Monday, October 13, 2008

Columbus Day-What the history books won't tell you

Christopher Columbus is perhaps the most famous, although unknown, member of the Third Order of Penance, founded by St. Francis of Assisi. He was a deeply religious and Christian man.

"Why Did Columbus Sail"

by Kevin A. Miller
in Christian History Issue 35 (Vol XI, No 3)

The bright noon sun beat down on the stone walls of the Church of St. George in Palos, Spain. Inside, in the cool quiet, knelt Cristobal Colon, captain general of three small ships anchored in the town's inlet below. With Colon, saying confession and hearing mass, were some ninety pilots, seamen, and crown-appointed officials. Later that day they would row to
their ships, Colon taking his place on the Santa Maria, a slow but sturdy flagship no longer than five canoes.

The next morning, Friday, August 3, 1492, at dawn, the Santa Maria and its companion caravels caught the ebb tide and drifted toward the gulf. Their sails began to fill, and the crosses emblazoned on them caught the light. Their mission--the wild- eyed idea of their foreigner captain--was to sail west, away from all visible landmarks. They would leave behind Spain and
Portugal, the "end of the world," and straight into the Mare Oceanum, the Ocean Sea.

In that Ocean of Darkness, some feared, the water boiled and sea monsters gulped down sailors so foolish as to sail there. Beyond--if they lived to see it--lay the fabled island of Cipangu. There, in the land of the Great Khan, houses were roofed with gold, streets paved in marble. And this was but one of 7,448 islands Marco Polo had said were in the Sea of China.
But even if they reached the Indies, how would they get back, since currents and winds all seemed to go one way?

Why take the risky voyage?

Commander Cristoforo Colombo (as he was known in his hometown of Genoa, Italy) was taller than most men; so tall; in fact, he couldn't stand inside his cabin on the Santa Maria. He'd had "very red" hair in his younger years, but since he'd passed age 40, it had turned prematurely white. His face boasted a big nose and freckles.

Columbus, as we know his name today, was an experienced mariner. He had sailed the Mediterranean and traveled to parts of Africa, to Ireland, and probably even to Iceland. He boasted later in life, "I have gone to every place that has heretofore been navigated."

He knew the Atlantic as well or better than anyone, and he probably knew more about how to read currents, winds, and surfaces of the sea than do sailors today. "He [our Lord] has bestowed the marine arts upon me in abundance," Columbus said.

For nearly seven years, the "socially ambitious, socially awkward" Italian had become a fixture at the Spanish court, carelessly lobbying for his crazy "enterprise of the Indies." A royal commission in 1490 had judged "that the claims and promises of Captain Colon are vain and worthy of rejection....The Western Sea is infinite and unnavigable. The Antipodes are not livable, and his ideas are impracticable." Yet Columbus had pressed on,
proving, as he said, "If it strikes often enough, a drop of water can wear a hole in a stone."

Why? Why would someone, anyone, doggedly spend years
getting funding for a death-defying feat?

The misleading textbook answer as any schoolchild could recite, is that Columbus wanted to find a trade route to the Orient. Writer Robert Hughes expressed the conventional wisdom: "Sometime between 1478 and 1484, the full plan of self-aggrandizement and discovery took shape in his mind. He would win glory, riches, and a title of nobility by opening a trade route to the untapped wealth of the Orient. No reward could be too great for the man who did that."

That's true, but incomplete--so incomplete it's misleading.

At least later, Columbus saw his voyage in much greater terms: "Who can doubt that this fire was not merely mine, but also the Holy Spirit who encouraged me with a radiance of marvelous illumination from his sacred Scriptures,...urging me to press forward?'

Columbus felt that Almighty God had directly brought about his journey: "With a hand that could be felt, the Lord opened my mind to the fact that it would be possible...and he opened my will to desire to accomplish that project...The Lord purposed that there should be something miraculous in this matter of the voyage to the Indies."

There may be many things we don't know about history's most famous mariner. We don't know exactly what Columbus looked like. We don't know the precise design of his three ships. And most bizarre of all, we don't know--and will probably never know--the spot where he came ashore.

But we know beyond doubt that Columbus sailed, in part, to fulfill a religious quest. Columbus's voyages were intense religious missions. He saw them as a fulfillment of a divine plan for his life--and for the soon-coming end of the world. As he put it in 1500, "God made me the messenger of the new heaven and the new earth of which he spoke in the Apocalypse of St. John [Rev. 21:1] after having spoken of it through the mouth of Isaiah; and he showed me the spot where to find it."

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Michigan, My Michigan

"TREES"

I think that I shall never see
A poem lovely as a tree.

A tree whose hungry mouth is prest
Against the sweet earth's flowing breast;

A tree that looks at God all day,
And lifts her leafy arms to pray;

A tree that may in summer wear
A nest of robins in her hair;

Upon whose bosom snow has lain;
Who intimately lives with rain.

Poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make a tree.

By Joyce Kilmer.


As Michiganders we are blessed with the magnificent trees of Fall. No matter where you live in Michigan there is an amazing color tour waiting to be explored. Michigan Fall Color Tours

We all have been working hard on campaigns, McCain/Palin and other state and local campaigns so I encourage everyone to take a small break relax, enjoy, Experience the "poem" that Joyce Kilmer wrote and return refreshed and ready to continue the fight.














Friday, October 10, 2008

O'S DANGEROUS PALS

John McCain's campaign is using Barack Obama's ties to a controversial low-income advocacy group to escalate his criticism of the Democratic nominee's character and judgment.

