continuing to get his story out on Sen. Obama’s campaign trail. Mr. Sinclair is dogging the Senator at Grand Rapids today asking the Senator where is was and what was he doing on the dates that Larry says that he and Sen. Obama were doing cocaine and having consensual gay sex. Everyone needs to stay tuned to Mr. Sinclair’s most excellent adventure trying to break through the media’s wall of See No Obama Scandals, Hear No Obama Scandals, Speak No Obama Scandals. Go to: http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/ to keep up Larry’s assault on media bias and Sen. Obama’s “fairy tales” to America. (Just to quote Bill Clinton.)

Stay Safe Mr. Sinclair!!! Good Luck! Zach

Thursday, October 2, 2008

SENATOR OBAMA AND OBOTS DON’T LIKE IT!

Obama Buses in Supporters for Grand Rapids, MI Event.

Barack Obama told his supporters a week or so ago to “Get in their face…”, but it seems Senator Obama and his supporters do not like that advice when people “Get in their face…”

This morning I went to the Obama rally at Calder Plaza, in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Now let me do something that Barack Obama cannot do, let me be fair and say that not all of the Obots were rude and foul mouthed, but make no mistake about it, most were. One teenager, or maybe twenty-something guy was encouraged by his own mother to tell me to “F— Off” and more.

The Obots hated that while Barack Obama was speaking I was about 200 feet away calling him on the mega phone asking him to answer the question, “where were you on Nov 6 & 7, 1999 and what were you doing?” They did not like that I was yelling on the mega-phone asking Barack Obama who was Larry Sinclair? In fact the Obama campaign was so unnerved, but did not want the Secret Service involved, so it took a little while before the Grand Rapids Police came and asked me to go with them and for my ID.

The Grand Rapids Police were respectful at all times, but also were clearly being used to silence the mega-phone. According to GP Police, I could not use the mega-phone because I did not obtain a permit, and the Obama Campaign did! I am now looking into the claim that a permit is required to use a mega-phone. The Police did run a warrant check on me and told me simply that if I was to use the mega-phone again, it would be confiscated and I would be ticketed. I then returned to the WSNX 104.5 FM interview on the reporters phone. http://tiny.cc/xC1jx

Meanwhile, I was on a live radio interview with WSNX 104.5 FM radio in Grand Rapids while calling on Barack Obama to answer three simple questions. It was while on the phone with WSNX 104.5 FM that the Police asked me to go with them. I was trying to return the Radio reporters cell phone but wasn’t allowed to until he had to tell the Police it was his phone I was on.

In leaving the event I asked a WOODTV reporter, “why is it that you guys refuse to report the truth about Obama?” She replied, “we try to report the truth but it is our producers that say what does or does not get reported.”

Continue Reading

Who Will Be Sleeping In The Lincoln Bedroom In An Obama Whitehouse?

Who Will Be Sleeping In The Lincoln Bedroom

In An Obama Whitehouse?

This is a serious question that has again captured my attention. This time it is in reaction to what almost everyone sees – a media blatantly refusing to report on legitimate issues and distorting anything or anyone who stands in the way the Obama election efforts. The Senator’s past and the people who are close to him, the influences in his life, the experiences that shaped his thinking, those who have shaped his feelings for America, those that have shaped his religious views and values – they are critically important to know or predict where Sen. Obama might take America.

When I look at how the media has given Sen. Obama a complete pass on his past controversies and current allegations that are still out there, hidden from the public, I shudder. When I look at how the media and Sen. Obama have not allowed the general public to fully know or understand what his relationships and associations are really about, I shudder.

When Sen. Obama attempts to conceal his relationships and their importance, by making statements that require us to suspend our disbelief, I shudder. How could anyone stay in a church for 20 years, have his children baptized there, be married there, stand and clap, sit in the pews and still not understand the hatred and racism of Rev. Wright, his minister and spiritual mentor? How can anyone truly believe him?

How can anyone believe what the Senator says about the people he has distanced himself from?

· Minister Louis Farrakhan. When he hired for his staff, Jennifer Mason and Cynthia K. Miller, who are members of the Nation of Islam.

· Rev. Wright – the former preacher for a church the young Obama needed to belong to in Chicago to further his career. That’s not the Reverend Wright I knew was Obama’s response. After Sen. Obama threw him under the bus, Rev. Wright noted that Obama was distancing himself because Obama is a politician and that’s what a (Presidential) politician needs to do.

