Sunday, November 23, 2008

The Betrayal Of Mystery Babylon


No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States. - U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1

I have followed this story from the beginning and, like most people, I have been reluctant to put much faith in it's validity. The media certainly has buried this story as deep as they can, for this will destroy them as certainly as the perpetrators of this scheme. Events are now are conspiring to bring this story out of the darkness of "urban legend" and into the light of the Supreme Court of the United States. It appears that now, after the election, the allegations that our president-elect is not who and what he appears to be are gaining traction. It's a long and twisted tale of a man who may be a citizen of as many as four countries, or only three...and one of them would not be the United States! Allow me to present to you the conspiracy of all conspiracies, and one that, to some degree, has deceived us all.

"Deceivers are the most dangerous members of society. They trifle with the best affections of our nature, and violate the most sacred obligations." - George Crabbe

Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetero, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham and Barry Dunham are all names that our president-elect has been known to use throughout his life. It is no small wonder, therefore, that so many people have been able to easily craft an image of Obama that fits their own hopes and wishes rather than conform to any sense of reality. You see there is no real Barack Obama. That may be the source of the magic that he wields over his hypnotized subjects. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy all bundled up into a perfect "all things to all people" world leader. Of course, that which never was, can never fail us. However we did elect somebody on November the 4th. Somebody who claims to have been born August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. Or was he? This is where our story begins. Hang on, this is going to take you through a lot of twists and turns.

It's simple really. Most of us have had to produce our birth certificate at some point in our life to prove we are who we say we are. It is the one piece of evidence that can prove that Barack Obama is a natural born American citizen. However attorney Philip J Berg, a Democrat, alleges that Barack Obama was in fact NOT born in the United States, but instead was born in Mombassa, Kenya.

In Hawaii there are two forms of registering a birth. A medical "birth certificate" filled out at hospital signed by doctor attesting to birth, weight, race etc. of the infant, and a legal document called a "certificate of live birth" which is filled out at a government office. This document is a short form for legal purposes based off the medical record of the "birth certificate." It is this second document that the Obama campaign produced on their website for a short time early in the campaign to refute the rumors of Obama's non-citizenship. They didn't keep it there long, however, since it created more questions than it answered. Largely because a "certificate of live birth" is used when a "birth certificate" cannot be found, and a "certificate of live birth" can be filled out up to a year after the birth. Obviously a "certificate of live birth" does not carry the same legal weight as a "birth certificate" when the absolute certainty of the birth record is required, as should be the case when ascertaining the qualifications for the presidency.

Berg also claims that there is no information available as to which hospital Obama's mother used in Hawaii. Maya Soetoro, the half-sister with whom Obama was raised, seems not to know where her own brother was born. In the Nov., 2004 interview by the Rainbow Newsletter Maya Soetoro said Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961 at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. In February, 2008 Maya was interviewed by the Star Bulletin. That time she told reporters that Obama was born on August 4, 1961 at the Kaliolani Medical Center for Women and Children.

Another lawsuit originating in Washington state alleges that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a certificate registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Kenya Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen. Later investigators interestingly found that the records had been sealed and would not be made available. Convenient isn't it? But it gets better.

Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle, a Republican, has placed the Obama's birth certificate under seal and instructed the state's Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances. This was done just days after Obama visited Hawaii to see his dying grandmother and less than a week before the election. It appears a lot of people want to keep something hidden.

Berg also claims he has a recording of a telephone call from the Obama's paternal grandmother confirming his birth in Kenya as well as signed affidavits testifying to the authenticity of the recording. According to his grandmother, she was present at the birth. Grandmothers, unlike politicians, have an unfailing ability to tell the truth. In fairness though, she probably is unaware of U.S. laws and doesn't realize that it might actually harm Obama's chances of holding the office.

In spite of what would appear to be a reasonable enough amount of evidence to merit further hearings in the court, Berg's case was dismissed on October 24th by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing. A plaintiff wishing to have standing to sue must show (1) a particularized injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff's particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress. You would think that ANY U.S. citizen should have standing to demand that a presidential candidate prove his qualifications. Especially since one birth certificate will usually suffice.

Berg then took the case to the next level, which is of course, the Supreme Court of the United States. There he presented a request to Justice David Souter to stay the election until Obama's campaign produced three items:

1. Obama's "vault" version (certified copy of his "original" long version) birth certificate
2. a certified copy of Obama's Certificate of Citizenship
3. a certified copy of Obama's oath of allegiance

Well, we had the election so you know that Justice Souter and the court did not halt the election. That was never going to happen without a full hearing of the case. There was not enough time for that. So now the Berg case sits somewhat in limbo as the Obama campaign has thus far failed to respond to a Writ of Certiorari. Apparently Obama has until Dec. 1 to respond to it if they wish. The case can still be taken up for review regardless of whether Obama responds or not, should the court decide they wish to hear it.

In the mean time another suit has been filed by presidential candidate Alan Keyes, vice-presidential candidate Wiley S. Drake, and the Chairman of the American Independent Party, Markham Robinson, in California's Superior Court seeking to bar Secretary of State Debra Bowen from certifying to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger the names of electors, and from transmitting to each presidential elector a Certificate of Election, until documentary proof is produced and verified showing that Senator Obama is a "natural born" citizen of the United States, and does not hold citizenship of Indonesia, Kenya or Great Britain. In addition, they have asked that the court issue a peremptory writ barring Senator Obama's California electors from signing the Certificate of Vote until such documentary proof is produced and verified. Since Alan Keyes was in fact on the ballot as a presidential candidate he should have standing to sue.

But wait! There's more. A lot more. You see there are many angles to this story. In Berg vs. Obama the main allegation is that Obama is disqualified because of evidence supporting the likelihood that he was born in Kenya and not the U.S. There is another case being tried in the courts that has a more unique point of view. Leo C. Donofrio, Applicant v. Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State alleges that even if it were proven he was born in Hawaii, because his father was born in Kenya, and having been born with split and competing loyalties, he is not a "natural born citizen" as required by Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution.

According to Donofrio the birth certificate and later Indonesian citizenship issues are irrelevant. Since Barack Obama's father was a Citizen of Kenya which was at the time of Obama's birth under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Obama was a British Citizen at birth, just like the framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he was born on U.S. soil, he still would not be eligible to be president.

The framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were British citizens and that's why they declared that, while they were citizens of the United States, they themselves were not "natural born citizens." Therefore they created the "grandfather clause" that would allow them to be president. It is very clear:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; - U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1

They didn't intend for future generations to be governed by a Commander In Chief who had any potential loyalty to another country. In Donofrio's argument, both parents have to be U.S. citizens for their offspring to be considered a "natural born citizen." Obama's father was not an American citizen at the time and never attempted to become one. Interestingly enough, Obama's British citizenship is something that the Obama campaign readily admitted. This was posted on his website during the campaign:

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982." - as quoted on Obama's website

So as you can see, we clearly have a constitutional problem that needs cleaning up. Clearly the framers of the Constitution intended that a president not have competing loyalties. This was not an uncommon problem in Europe at the time of our founding. Often royal families would inter-marry across national borders creating all sorts of havoc that the framers were intentionally seeking to keep out of the politics of the United States. Therefore Donofrio is right, Obama cannot be a "natural born citizen," as defined by the framers of the Constitution, by virtue of his dual citizenship at the time of his birth. Whether you believe it to be fair or not, it is the law and should be looked into.

"All deception in the course of life is indeed nothing else but a lie reduced to practice, and falsehood passing from words into things." - Robert Southey

If we just left off here you would have enough information to know that we have a real problem. But Barack Obama is good at creating these type of problems so guess what? There is more.