· Pastor Michael Pfleger – whose radical ideas and preaching are well known in Chicago went under the bus. Not the Pfleger I knew.

· Bernradine Dorn and William Ayers – Senator Obama sat on a board with Ayers, gave lectures with him, and went to his house for his blessings upon entering politics in Chicago. Ayer’s and Dorn’s group bombed the Pentagon. Obama has denied a close relationship. New evidence is now showing a much deeper relationship with William Ayers. (See Stanley Kurtz’s work)

· And Tony Rezko. He raised money for Senator Obama’s political career, gave him a sweetheart land deal, introduced him to influential people, and most likely taught Sen. Obama a lot about corrupt politics in Chicago. Rezko went under the bus after Obama minimized the relationship. There might be new information coming out about this relationship now that Mr. Rezko is apparently singing to the Feds in hopes of reducing his possible jail time.

So what I know is that Senator Obama learned his lessons about Chicago politics well. When it was time to throw someone, anyone, a church, a grandmother, under the bus to advance his political career; he did it with prose and ease.

Also what I know is that people in Chicago understand that politicians say and do the things that politicians believe they need to say and do. Rev. Wright’s comment that Obama was distancing himself from himself because Obama is a politician and that’s what a (Presidential) politician needs to do – clearly reflects this understanding.

So what is my fear? If Senator Barrack Obama finds himself in the White House, then it is entirely possible (likely) that all of the people mentioned above will be welcomed back into Senator Obama’s life. The Senator said that he could no more disown Rev. Wright than he could disown the black community? This leads to my questions:

Will we see Rev. Wright, Pastor Michael Pfleger, Pentagon bombers Bernradine Dorn and William Ayers, Minister Louis Farrakhan and corrupt Tony Rezko and his associates, staying in the Lincoln bedroom?

Will ACORN, an organization involved in causing the current financial crisis and numerous instances of voter fraud, have a seat at his table?

And lastly, will the American Tax Payers be forced to endure the ultimate humiliation by being required to foot the bill for pampering and honoring Louis Farrakhan and the Brothers of Islam, for honoring Senator Obama’s racist pastors, for honoring Pentagon bombers and terrorists, for honoring (and possibly pardoning) the Senator’s corrupt contributor Tony Rezko and his associates? At this late date, it appears very possible. Therefore, it is imperative for voters to look closely at Sen. Obama’s actions, companions and friends.

Those of us who have closely observed the Senator’s campaign and the Media’s support fully realize just how unfair the playing field is for Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin.

How much attention has been given to the ongoing federal lawsuit challenging Sen. Obama’s eligibility to be President (Berg v. Obama)? The answer is very little.

How much attention has been given to Larry Sinclair’s allegation’s that he did cocaine and engaged in consensual sex with Sen. Obama in 1999? The answer is very little.

How many reporters have been dispatched to Chicago to vet Sen. Obama? The answer is very few.

How many reporters are looking into the new allegations concerning massive amounts of illegal campaign contributions coming into the Obama campaign? Not many.

How many reporters are seriously looking at Sen. Obama’s connections to ACORN and the failure of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac? The answer once again is very few.

How many reporters are looking for people who can tell Obama’s story? I’m not sure anyone can without damaging Senator Obama. The media is not looking for them.

Who are the people endorsing Sen. Obama? Many of those who want our destruction.

Ask yourself about the feeding frenzy the media is engaged in regarding Gov. Palin.

Regrettably, it appears that 2008 will be noted as one of America’s worst years for journalism.

Mr. Obama’s “deregulation” trope may be good politics, but it’s bad history and is dangerous if he really believes it.

The following appeared in the Wall Street Journal and it quotes Bill Clinton regarding the narrative put forth by Nancy Pelosi and her friends.  It seems that Mr. Clinton does not believe the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 had anything to do with the current crisis.  I would refer you to my previous article Common Sense Regarding The Bailout which lays the blame at the feet of Chris Dodd and the Democratic administrators of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, the Community Reinvestment Act and groups like ACORN who Sen. Obama is so tightly connected.  I agree with the writer when they say, “Mr. Obama’s “deregulation” trope may be good politics, but it’s bad history and is dangerous if he really believes it.”

Bill v. Barack on Banks

Clinton instructs Obama on finance and Phil Gramm.

A running cliché of the political left and the press corps these days is that our current financial problems all flow from Congress’s 1999 decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that separated commercial and investment banking. Barack Obama has been selling this line every day. Bill Clinton signed that “deregulation” bill into law, and he knows better.

In BusinessWeek.com, Maria Bartiromo reports that she asked the former President last week whether he regretted signing that legislation. Mr. Clinton’s reply: “No, because it wasn’t a complete deregulation at all. We still have heavy regulations and insurance on bank deposits, requirements on banks for capital and for disclosure. I thought at the time that it might lead to more stable investments and a reduced pressure on Wall Street to produce quarterly profits that were always bigger than the previous quarter.

“But I have really thought about this a lot. I don’t see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn’t signed that bill.”

One of the writers of that legislation was then-Senator Phil Gramm, who is now advising John McCain, and who Mr. Obama described last week as “the architect in the United States Senate of the deregulatory steps that helped cause this mess.” Ms. Bartiromo asked Mr. Clinton if he felt Mr. Gramm had sold him “a bill of goods”?

Mr. Clinton: “Not on this bill I don’t think he did. You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can’t possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I’d be glad to look at the evidence.

“But I can’t blame [the Republicans]. This wasn’t something they forced me into. I really believed that given the level of oversight of banks and their ability to have more patient capital, if you made it possible for [commercial banks] to go into the investment banking business as Continental European investment banks could always do, that it might give us a more stable source of long-term investment.”

We agree that Mr. Clinton isn’t wrong about everything. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed the Senate on a 90-8 vote, including 38 Democrats and such notable Obama supporters as Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dick Durbin, Tom Daschle — oh, and Joe Biden. Mr. Schumer was especially fulsome in his endorsement.

As for the sins of “deregulation” more broadly, this is a political fairy tale. The least regulated of our financial institutions — hedge funds — have posed the least systemic risks in the current panic. The big investment banks that got into the most trouble could have made the same mortgage investments before 1999 as they did afterwards. One of their problems was that Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns weren’t diversified enough. They prospered for years through direct lending and high leverage via the likes of asset-backed securities without accepting commercial deposits. But when the panic hit, this meant they lacked an adequate capital cushion to absorb losses.

Meanwhile, commercial banks that had heavier capital requirements were struggling to compete with the Wall Street giants throughout the 1990s. Some of the deposit-taking banks that were allowed to diversify after 1999, such as J.P. Morgan and Bank of America, are now in a stronger position to withstand the current turmoil. They have been able to help stabilize the financial system through acquisitions of Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual, Merrill Lynch and Countrywide Financial.

Mr. Obama’s “deregulation” trope may be good politics, but it’s bad history and is dangerous if he really believes it. The U.S. is going to need a stable, innovative financial system after this panic ends, and we won’t get that if Mr. Obama and his media chorus think the answer is to return to Depression-era rules amid global financial competition. Perhaps the Senator should ask the former President for a briefing. END of ARTICLE

Comment:  This is the biggest financial failure in history and the media is mainly putting forth the Obama/Pelosi narrative.  Nothing will be said against Sen. Obama.  The media is going to Wasilla and N. Vietnam, but won’t go to Chicago to do any serious investigation.

The Media’s behavior is shameful. What about the allegations that Obama used cocaine and engaged in consensual gay sex with Larry Sinclair in November of 1999?   Will the MSM stop taking sides in the election and do their jobs? Will they investigate Mr. Sinclair’s allegations?  Will they dig into Obama’s past as hard as they have jumped on Sarah Palin and her 17 year old daughter? Will they look deeply into Obama’s relationships with William Ayers, Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, Acorn, and all the rest? Will they look into the Democratic involvement in Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac failures? Will they call Sen. Obama to task for his possible violation of the Logan Act?

From RBO- What Caused Our Economic Crisis? Burning Down The House

This is from The Real Barack Obama:

Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis? (Update: Lobotobots at work)

September 26, 2008

The following was mercilessly stolen from Uppity Woman (the thief who stole it from Bill at the Patriot Room, who got it from Moe Lane at RedState). Be sure to not only watch all the way to the end of this fast-paced video, but take the time to follow the links back to those who have already commented on it. It’s verrrrry educational.