As mentioned earlier in Berg's request, he was asking for two things not pertaining to the birth of Obama. A certified copy of Obama's "Certificate of Citizenship," and a certified copy of Obama's "Oath of Allegiance." Why? Because, as we all should know, Obama was also once a citizen of Indonesia. As the story goes, Obama's parents were divorced and his mother remarried Lolo Soetoro. This is where the other complications to Barack Obama's qualifications to the presidency arise. Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married this Indonesian citizen and relocated herself and Obama to Indonesia wherein Obama's mother naturalized her citizenship to Indonesia and Obama followed her naturalization, as he could not have attended public schools there otherwise.

This also is something that has not been disputed by the Obama campaign. The problem, of course, is that you can not hold dual citizenship and qualify to be president. Therefore there must be a record of Obama re-instating his U.S. citizenship and taking an "Oath of Allegiance." Likewise he would also have to reside in the U.S. for 14 years afterward before he would be eligible to be president. That qualification certainly is not in doubt. However no record of his "Certificate of Citizenship" or an "Oath of Allegiance" has been presented. Unless Obama produces documents that prove otherwise, we must conclude that Obama failed to take the oath of allegiance when he turned eighteen. This in spite of the fact that he moved back to Hawaii to attend school and live with his grandparents in 1971. These documents would exist if either Obama, or his mother, had regained their U.S. citizenships. Where are they?

It has been shown that in 1981 Obama traveled to Pakistan using an Indonesian passport. At the time of his travels to Indonesia, Obama was twenty years old. He was well aware he maintained his Indonesian citizenship, and had yet to regain his United States citizenship. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship. Had Obama regained his United States citizenship, he would have been traveling on a United States passport. Obama's registration in Indonesia was under the name Barry Soetoro. This poses another problem for our messianic deceiver. According to Illinois state filings, when Obama registered as an attorney in 1991, under the name Barack Obama, he stated he did not have any former names. If there is one thing we are sure of, it's that Obama is a man of many names and many places.

Consider another interesting twist in the story. We have all been led to believe Barack Obama is an incredibly smart man. We know he attended Columbia University and Harvard Law School as well as his being president of the Harvard Law Review. There is no disputing that his education appears formidable. The Obama campaign took great delight in pointing out that John McCain ranked 894th out of a graduating class of 899 at the U.S. Naval Academy. However do you know where Mr. Obama ranked in his graduating class at Occidental, Columbia or Harvard? You don't know because Obama would not release any of his school records. Many people have openly wondered who paid for Obama's college education. Such things don't particularly interest me, however it would be reasonable to assume that he possibly gained an advantage to admission to these prestigious schools by claiming to be a foreign student. Considering we know he used an Indonesian passport at the age of twenty, this would appear to be the secret that Obama is hiding. I'm sure his grades were as outstanding as his disciples faithfully assure us they must be. It looks like Obama is a master at manipulating the system to his advantage. A talent that he appears to retain to this very day. Unfortunately, with no record having been presented that proves he re-instated his U.S. citizenship, we are left to ponder the possibility we have elected a non-citizen to the highest office in the land. If so, we're done for!

But alas, I did not lead you down this path just to show you that we have delivered ourselves into our own doom. I have come to bring you that which our hypnotized fellow citizens were so enraptured of during the campaign...hope. For you see, we still have a chance. One chance to expose the fraud that is either Barack Obama or all of these challenges against him. Chance, thy name is Clarence Thomas:

A case that challenges President-elect Barack Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot citing questions over his citizenship has been scheduled for a "conference" at the U.S. Supreme Court. Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. This case is set for a conference Dec. 5, just 10 days before the Electoral College is scheduled to meet to make formal the election of Obama as the nation's next president.

The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state
in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.
The case, unsuccessful at the state level, had been submitted to Justice David Souter, who rejected it. The case then was resubmitted to Justice Clarence Thomas. The next line on the court's docket says: "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008."
If four of the nine justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled. The action questions whether any of the three candidates is qualified under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen." - WorldNet Daily

That's right, the first of these many cases has landed into the Supreme Court and you have Justice Clarence Thomas to thank for it. You can also thank Barack Obama as well. Many of you may remember that during a campaign interview Obama was asked which of the nine justices would he have NOT nominated if he had the choice. Well, if you didn't see the interview I bet you can guess his answer. Although I'm sure that had nothing to do with this.

Nonetheless, as I have shown the evidence against Obama is there to be seen and it is substantial. Now, the fate of the country, if not the entire free world, will be decided in a room with nine justices. No one from the outside is allowed in during these conferences. They are the ultimate in secrecy...

Five minutes before conference time, 9:30 or 10 a.m., the Justices are summoned. They exchange ritual handshakes and settle down at the long table. The Chief sits at the east end; the other Justices sit at places they have chosen in order of their seniority...

The Chief Justice opens the discussion, summarizing each case. The senior Associate Justice speaks next, and comment passes down the line. To be accepted for review, a case needs only four votes, fewer than the majority required for a decision on the case itself. Counsel for the litigants are directed to submit their printed briefs so that each Justice has a set several weeks before argument.

Let us hope they choose to hear the case in full, whatever the outcome may be. There are those who believe that the people of the United States might revolt in the event Obama is denied the presidency. Let them. A decent, armed citizenry WILL restore order. Nothing good can come from allowing someone to accede to the highest office in the land through deception. There are also those who claim this is merely republicans crying in their beer and being sore losers. The cases hitting the courts now were all initiated BEFORE the election. In the case of Berg, he wanted Obama removed from the democratic ticket even before he won it. These are serious matters. Anyone who would conspire to such a magnitude as to deceive an entire nation has not got the the best interests of that nation at heart.

Obama can provide proof of his true qualifications if there are records of them. It is entirely his responsibility to prove he is qualified. Unfortunately there appears to be plenty of proof that he may not be. This will not go away even if the Supreme Court abdicates its responsibility to look into the matter. As Secretary of State of the United States it also falls to Condoleeza Rice to certify the results of the election. She too should demand that Obama provide proof of his origin of birth as well as proof that he re-instated his citizenship. I would say our best hope for review comes from the courts. Certainly you shouldn't look to the media for any help. You won't find this story there unless, or until, it explodes out of the Supreme Court. The media made Obama, largely by omitting anything negative that might be found. Their credibility, or what's left of it, goes down with Obama. They will sink with his ship.

"Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every neighbour will walk with slanders. And they will deceive every one his neighbour, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, and weary themselves to commit iniquity. Thine habitation is in the midst of deceit; through deceit they refuse to know me, saith the LORD. Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, Behold, I will melt them, and try them; for how shall I do for the daughter of my people? Their tongue is as an arrow shot out; it speaketh deceit: one speaketh peaceably to his neighbour with his mouth, but in heart he layeth his wait. Shall I not visit them for these things? saith the LORD: shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this? - Jeremiah 9:4-9

Melt them did he say? Ouch! I wouldn't want to be that nation, would you? There are those who fear that Obama is the Antichrist, the infamous "Beast" from the Biblical book of Revelation. As I have said before, he is NOT the Antichrist. However, the person who is the Antichrist will not ascend to his position of power without help from other world leaders. If we are currently living in the Biblical last days, that would require the consent of the United States. Barack Obama, especially if he is so great a deceiver to have pulled off such a fantastic scheme, would be just the kind of enabler the Antichrist will need.

If you will recall your Biblical eschatology, after the Beast ascends to power he turns against a portion of his power base and destroys it. The great "Mystery Babylon," portrayed as the most powerful nation on earth, is annihilated in just one hour. A man who could deceive an entire nation, could easily watch it burn. A president who attained his office through deceit could easily order its powerful nuclear arsenal to remain sheathed even as his country is obliterated. Defenseless by executive order of the Commander in Chief. Once the "United States Of Mystery Babylon" is destroyed, at the hands of the Beast and his presidential conspirator, who will dare oppose him? Such events don't seem so far fetched anymore do they?

For those of you who were hypnotized into voting for Barack H. Obama, a true "citizen of the world," I have but one question to ask you: What have you done?

Manchurian Candidate '08 Pictures, Images and Photos

Sunday, November 16, 2008

The Disenfranchisement Of The American Revolution


I love to watch the History channel. Particularly, I love to watch the shows they do on UFO abductions and religious cults. It is fascinating to study the willful self-deception of people who are consumed with violating God's first commandment. You know, the one about not having any other gods before him. The self-deceived, by the very act of their self-deception, have created their own little universe, complete with its own set of truths and realities, that essentially have placed themselves, or their chosen surrogate, as the godhead of this new universe. The unprecedented subservient and self-congratulatory celebrations that have been taking place throughout the country and, most disturbingly, the media, following the election of Barack Obama have a juvenile quality to it akin to the intoxicated behavior one expects at a college football game from the fools who paint their otherwise half naked bodies in freezing temperatures. Devotees of the new messiah sound all too familiarly like a man describing a "flying saucer" to a skeptical reporter. "They mean us no harm. They've come to help us." Of course they have...

"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." - Barack Obama

There will be no more talk of change from those abducted by the campaign of Barack Obama. Now their leader must prove to us all that he means us no harm. That he wants to help us. Change he promised. Now change must be delivered. Ahh...but what change? From his first choices for his White House staff as well as the cabinet appointments it is pretty clear that the change isn't going to be represented by new faces in the administration. Nope, its the same cast of characters we have seen before in the form of rank and file establishment democrats. Surprised? I hope not. The American left has been trying to remake America into a mirror image of European socialism since the time of Franklin Roosevelt. All of the characters for that makeover have been major players in the democratic party for a long time. Now, with majorities in both houses of congress and the White House in their control you are going to get the change you voted for. Unfortunately it will be the change that everyone in the media swore was a right wing fabrication before the election. For at least the next two years socialism will be on the offensive in America.

Its not like this hasn't happened before. !992, 1976 and 1964 all come to mind. However the democrats would have you believe this is more akin to 1932 when the country truly was in dire straits. However a quick check of the facts not only shows this to be untrue but belies the true nature of the so-called economic crisis that supposedly holds us in its grasp. We are constantly told that unemployment is a major problem yet is it? Sure, the unemployment figures are on the rise but they are only at 6.5%. Compare that with the 7.5% rate in 1992 or the 7.1%rate in 1976 and things don't seem so out of control. Certainly they aren't at the 25% levels of 1932-33!

How about the inflation rate? Certainly that will betray the total mess we are constantly being told that the Bush administration is leaving for the messiah to fix. Well the "misery index" as it came to be known during the Carter administration shows a somewhat high rate of 4.9% for the month of October. Although for this year and the previous year it has been between 3.3% and 3.8%. Not particularly calamitous when compared with 3.38% of 1992 or even the 5.75% of 1976. Although it should be pointed out that four years of democratic policies such as the always prescribed, yet never successful, "stimulus packages" improved the inflation rate to a whopping 13.58% by the end of the Carter administration in 1980. Did I say improvement? Pardon me. Still it is nowhere near the disaster of the 1931-32 situation which saw 33% DEFLATION. This was largely assisted by a meddling Roosevelt administration's insistence on raising interest rates. Carter himself repeated this act of genius during his administration getting them up to a whopping 21.5%. That will kill any economy. By contrast the Bush administration has managed this so-called "crisis" by reducing interest rates from 4.75 to 1.5% over the last year. No, Mr. Obama doesn't have that much of a challenge no matter what the media tells you. Some people might even say the fundamentals of our economy are sound. Oh wait, somebody did say that. He lost the election to Mr. Charisma. Economic markets work just fine, its the government that is the problem. Giving the government more influence will only make it worse.

"We are facing the greatest economic challenge of our lifetime and we are going to have to act swiftly to resolve it." - President-Elect Barack Obama

No, we are not facing an economic "crisis." We are in the throes of an elaborately planned scheme to gain control of our economy. Entirely planned by and executed by the democrats. Does anybody else find the timing of this event just a little bit conspicuous? Keep in mind that this situation was entirely the result of policies enacted during democratic administrations that insisted on forcing banks and other lending facilities to provide loans to those they knew could not repay them. Conveniently this calamity raises its head a few weeks before a major election. Before you accuse me of going too far on a "conspiracy" bender it is wise to remember that only 5% of mortgages are in foreclosure. It was the excessive selling, trading, insuring and other fantastic pursuits of this marginal part of the market that drove the credit market to a halt. Do you believe that at least 5% of the people who work on Wall Street, or in the banking industry could be democrats? Yea...its possible. If it is true would it not be likely that once Barack Obama takes office all this will magically right itself with him getting all the glory? Perhaps, but don't be so sure. Remember the name of this game is regulation and government control.

This is not necessarily about economics at all. That was just a tool used to get Barack Obama elected. Just as the economy was used to bring Bill Clinton into office back in 1992. Hey, it worked before. Why not use it again? It worked again. Yet there is a different feeling to it this time. Take yourself back to England in 1945. The British people showed their appreciation of Winston Churchill's war leadership by voting him out of office and voting in socialists. This in spite of all he had done for them in his conduct of the war against Nazi Germany. Why? The socialists promised "freedom from want" by offering all sorts of "something-for-nothing" goodies like government guaranteed employment, nationalized universal health care, and a cradle-to-grave welfare state. Sound familiar? Churchill, on the other hand, appeared to offer only "more of the same." With the war concluded the "God and country" message no longer resonated with an electorate that could not perceive any immediate threat. The Soviet Union notwithstanding, the war weary electorate wanted hope and change. They got it. At least their population truly did have a reason to feel "war weary." I grow tired of hearing how the United States is war weary when the only people who have had to make any sacrifice for the "War On Terror" are the soldiers and their families.

"It's time to be patriotic, time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut." - Vice President elect Joe Biden' attitude on paying taxes.

In 2008 we had an electorate blinded by the success (yes I said success) of the Bush administration's ability to protect the homeland from further terrorist attacks thus deluding itself that no further realistic danger exists. Many on the political left have concluded that the "War On Terror" is itself a myth. The electorate was further blinded by an economic "crisis" designed and delivered by the democrats who then exploited it for their own gain as their messianic candidate offered his own version of a "cradle-to-grave" welfare state. Hell, he was even HONEST about it by outwardly saying he wanted to use the tax system to "spread the wealth." And there is where the treachery hides! 41% of whites, 56% of blacks, 59% of American Indians and 40% of Asians and pacific Islanders pay absolutely NO federal income taxes. They have ZERO tax liability. Yet each and every one of them had an equal voice at the ballot box as those who do fund the federal government. The Obama campaign, and its community organizing surrogates such as ACORN, trolled endlessly through these communities looking for people to register to vote and secured their votes by promising them a tax cut! When people who don't pay taxes are offered a tax cut this is called buying an election! It is estimated that 49% of folks voting this time do not pay income taxes and voted to steal money from the taxpayers to put into their own pockets. Joe Biden thinks that the rest of us should see this blatant purchase of votes with our money as "patriotic."

This is a complete disenfranchisement of the taxpayers voice in government and goes against every principle of the American Revolution! Now we can be outvoted by people who have nothing at stake in the government except what the government can give them. This is an intolerable situation that a moral and decent people can not and will not tolerate. This country was formed by men who were paying taxes to a king that was not giving them a voice in the government. At least King George was supplying an army to defend the colonies. What do all of these voters that ACORN uncovered contribute? Nothing! They are parasites. It is all well and good to be charitable to those in need but now we find ourselves at the mercy of the "useless" and the "pathetic" who are being encouraged to use the ballot box as a means of enslaving us. Now they dictate tax policy to us? Lets face it, in the last election the taxpayer was told to send his money to Washington and shut up. If they want more money, they will take more money. They do NOT answer to us and they will NOT listen to us. That will be very apparent, very fast.