You are also encouraged to copy this video, post this video, email this video, spread this video far and wide — Now — Today — Often — as quickly as you can.

Read Uppity Woman’s No Credit? No Stable Income? No Down Payment? No Problem! Let’s Do It Again Suckers!. Uppity advises — watch the video …

You will learn the sequence. You will learn a LOT about Barack Obama and his penchant for Social Engineering too.

UPDATE — Lobotobot ALERT 09/30 15:00 pm ET: YouTube has now taken down not only the first version of the Burning Down the House video produced by TheMouthPiece, but has also taken down versions 2 (9/27) and 3 (9/29).

RBO just received an email notice that it was now available at VodPod, but that version has been removed as well.

Here’s a link that is still working; another one here; here; and here. It’s also uploaded at JibJab.

RBO will keep an eye on this developing situation brazen stupid attempt at censorship by the Lobotobots.

Source Articles / Graphs

A huge “hats off” to Sage Mountain, who “looked up each and every article and graph” and provides links “to all of the information presented in the video except a couple of graphs.” Domhead has links here, as well.

Explanation / Debunking

See an explanation for the removal of the first version at American Thinker as well as The Officious Intermeddler’s debunking of the music copyright infringement issue.

Pelosi: No Fannie/Freddie “witch hunt”

The Prowler at American Spectator reports September 30, 2008:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ordered her Majority Whip, Jim Clyburn, to essentially not do his job in the runup to the vote on Monday for the negotiated Wall Street bailout plan, according to House Democrat leadership aides.

[snip]

Pelosi and her aides have made it clear they were not going to “whip” or twist the arms of members who did not want to vote, but they also made no effort to rally any support for a bill they attempted to hijack over the weekend.

Further, according to House Oversight Committee staff, Emanuel has received assurances from Pelosi that she will not allow what he termed a “witch hunt” to take place during the next Congressional session over the role Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played in the economic crisis…

Continue Reading

Common Sense Regarding The Bailout

Common Sense Regarding The Bailout

Rule One: If you reward bad behavior, you get bad behavior.

In the news this week and probably in the weeks to come is the financial mess that threatens the U.S. economy. I sincerely hope that all parties (Congress, Wall Street, & Taxpayers) will take just a little time to consider the common sense lessons that most of us know to be true. The most important rule in shaping behavior is that if you reward bad behavior you will get more bad behavior.

Once we look past the spin the election and media are putting on this issue, we will find common sense pointing to a clear violation of the basic rule about rewarding bad behavior.

For years and years, bankers relied on time honored rules concerning the lending of money for purchasing houses. These rules included the following:

· Never lend more than a borrower can afford to repay;

· Never lend 100% of the value of the home because it important for the borrower to have a financial stake in the purchase and if home value goes down in the short term the banker’s risk will remain secured; and,

· If a loan has any possibility of remaining as a bank asset, make damn sure the first two rules are followed.

The current financial mess clearly stems from numerous legislative actions that effected the latter of these guiding principles in mortgage lending. Historically, risk to the mortgage lender and to the borrower (the possibility of losing equity) had kept this system secure and rolling along for years.

Congress, a few decades ago, decided to tinker with the system and the result was that risk was shifted from where it belongs. The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 and bankers who might have wanted to expand were effectively required to make numerous loans in neighborhoods where the property values were less stable (more risk) and to borrowers who were less likely to be able to repay these loans (more risk). More and more regulations were passed by Congress that further added to this change in the amount of risk that banks were exposed.

Under this Act, bank expansions could be held up by complaints from community groups such as ACORN. This gave such groups enormous leverage to threaten and extort lenders into make riskier and riskier loans.

Then in came Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac buying up the questionable loans (sub-prime) and encouraging more and more lending in unstable areas, to borrowers of questionable means. Fannie and Freddy then bundled up the risky loans and resold them on the world market. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac had rewarded the banks’ bad lending practices by assuming their risk. The banks seeing their risk disappear were freed of the historic check on bad lending practices – LOSS. You know the rest of the story.

Well actually, many will buy into the spin that Sen. Obama and the Democratic leadership are trying to put out – that all of these problems lie at the feet of the Republicans and their not wanting regulation. This is blatantly a distortion of the facts.