Our founding fathers believed in the concept of a "better man" and conversely of lesser ones. It was never their intention that the lesser ones would be granted the opportunity to all! Let alone use the election process to lord over better men. There is a reason why the American revolution was a uniquely successful and enduring one compared to other "revolutions" throughout history. It was not an uprising of the downtrodden, pathetic and poor masses but instead was a revolt from the productive sector of society. It began as a taxpayer revolt! It is time for us to stand up for the idea of voter reform. There is no reason for a taxpayer and a parasite to have an equal voice in government, and we must put a stop to it. If we fail to corral these parasites we guarantee ourselves an irresponsible spendthrift government. The parasites know no other way.

We have become a country that fears freedom, because freedom has consequences. It produces both excellence and failure in equal measure. The coward cannot risk failure so a system like socialism appeals to him. It creates an atmosphere where there is always safety in numbers and the outcomes are always equal. That's why you hear socialists throw the word "fair" around so often. According to the socialist, the only fair game is a tie game. They divide us into small "minorities" that need protection and then offer to provide that protection. The price they extract, however, is our individualism. They have no use for individuals. All of us must work for the good of the "collective." That's also why in our socialist run public school system the only thing our children learn is to tolerate everything and criticize nothing in the name of "moral equivalency." Everything is of equal worth. If they are lucky enough to get a student loan that they will resent having to pay back, then they will go to college and get a degree in "self-esteem." And these are the "smart" people who tell the rest of us that voting for Obama was the right thing to do, though they can't explain why.

"Obama stood against the fierce tide of history and achieved the unimaginable" - Rev. Raphael G. Warnock

Huh? Was he watching the same presidential election that the rest of us were? The worst element of this great hypnotization of America was the way the media, in all its forms, openly promoted the messianic candidate by creating the illusion of some great redemption the country would go through by electing the first African-American president. The "fierce tide of history" was working for Obama thanks to the blind loyalty of the loyal democratic sycophants in the mainstream media. They didn't report the news, they created the news and in so doing, they made Obama the President. A great example of that was hearing Tom Brokaw say after the election that no one really knows Obama. Well if the press had done their job everyone would know they just elected the least experienced and most liberal president in the history of the country. Tom, you even had control of one of the debates! Why didn't YOU find out who he was and what he was about? Everyone was swept away by this great fictional story about a man who truly is not great. Like the flying saucers on the History Channel, there was nothing there...but nonetheless everyone swears they saw it...and of course he wants to help us. He means us no harm.

"Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to." - Theodore Dalrymple

Like another well known hypnotizer of the masses, Obama likes to write books about himself. Books in which he reveals much about what he will do in office. He clearly stated that he sought out Marxist teachers in college. What kind of person would do that? A Marxist! Of course you can't say that because the democrats, in all their politically correct glory, ingeniously nominated Barack Obama entirely because he was an African-American. It proved to be a useful novelty. Not only did it seduce the media with the foolish illusion that this was a great moment in history, but it also insulated their candidate from the severe questioning and criticism that is due a presidential nominee. Say anything they don't like, and you are branded a racist. You can't argue with success though. It worked. The public did not vote for Barack Obama. They voted for the idea of Barack Obama. Even Obama himself doesn't know what that entails, but it sets a lot of people up for a great disappointment.

Of course the world is in love with Barack Obama. There are all these wonderful stories about how his election will improve America's image abroad and the celebrations overseas often look as juvenile as the ones here. However all is not as they would have you believe. World leaders like Vladmir Putin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez are celebrating the naive and inexperienced Obama's arrival on the world scene much the same way a school of sharks celebrates the arrival of a naive seal swimming into waters it is likewise unprepared for. The only question is which one will sink their teeth into him first. Unfortunately, when Obama is devoured, so are we all. Nonetheless expect him to always remain outwardly calm, cool and collected. Thats all he has. When the next terrorist attack occurs, and it will happen swiftly after he assumes control, expect Obama to do...nothing. At least not to the terrorists and those who support them. That's what Joe Biden meant when he said that an Obama administration would be challenged and their immediate response would not look like the right one. There will essentially be no response, just as their was none for the constant string of them through the Clinton administration. A little bit of fear is good to keep the population in line. Perhaps that is what Obama meant when he said:

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Hmm, kind of reminds you of the kind of security force that came to be in 1930's era Germany. How well did that work out? You can't make this stuff up.

Don't expect Obama to solve the so-called financial crisis either. The stock market has plummeted since his election in a way that is unprecedented in its history. Obama promised to tax the rich. See the rich take their money and run...and with them goes the jobs that you have, and could have had, if that money stayed in the market. He promised to "spread the wealth." Unfortunately there won't be any wealth to dole out. Four years from now when he runs for re-election you can expect him to still be blaming George Bush for what will then be his own failures. Maintaining a constant state of crisis is necessary to convince us to part with our liberties you understand. Its interesting that one of the first ideas being tossed about is the prospect of the government taking over everyone's 401K plans. Oh, it will be voluntary at first. But as the crisis lingers and all that real money is just sitting there...

Of course there will be other crises to contend with. Global warming, energy, health care, and of course the imposition of the "fairness doctrine" to suppress any criticism of the administration's policies. All criticism henceforth shall be referred to as "hate speech." A veritable cornucopia of socialism is on the horizon. Individual rights will soon be an endangered species.

I just love listening to Sunday morning news pundits as they try to figure out how the Obama administration will govern. They say silly things like Obama "moved" to the center during the campaign so thats how he will govern. No he won't. He didn't "move" anywhere. He told us what we wanted to hear so we would vote for him! He told us what he was told to say. Obama is no leader. He is a follower. He will do what he has always done. He will be manipulated by the extreme left of the democratic party because he has no experience at doing anything else. When Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid send him socialist policies to sign into law you will hear Barack Obama say "Yes we can." If his desire for a national security force is an example of his own thinking, Reid and Pelosi might turn out to be conservative by comparison. How's that for a thought?

Yes, it is entirely possible the United States of America died November 4th. We have elected a man whose past associations would have prohibited him from getting an FBI security clearance and given him control of OUR security. This was achieved largely through a process of political correctness, media manipulation, charismatic hypnosis and of course, trolling for the votes of parasites with the expectation of latching them onto a government nipple from which they will forever vote to stay attached. If we accept this we are finished. We must reform the voting system and restore the greater influence where it belongs: to the productive, working taxpayer. We no longer hold the American voter to a high standard. We can therefore expect to get the government we deserve. We certainly did this time. One that will reflect the parasitic values that elected it. This election was a national hypnosis, deception and disenfranchisement of Biblical proportions. One destined to make a fine program on someones History Channel in the future. Perhaps with a notorious Styx song about angels and a UFO abduction as its soundtrack. Of course, they meant us no harm. They were here to help us.

Abandon all hope, for change is in the wind...

I'm sailing away, set an open course for the virgin sea
I've got to be free, free to face the life that's ahead of me
On board, I'm the captain, so climb aboard
Well search for tomorrow on every shore
And I'll try, oh lord, I'll try to carry on

Some happy, some sad
I think of childhood friends and the dreams we had
We live happily forever, so the story goes
But somehow we missed out on that pot of gold
But we'll try best that we can to carry on

A gathering of angels appeared above my head
They sang to me this song of hope, and this is what they said
They said come sail away, come sail away
Come sail away with me
Come sail away, come sail away
Come sail away with me

I thought that they were angels, but to my surprise
They climbed aboard their starship and headed for the skies
Singing come sail away, come sail away
Come sail away with me
Come sail away, come sail away
Come sail away with me

Sunday, October 26, 2008

The Ku Klux Klan's Master Stroke


"During another period, in the not too distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who only desired to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed one Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama." - Georgia Representative John Lewis...DEMOCRAT

With what appears to be the inevitable coronation of Barack H. Obama looming on the horizon it seems like an appropriate time to take stock of the accomplishment this truly represents for the African-American community. No, I am not going to praise the brilliance of how a 47 year old man, who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his life, has hoodwinked the white American population into electing him as some sort of "affirmative action" salve to ease its own self-loathing sense of guilt for the perceived crimes of their ancestors. Instead I would like to point out how the election of this man represents the ultimate sense of self-loathing that the black community feels towards itself. Find that hard to believe do ya? Well lets talk about genocide...or is it suicide? You make the call.

"I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby," - Barack H. Obama

"Punished" with a baby? How did we get to the point where the gift of life can be called punishment from the apparently inevitable future president? Hell, he didn't even suffer through much criticism for making such an honest statement of his true beliefs. There is another famous saying that states that "the end justifies the means." It is a statement that can be attributed to so many people that it is unwarranted to even try to give credit for its origins. However, there is a large portion of the American electorate, particularly militant feminists, who view unlimited and unrestricted abortions as a desirable "end." But what if the abortion issue was never an end but instead is the means to some other end? What, praytell, might that portend? You might be scared to find out.

Lets look at some statistics. In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred. That is 45 million people who were murdered before they were born. A lot of you may bristle at my choice of the word "murder." Though I am not myself a Catholic, I feel as though Pope John Paul II expressed it best:

"From the first instant (conception) there is established the program of what this living being will be: a person, this individual person with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization the adventure of a human life begins, and each of its capacities requires time-a rather lengthy time-to find its place and be in a position to act."

Who has abortions in the United States? While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely. 37% of abortions occur to black women, and 22% to Hispanic women. Yet when one looks at the results of the latest population census blacks make up only 12.4% of the total population. Hispanics actually have surpassed them with 14.8% with whites holding a commanding 73.9% advantage in the overall population. So we see that the two prevailing minorities have a disproportionate share of the abortions in the United States...interesting. Here is another strange fact; 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion. Repeat business accounts for almost half of all abortions. Incredible!

Of the 45 million abortions performed since 1973 over 16 million have been performed on black women. This compares to only 4,785,870 African-Americans killed by AIDS, violent crime, accidents, heart disease and cancer COMBINED.

Columnist Michael Novak noted: "Since the number of current living Blacks is 36 million, the missing 16 million represents an enormous loss, for without abortion, America's Black community would now number 52 million persons. It would be 36 percent larger than it is. Abortion has swept through the Black community like a scythe, cutting down every fourth member."

Many people in the black community rightly view this as cultural genocide, but somehow their voices are being drowned out by the pro-choice media that supports democratic candidates that in turn support unrestricted abortion rights. Senator and heir apparent to the presidency Barack H. Obama even has gone so far in his support for abortion rights that he voted no on an Illinois bill that would require a baby that "accidentally" survived an attempted abortion to be given medical treatment to survive. His campaign bristles when his opponents accuse him of supporting "infanticide" but it is clearly there to be found on what little record he has. And this from an African-American who should know the devastating affect that abortion is having to the black community.

And yet the alleged enemy of the African-American community, the infamous Ku Klux Klan can only be attributed to killing a somewhat paltry 4742 people between 1882-1968. We must also bear in mind that a large number of these killings may not have even been done by the Klan as a large number of murders are attributed to years when they were actually dormant. Nonetheless it is a number that pales against the 16 million black people that have been murdered through abortion at the current rate of 1452 a day!

I have always found it amusing that black people vote for democrats. Why? After all the Ku Klux Klan was comprised almost entirely of Democrats, or as they were fond of calling themselves, "dixiecrats." There is even still a "former" Klansman in the Senate now in West Virginia's Robert Byrd, a Democrat of course. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican as were almost all blacks at that time. It was the Democrats who fought for and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s. During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, as in the case of the previously mentioned Alabama Governor George C. Wallace, who stood in the doorway of the University Of Alabama to deny the enrollment of black students.

Yet in election after election dating back to the seventies 9 out of 10 blacks vote for the democratic candidate every time. How did this happen? Did democrats change their ways? All the evidence suggests exactly the opposite! There has been a relatively successful effort on the part of Democrats to portray the Republican party as being more hospitable to those who possess racist views, yet there exists no evidence for such accusations. In fact, the record of Republicans from Abraham Lincoln right up to the current administration of George W. Bush shows a consistent commitment to an evenhanded application of civil rights. Yet even the aforementioned Alabama Governor George Wallace managed to get himself elected to office by claiming most of the black vote in spite of his segregationist behavior. Remarkable!

The Democratic party has consistently supported policies that, though outwardly purported to be noble and charitable, have nonetheless caused great harm to the very people who enthusiastically support them. Do we remember Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs that created and expanded the welfare system? LBJ declared a war on Poverty. Yet what were the results? The 1960s War on Poverty was intended to eliminate child poverty nationwide through a variety of income transfers (some might call this "spreading the wealth") and human development programs. However, during the first three decades of the War on Poverty, there was little net decline in the child poverty rate. In 1965 the child poverty rate was 20.7 percent. Thirty years later, in 1996 the child poverty rate was only slightly lower at 19.8 percent. Yet there were "unintended" consequences. But were they "unintended?"

"... in politics nothing is accidental. If something happens, be assured it was planned this way" - Franklin D. Roosevelt,

The number of single-parent families has grown considerably since the onset of the War on Poverty. In 1960, less than 12 percent of children lived in single-parent families. By 2000, that figure had more than doubled, rising to 27.6 percent. In 1960, only 28 percent of black females ages 15 to 44 were never married and illegitimacy among blacks was 22 percent. Today, the never-married rate is 56 percent and illegitimacy stands at 70 percent!! If today's black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits. However, thanks to the meddling policies of the democratic party the black family unit has been decimated. This in turn, leads many black women to turn to abortions as a solution to their dilemma. But was this an unintended consequence of a noble attempt to reduce poverty, or a planned experiment in social engineering designed to harm the black race? Remember these policies were implemented in the mid sixties when liberal and segregationist democrats controlled majorities in both houses of Congress and the White House. A situation we are about to recreate.

"Do not do unto others that which they will do to themselves." - Sidney Allen Johnson

Yea, I want credit for that proverb. Who needs a Ku Klux Klan when the African-American community is willing to sell its votes to a party that is openly supporting a campaign to destroy them? There's no need for burning crosses and lynchings. Abortion has become a Klansman's dream come true. 1452 black women every day walk into an abortion clinic and destroy their own children. As a reward for their compliance you will now have the opportunity to elect a President who has totally sold himself, and his own people, out to their own destruction. I'm sure some of you out there are saying: "hey what about all the white women having abortions?" Well, you know some white people need killin' too! And the white families that were vulnerable to the social experimentation of the welfare state are equally undesirable to the elites who conceived this scheme. Social engineering cuts a lot of different ways. But there are more white people, they will survive the attrition. Well, the right ones will anyway! Eugenics experimentation didn't end with the crushing of the Nazi regime...its alive and well today.

"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind." - United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

On November 4th, 95% of what is expected to be a huge black turnout, will cast their votes for self destruction. For sure, the most racist of these black people have actually led themselves to believe that they are putting it to the white man. They actually believe Barack Obama is going to "spread the wealth" their way. Yet they and their messianic candidate are voting for the continuation of the genocide against the African-American community. He will fulfill the expectations of his benefactors. Sorry to shatter your illusions, but the people who vote for him are not his benefactors. That he is an African-American has proven to be a useful novelty, but his history has shown that he will do as he always has done. He will look out for his own interests. And it is in his interest to do what he is told.