If fact, Republican leadership has for the past couple of decades have tried to reign in Fannie Mae’s and Freddy Mac’s irresponsible manipulation of the financial markets. In 2005, Sen. McCain was a co-sponsor of legislation that would have, most likely, prevented this crisis. However, this legislation was blocked by Democrats. Understandably, the media has been reluctant to give Sen. McCain the credit he deserves given that they are wholeheartedly supporting Sen. Obama.

Sen. Obama’s guiding principle of “Obama First” will not allow him to tell voters about the real story of Democratic responsibility for this crisis. Additionally, Sen. Obama has extensive ties to those who led Fannie Mae on its path to fiscal crisis and to ACORN, a group that put incredible pressure on lenders to make risky loans.

The shift in risk away from lenders primarily resulted from Democratic policy initiatives aimed at getting more home ownership in minority neighborhoods. However well intentioned, these initiatives are a root cause the financial crisis we are now facing. Congress was incompetent by not being able to recognize the predictable consequences of their interference with this industry.

So what does common sense tell us about the need for a bailout?

First of all, there is plenty of blame to go around:

• Congress created the shift of risk that occurred and rewarded the bad lending practices by allowing the purchase these loans by Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.
• Bankers should have held fast to their understanding of sound lending practices and tried harder to resist Congress’s drive to riskier loans.
• Groups like ACORN insisted that banks make loans to borrowers who lacked the ability to repay these loans.
• Borrowers should have resisted making loans that they were unlikely to be able to repay.
• The media should have alerted the voters about the real situation at Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.
• Voters should have voted out the people who caused this financial mess years ago.

Second, the House of Representative did a good thing voting down the bailout.

“The American people rejected this bailout and now Congress did likewise,” said U.S. Rep. Mike Pence

Many times legislation that is enacted is such haste will be susceptible to serious defects and inclusion of hidden provisions.

Third, a bailout that rewards bad behavior will get more bad behavior on the part of business. Executives of banks that are involved in this bailout should not be rewarded with golden parachutes. Groups like ACORN must not receive any benefits under any bailout or rescue package. Borrowers who were not misled by lenders and those who were involved in buying homes for investment purposes should take their loss and move on. Members of Congress who encouraged, facilitated and/or concealed the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac should resign or be voted out of office. A non-partisan investigation should be required to investigate the failure of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac; and those who are guilty of wrong doing should go to jail. This is common sense.

Forth, any rescue package must require transparency and sound lending practices.

“It is now imperative that Congress come together and develop a response to the crisis facing our financial markets that reflects the American people’s belief in personal responsibility and fiscal discipline.” — Rep. Mike Pence, Republican.

Fifth, any package that is passed should not result in a Federal takeover of the financial industry. It is clear that the government and politics is the main culprit in the story of financial collapse and it should not be trusted to manage this industry in a responsible manner. Something along the lines of the extension FDIC insurance and loans to banks would be preferable. (After the Enron mess, Congress hastily required that assets be valued to market and this good intentioned regulation has exacerbated the current situation. When valued at today’s market, mortgages look worthless.) Allowing banks to value their assets in terms of what the market will be some time in the future could take some pressure off the markets and each individual bank’s portfolio. Politicians are not financial experts and many times they pass regulations that do more harm.

U.S. Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, declared that the bailout might put the nation on the “slippery slope to socialism.”

Sixth, voters should be told the real story by the media.

Unfortunately, voters and tax payers will not be able to trust the media to provide accurate information. This election cycle has resulted in creating a media cheerleading section for Sen. Obama and Democrats. The media is refusing to look at any issue that may reflect badly against Sen. Obama.

The Media’s behavior thus far has been shameful. What about the allegations that Obama used cocaine and engaged in consensual gay sex with Larry Sinclair in November of 1999? Will the MSM stop taking sides in the election and do their jobs? Will they investigate Mr. Sinclair’s allegations? Will they dig into Obama’s past as hard as they have jumped on Sarah Palin? Will they look deeply into Obama’s relationships with William Ayers, Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, Acorn, and all the rest? Will they look into the Democratic involvement in Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac failures? Will they call Sen. Obama to task for his possible violation of the Logan Act? Will they look into the allegations made in Berg v. Obama that he is not eligible to be President? Probably Not.

In conclusion, it is clear that something needs to be done soon. However, whatever is done must be based on facts and common sense; and not politics.