Are "spread the wealth" policies and support for abortion rights an objective, or simply a means to another, more diabolical and malevolent objective? It makes no difference to me. I am voting for a man and a party that has consistently fought for life and freedom. Did the segregationist and liberal democrats of old disappear, or are we witnessing the fruition of their most ingenious crime? The Ku Klux Klan of old had some interesting costumes, and I must confess that the burning crosses are somewhat appealing in a theatrical sort of way. But it was the brilliant idea of recruiting their victims into supporting their own damnation and destruction that stands as the dixiecrats and the Ku Klux Klan's master stroke. For them, the end justified the means. Over 16 million served!


Statistics on abortion from the Guttmacher institute. Statistics on the war on poverty from the Heritage Foundation.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Appetite For Deception


"I think that's all fine and good but here's what I think, in the next 47 days you can fire the whole trickle-down, on-your-own, look-the-other way crowd in Washington who has led us down this disastrous path. Don't just get rid of one guy. Get rid of this administration, Get rid of this philosophy. Get rid of the do-nothing approach to our economic problem and put somebody in there who's going to fight for you." -Barack H. Obama

With the explosion of news coming out of the financial markets these days you could be led to believe the United States is on the verge of a massive economic collapse on par with the Great Depression. The stock market plunges 500 points one day on the news of AIG's impending failure then rebounds 700 points the next two days. Markets in other countries have to be closed because they are rising too fast! All this on the news that the Federal Government is coming to the rescue with hundreds of billions of our dollars by assuming control of still more of the mortgage industry. Ahh, the smell of socialism comes to America and Wall Street rejoices. With the collapse of the mortgage industry, a lot of politicians are calling for heads to roll. Somebody should have said something...right? Somebody should have done something...right? Well my friends, somebody did say something and somebody did do something. Step inside a twisted tale Hollywood could have never imagined, yet most assuredly, will vote for...

The Federal National Mortgage Association, aka Fannie Mae, was created in 1938 as part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. Ironically, it was originally created to bail out failing banks after the collapse of the national housing market in the wake of the Great Depression. Borrowers were defaulting on mortgages not unlike they are in the current situation. Fannie Mae was established in order to provide local banks with federal money to finance home mortgages in an attempt to raise the level of home ownership and the availability of affordable housing. It operated like a national savings and loan, allowing local banks to charge low interest rates on mortgages for the benefit of home buyers.

In 1968, due to economic pressure created by the Vietnam War, President Lyndon B. Johnson privatized Fannie Mae in order to remove it from the federal budget. At this point, Fannie Mae began operating as a GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise), generating profits for stock holders while enjoying the benefits of exemption from taxation and oversight as well as implied government backing.

The Federal Home Mortgage Corporation, aka Freddie Mac, was created in 1970 also as a GSE privately owned and operated by shareholders and financially backed by the Federal Government. These government protections include access to a line of credit through the U.S. Treasury, exemption from state and local income taxes and exemption from SEC oversight. Freddie Mac was created largely for the purpose of preventing Fannie Mae from operating as a monopoly.

Although these entities have been getting all the media attention due to their recent failures, the true culprit of the mortgage debacle is something called The Community Reinvestment Act, signed into law by Jimmy Carter in 1977! The CRA allowed banks to lend money based on minority status, not the ability to repay the loans. Banks who were given federal money to lend were assessed ratings that were not based on the soundness of the risk of their loans, but on the number of loans given to minorities. President Bill Clinton took the CRA even farther by committing U.S. banks to make available nearly one TRILLION dollars for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects.

Banks were required to furnish a certain percentage of their loans to low income minorities, regardless of their inability to re-pay the loans, and the banks' ratings were tied to these loans. In other words, the banks could not maintain a high rating unless they participated in this disastrous practice. Government coercion at its finest! The standard 20% down-payment rules were eliminated. New terms of length were installed, abolishing the traditional 20 year mortgage and giving loans of up to 40 years!

Left wing community groups like ACORN were allowed to set up offices to help minorities qualify for loans and banks were required to accept the information provided by ACORN. Information that was often false! Borrowers, who often made as little as $30K a year, were listed as having incomes of over $70K in order to qualify and the banks were required to accept that information without question. There were even loans like NINJA (no income, no job or assets) loans. Unstable income, such as child support payments or welfare payments, were allowed to be considered part of the borrowers income! How dependable is that for a source of income? This was a disaster waiting to happen. Somebody should have said something! Somebody should have done something! Unfortunately those who opposed the Clinton Administration's Financial Modernization bill were often called bigots for opposing these lending practices that were, on their face, designed to encourage minority participation in home ownership. The reality was that this became a pet banking system for the democratic party and some of its most questionable allies.

Enter Franklin Raines, Vice-Chairman at Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1996. In 1996 he joined the Clinton Administration as the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, where he served until 1998. In 1999, he returned to Fannie Mae, but this time it was as the CEO, the first black man to head a Fortune 500 company. In 2004 Raines accepted what was called an "early retirement" after a report from The Office of Federal Housing Oversight found numerous accounting discrepancies in Fannie Mae's operation. Raines tried to take his money and run, but he did not get away.

Raines was accused by The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the regulating body of Fannie Mae, of widespread accounting errors, which included the shifting of losses so senior executives, such as himself, could earn large bonuses. Exactly the behavior that led to the infamous ENRON scandal.
In 2006, the OFHEO initiated a lawsuit against Raines in order to recover some or all of the $50 million in payments made to Raines based on the falsified earnings statements. He is accused of overstating Fannie Mae's assets to the tune of 6.3 billion dollars.

Then there is the case of James A. Johnson. The same Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight report from September 2004 found that, during Johnson's tenure as CEO, Fannie Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses. This enabled top executives, including Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to receive substantial bonuses in 1998. A 2006 OFHEO report found that Fannie Mae had substantially under reported Johnson's compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million in compensation.

With all these shenanigans going on in government sponsored entities you would think somebody would have wanted to get involved. Somebody should have said something...right? Well, somebody did, as this report from 2003 indicates:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt - is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. -New York Times

Though the President was attempting to take action he was of course met with criticism from the usual cast of characters whose statements now seem rather foolish:

''These two entities are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
-Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." -Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina

That's keeping your eye on the ball. Why do you think these democrats were so defensive of this particular enterprise? Why would they go out on a limb to defend the indefensible? As always those who sought to criticize the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were accused of bigotry and hostility to the poor. Still, somebody else did dare to say something in 2005:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs-and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Who was this man who dared to present legislation to gain control of these two GSE entities that were running amok? Senator John S. McCain. It looks like he was ahead of the curve on this economic crisis just like he was ahead of the curve on the need for more troops in Iraq. What were the objectives of this bill?

In lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.

Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting.

Like the Bush administration's attempt to reign in the renegade GSE's two years earlier, this bill failed to get through congress. In fact it died in committee. Is it a coincidence that the ranking Democrat on the committee (and its current chairman) is also the number one recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae? Senator Chris Dodd received $165,400 in contributions from the wayward GSE. It appears to be money well spent as it helped Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac navigate the hostile waters of republican meddling. After the Democrats retook the House and Senate in 2006 it looked like smooth sailing. Well, until the housing market hit its zenith and started to slow down, causing home values to go down and these dubious mortgages to accelerate their defaulting.

Which brings us to the conclusion of our master deception. How does this play out to the voters in this year's presidential election? Well, there is an interesting twist to the final act in this drama. Consider this statement concerning the action the government is now taking to try and rescue the situation:

"One of the central requirements that I have consistently set in evaluating any intervention under this new legislation is that such action protect taxpayers and not bail out senior management from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Multi-million dollar severance payments for the executives who helped steer these institutions into the current crisis situation would violate the spirit of the authority granted by Congress to the Treasury Department and would violate the public's trust." -Barack H. Obama

It would appear from this statement that Barack Obama feels that the executives of these companies are the villains. Strange when one considers that both Franklin Raines and James Johnson, the two CEO's who profited from the fraudulent and misrepresented reporting at Fannie Mae, have found themselves working for... Barack Obama! That's right. Mr. Obama, who claims to be worried about violating the public's trust, has found it within himself to trust these two criminal CEO's to work with his campaign. I guess the reason he did not want the government to bail out the senior officials of these companies is because he wanted to bail them out himself! And this from a man who claims his "judgement" qualifies him for the presidency.

James A. Johnson was tapped by Obama to head his search committee to choose his Vice President. Perhaps another disastrous failure in and of itself considering the result. And though Obama is attempting to deny that Franklin Raines is actually one of his economic advisers, Raines has already confirmed that he has had several "conversations" with Obama regarding economic policy and, ironically, the mortgage crisis. I guess you can say Obama showed good "judgement" by consulting an "expert" on the subject. This is extremely disconcerting when one considers that presidents generally pick their staff and cabinet from the pool of people who advise them during their campaigns. How does the prospect of Franklin Raines' and James Johnson's hands fondling the federal treasury appeal to you?

Obama also has dirty hands when it come to being a recipient of some of Fannie Mae's "generosity" regarding political contributions. Fannie Mae donated $126,349 to Obama. Second only to Senator Dodd, and we know what "favors" they received from him. What, praytell, do they expect to receive from Obama? With the taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars, why would Obama accept contributions from such a source? In fairness, the list of Senators and representatives that have received contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from 1989 to 2008 is a long one. John McCain himself received $21,550. But Obama has only been in the senate since 2004! Yet he is the second largest recipient! So much for change you can believe in.

In conclusion, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, combined with enhancements to The Community Reinvestment Act, have been creations and favored pets of democrats and Clinton administration appointees. It was an illusion that on its face appeared to be designed to make mortgages available to people who were ill suited to pay for them. Hidden from public view, it was a banking system to funnel money to left wing operations and democratic operatives who were handsomely rewarded for their misreporting and misrepresenting of the going's on within their criminal enterprise.

Remember when Nancy Pelosi came in as Speaker of the House and promised the most ethical House of Representatives ever? Where are the prosecutions? The investigations? Funny how she loses interest in such ethical matters when its the Democrats who are on the take. Gotta restart those "impeach Bush" hearings again!

Try as he might, there is no way Barack Obama can lay this crisis at the feet of the Bush administration or John McCain. Both men made valiant attempts at intervening. Somebody should have said something. They did. Somebody should have done something. They did. Unfortunately too many others were looking out for their own interests and not the taxpayers. Don't be deceived any further. It is Barack Obama and his sycophants whose lips are firmly wrapped around Fannie Mae's nipples...and you know what that sucking sound is!

Sunday, September 7, 2008

The Audacity Of "Obamanomics"


"We've all got some unfinished business to attend to: The business of shaking things up, and asking hard questions, and insisting on the hard truths. The business of embracing those who struggle and making their struggles our own. The business of refusing to settle for anything less than what's right and what's fair and what's just." -Barack H. Obama

Well there is no way I can get around it. I am finally going to have to deal directly with the ideas and ideology of presidential hopeful Barack H. Obama. He titled his book "The Audacity Of Hope" and make no mistake about it, he is an audacious man. However, a more honest title might have been "The Audacity Of a Socialist," for everything he has said reeks of a true believer in pure, unadulterated socialism. As the above statement indicates, he has no problem with using the government as a tool for intervening and interfering with the lives of American citizens. Always, of course, in the name of doing "what's right and what's fair and what's just." Lets look at what this portends for us all…

"We meet at one of those defining moments - a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more." -Barack H. Obama

Well if you are a socialist it is imperative that you generate a crisis that needs immediate attention. Unfortunately for socialists America truly is not in bad shape. Therefore they must construct an illusion to try and motivate public perception to see "turmoil" where there is none. The economy is always a profitable place to hunt for grievances as there will always be some people who feel they are not as well off as they would like to be. The socialist must therefore create a sense of covetousness within our society and then capitalize on the envy and inferiority that is generated as many people feel that they have been "disenfranchised" from something that has never belonged to them.

EXODUS 2:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Ahh yes, the tenth commandment. I will have to forgive many of you for being unfamiliar with it since teaching such things is considered undesirable in modern America's socialist schools. Yet I cannot help but feel that removing such moral instruction from the lives of our citizens has proven quite useful in convincing so many that they are worse off than they really are. The mortgage "crisis" being a perfect example. In order to allow more people to "participate in the American dream" laws were crafted to reduce the qualifications for loaning money for home-buyers. This of course leads to those once unqualified for such loans, to then fulfill these initial suspicions by defaulting on their loans. According to Barack Obama this is an economy in turmoil because close to a million people are having trouble paying these mortgages. The American dream therefore must be failing, and of course this is the fault of George W. Bush.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, what he failed to mention was the fact that during the Bush administration there have been 17 million first time homebuyers. That means 95% of first time home-buyers under the Bush administration are actually paying for their houses without any complaint or government help. Combine that with the report that the GDP grew by 3.3% from April through June, the highest growth rate in the industrialized world for that period, and you are left with an economy that just will not drop into a recession in spite of all the attempts by the media to fabricate one through fear and misreporting of facts. So much for an economy in turmoil and its subsequent threat to the "American promise." And as for that war the senator referenced, we are winning it, in spite of Senator Obama's proud opposition to it.

"We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma." -Barack H. Obama

Here is a problem with socialists: They have to intrude into every facet of your life. Why should government be concerned with your job, your mortgage or your child's college education? That is none of their business. Already we see some of the fruits of this poisonous way of thinking with the government passing a bill that will aid homeowners who are defaulting on their loans. But what of the 95% of homeowners who aren't defaulting? Why should they have to subsidize others who bought more house than they could afford? Why should we the taxpayer have to be involved in financing the college educations of children other than our own? This is Mr. Obama's idea of "what's right and what's fair and what's just?"

"Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.

I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class." -Barack H. Obama

Good luck with that! I am starting to think that a college degree from Harvard University is a bit over-rated. The economics department obviously needs some work as Mr. Obama fails to understand that it is the higher taxes that are CAUSING the jobs to be lost overseas. According to figures from the CATO institute the United States has is surpassed only by Japan for the highest tax rates in the developed free world with a rate of 40%. This is AFTER the much maligned Bush tax cuts. Ireland, whose economy is booming, has a corporate tax rate of 12.5%. They have been steadily lowering their tax rates and steadily watching their economy grow.

If Mr. Obama is elected and insists on repealing the Bush tax cuts, as he regularly claims that he will, that will make the United States the country with the highest corporate taxes in the free world. What does Mr. Obama think is causing corporations to move their jobs and their money overseas? Rising unemployment is one element of the economy that genuinely needs to be dealt with, but not by raising taxes on the very corporations you need to create new jobs. If he wants to bring jobs back to America and entice the creation of new ones he should be cutting corporate taxes, but that doesn't sound so well when you are trolling for votes among the least productive elements of our society. You must convince them that its and "us against them" game and that the rules need to be changed.

There is good news for Mr. Obama on that front too! By raising taxes on corporations and driving more of them to overseas markets there will be fewer working families to receive the tax cuts that he is offering them in exchange for their votes. Fewer working families will mean an increased in the aggrieved classes who always vote for democrats, and of course, fewer people to actually receive the phantom tax cuts he is baiting them with.

Mr. Obama likes to say he will only raise taxes on those people making over $250,000 a year. That sounds good until you understand that almost everyone works for someone making that kind of money. They will have to cut some expenses to pay the new taxes. Your job just may be that expense.

"And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East."
"As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced." -Barack H. Obama

My oh my aren't we optimistic, and just a little bit plagiaristic too. It seems that he is, in a somewhat half-hearted manner, adopting John McCain's energy plan. McCain has long since been on record as calling for more production of U.S. resources. However he had the courage to call for 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 and another 55 shortly thereafter. Now that is a commitment. He is also calling for a streamlining of the process for obtaining licenses and permits to build them. This is generally the biggest obstacle in their construction. Obama by contrast is speaking in generalities and promising only lots of "restrictions" and "regulations" that are sure to delay production.

One place Mr. Obama does not speak in general terms is in his call for a whopping 150 BILLION dollars to subsidize new and unproven potential sources of energy. It appears that when Mr. Obama sees oil he is clearly aware that there is a finite reserve of those resources, but when it comes to taxpayer funding Mr. Obama sees nothing but vast untapped reserves. Unfortunately those reserves consist of yours and my money. But in Mr. Obama's world this is "what's right and what's fair and what's just."

"Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. Michelle and I are only here tonight because we were given a chance at an education. And I will not settle for an America where some kids don't have that chance. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American - if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education." -Barack H. Obama

When did it become our "moral obligation to provide every child with a world class education?" I always find it hard to tolerate a lecture on morality from a party dedicated to the tolerance and perpetuation of every form of immorality and decadence it can find. Is it the president's job to invest our money on recruiting an "army of new teachers?" My constitution must be missing that part. It is especially distressing to see that Mr. Obama believes that America owes every child a college education. The colleges are filled with people who can't read or tell you what happened at Gettysburg thanks to government intervention in the K-12 educational system. How does he feel they merit more responsibility, and more money?

"Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for a sick child or ailing parent." -Barack H. Obama

That is some sweet sounding altruistic garbage. The government has no right or authority to be dictating the day to day operation of either a place of business or the family life of its citizens. This is just another example of Mr. Obama's complete acceptance of socialist dogma. Freedom is entirely built upon the making of choices. Remove them, and you will remove your freedom. You have a right to be paid for work that you do. This policy is the equivalent of forcing someone to pay you for not being at work at all. Is this "what's right and what's fair and what's just?" You are not owed sick days or family leave from anyone.

"Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses; and the time to protect Social Security for future generations." -Barack H. Obama

I guess its not enough to bail out a million homeowners who defaulted on their loans, now the government must backup the pensions of private businesses and regulate their behavior. Once again we see Mr. Obama's inclination to grow the government's responsibility and intrude on the operations of businesses. Between increased regulation and increased taxes is it any wonder corporations would seek to move their operations elsewhere. CEO bonuses, however outlandish they may be, are private business and not a matter for government.

Social Security is, of course, the flagship of socialism in America. It was an illegal, unconstitutional program when Franklin Roosevelt started it. Privatization, with an intention to move toward its elimination, is the only solution to fixing this program. It has grown to the point that it is unsustainable and everyone knows it. Yet it is the immorality of the program that has always bothered me. Old and sick people should be cared for by their families. Not by the government.

"Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most." -Barack H. Obama

If Social Security has been the flagship of the great socialist invasion fleet then Universal Health Care is the armor that is coming ashore. Once again I ask: who promised "affordable, accessible health care for every single American?" The government should not be in the health care business. If you think health insurance companies are hard to deal with wait until you get health care administered by the government. There will always be people who lack in health care for one reason or another. Health care is one of the choices that free people either choose to enter into or not. Often their lack of ability to acquire health care is a result of other choices they freely made beforehand. People who engage in high risk behavior are going to be more expensive to care for and therefore cost more to insure. That is simple enough that even a Harvard graduate should understand it.

If you grant everyone the right to health care then the doctors offices will be filled with people with marginal sicknesses and they will prevent truly sick people from being able to get attention. That is the natural consequence of anything "free." Rationing is the next direct consequence of government health care in order to address that situation. Rationing of health care services has occurred in every government health care system ever created. That makes the government the distributor of health care. Think about that! How well do you think they will do it? Do you really want to hand over all the decision-making of your health in exchange for affordable or free health care?

Once the government becomes the distributor of health care they will be able to set the parameters for its operation. Did you know they then can and will decide what you should eat? Why not? What you eat and how you behave becomes EVERYONE'S business when the cost is bore by everyone. Do you really want that much intrusion? Is that your idea of "what's right and what's fair and what's just?"

The democratic party is an amalgamation of peoples and associations that perceive themselves as having grievances with the United States. The democratic party has always catered to these types but in recent years it has thrown any semblance of responsibility to the wind in an attempt to cater to these groups and try to build a voting coalition that will get them back into power. They have always had a tendency toward big government socialism. Which brings me to this famous quote:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." -Alexander Tyler

Now we have reached that point where a presidential candidate has opened up the treasury of his future administration to attempt to meet the demands of these self-aggrieved people in exchange for their votes. This is the entitlement culture. Those who believe that they have rights and entitlements to things that do not and have never belonged to them. I present to you, the messiah of the parasite class. A man who dares demand something, nay everything, for nothing: Mr. Barack Hussein Obama!

He is the entitlement culture's version of Robin Hood. Like Robin Hood he is charismatic. Also like Robin Hood, he is a thief. Just because you organize yourself into a political party, vote yourself into office and then redistribute the property and wealth of others who have worked for it, does not alter the fact that you have taken that which does not now nor has it ever belonged to you. Theft is theft no matter the method. A moral society would not tolerate such behavior. The day that those who do not produce can legally demand that those who do produce must provide for their welfare, will be the last day of the United States.

If elected president, Barack Obama looks likely to have a majority in both houses of congress, and perhaps even a filibuster-proof senate. The last day of the United States may be closer than you think. Those who love their country, and all that it stands for, will be morally bound to destroy it rather than see it succumb to the parasite classes. That is always the natural end for parasites. They always kill their host, which ultimately kills them. Perhaps we will learn from it and build a better America the next time.

If you still persist in believing that an Obama presidency would be a change for "what's right and what's fair and what's just," then consider the belittling that the messiah of the parasites has displayed to his intended victims. This is how he describes both John McCain and those who would vote for him:

"It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it."
"For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own."
"Well it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America." -Barack H. Obama

Failure!! How dare he call the very people, whose success he wishes to pillage, failures. The prosperous and the producers in America are not failures. The failures are socialist entitlement seekers who are out to rob the successful by creating all sorts new of rights for themselves and making demands for free health care, free college educations, loan bailouts, bankruptcy protection etc. What they are in effect demanding is freedom from the consequences of their own actions. They fear freedom because freedom has both consequences and responsibilities as well as rewards. The socialists see only the rewards and make their criminal demands in the name of "Social Justice," or, as Barack Obama says "what's right and what's fair and what's just." Do you really want this man and his cohorts to "change America?" Moral people will not allow themselves to be made the victims of their "social justice."

In his convention speech Barack Obama also ridiculed a statement by former Texas Senator Phil Gramm in which he said:

"We have sort of become a nation of whiners. You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline."

Well, he's almost right. America really hasn't become a nation of whiners. It has become a nation of housecats. The housecat is a creature that likes to act as though it is independent and doesn't need anyone. Yet as soon as some difficulty presents itself, the housecat will hiss and spit at the very people to whom it is completely dependent for its existence. At the democratic convention the housecats of America demanded free and universal everything as they hissed and spit at the very people they need to provide them with it. Perhaps the cats need to be put outside.