The McCain campaign released a Web video and rolled out surrogates Friday to question Obama's connection to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, which is the subject of at least 11 investigations. Fox News

Well 'bout time! And what's more McCain's new video brings up Madeline Talbott.
Who is Madeline Talbott? Read on;






BARACK'S 'ORGANIZER' BUDS PUSHED FOR BAD MORTGAGES
By STANLEY KURTZ

Chutzpah: ACORN's drive to lower mortgage standards paved the way for the meltdown - yet last week, it was holding protests like this one in Florida, trying to get a cut of the financial-market-rescue bill.


September 29, 2008

WHAT exactly does a "community organizer" do? Barack Obama's rise has left many Americans asking themselves that question. Here's a big part of the answer: Community organizers intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to customers with poor credit.

In the name of fairness to minorities, community organizers occupy private offices, chant inside bank lobbies, and confront executives at their homes - and thereby force financial institutions to direct hundreds of millions of dollars in mortgages to low-credit customers.

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

THE seeds of today's financial meltdown lie in the Community Reinvestment Act - a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades.

CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in "subprime" loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.

Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA - and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.

In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America's financial institutions.

Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets.

Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster.

ONE key pioneer of ACORN's subprime-loan shakedown racket was Madeline Talbott - an activist with extensive ties to Barack Obama. She was also in on the ground floor of the disastrous turn in Fannie Mae's mortgage policies.

Long the director of Chicago ACORN, Talbott is a specialist in "direct action" - organizers' term for their militant tactics of intimidation and disruption. Perhaps her most famous stunt was leading a group of ACORN protesters breaking into a meeting of the Chicago City Council to push for a "living wage" law, shouting in defiance as she was arrested for mob action and disorderly conduct. But her real legacy may be her drive to push banks into making risky mortgage loans.

In February 1990, Illinois regulators held what was believed to be the first-ever state hearing to consider blocking a thrift merger for lack of compliance with CRA. The challenge was filed by ACORN, led by Talbott. Officials of Bell Federal Savings and Loan Association, her target, complained that ACORN pressure was undermining its ability to meet strict financial requirements it was obligated to uphold and protested being boxed into an "affirmative-action lending policy." The following years saw Talbott featured in dozens of news stories about pressuring banks into higher-risk minority loans.

IN April 1992, Talbott filed an other precedent-setting com plaint using the "community support requirements" of the 1989 savings-and-loan bailout, this time against Avondale Federal Bank for Savings. Within a month, Chicago ACORN had organized its first "bank fair" at Malcolm X College and found 16 Chicago-area financial institutions willing to participate.

Two months later, aided by ACORN organizer Sandra Maxwell, Talbott announced plans to conduct demonstrations in the lobbies of area banks that refused to attend an ACORN-sponsored national bank "summit" in New York. She insisted that banks show a commitment to minority lending by lowering their standards on downpayments and underwriting - for example, by overlooking bad credit histories.

By September 1992, The Chicago Tribune was describing Talbott's program as "affirma- tive-action lending" and ACORN was issuing fact sheets bragging about relaxations of credit standards that it had won on behalf of minorities.

And Talbott continued her effort to, as she put it, drag banks "kicking and screaming" into high-risk loans. A September 1993 story in The Chicago Sun-Times presents her as the leader of an initiative in which five area financial institutions (including two of her former targets, now plainly cowed - Bell Federal Savings and Avondale Federal Savings) were "participating in a $55 million national pilot program with affordable-housing group ACORN to make mortgages for low- and moderate-income people with troubled credit histories."

What made this program different from others, the paper added, was the participation of Fannie Mae - which had agreed to buy up the loans. "If this pilot program works," crowed Talbott, "it will send a message to the lending community that it's OK to make these kind of loans."

Well, the pilot program "worked," and Fannie Mae's message that risky loans to minorities were "OK" was sent. The rest is financial-meltdown history.

It would be tough to find an "on the ground" community organizer more closely tied to the subprime-mortgage fiasco than Madeline Talbott. And no one has been more supportive of Madeline Talbott than Barack Obama.

When Obama was just a budding community organizer in Chicago, Talbott was so impressed that she asked him to train her personal staff.

He returned to Chicago in the early '90s, just as Talbott was starting her pressure campaign on local banks. Chicago ACORN sought out Obama's legal services for a "motor voter" case and partnered with him on his 1992 "Project VOTE" registration drive.

In those years, he also conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN's up-and-coming organizers. That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott's drive against Chicago's banks.

More than that, Obama was funding them. As he rose to a leadership role at Chicago's Woods Fund, he became the most powerful voice on the foundation's board for supporting ACORN and other community organizers. In 1995, the Woods Fund substantially expanded its funding of community organizers - and Obama chaired the committee that urged and managed the shift.

That committee's report on strategies for funding groups like ACORN features all the key names in Obama's organizer network. The report quotes Talbott more than any other figure; Sandra Maxwell, Talbott's ACORN ally in the bank battle, was also among the organizers consulted.

MORE, the Obama-supervised Woods Fund report acknowledges the problem of getting donors and foundations to contribute to radical groups like ACORN - whose confrontational tactics often scare off even liberal donors and foundations.

Indeed, the report brags about pulling the wool over the public's eye. The Woods Fund's claim to be "nonideological," it says, has "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government 'establishments' without undue risk of being criticized for partisanship."

Hmm. Radicalism disguised by a claim to be postideological.
Sound familiar?

The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN's Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts.

And, as the leader of another charity, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama channeled more funding Talbott's way - ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORN's overall efforts.

In return, Talbott proudly announced her support of Obama's first campaign for state Senate, saying, "We accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer."

IN short, to understand the roots of the subprime-mort gage crisis, look to ACORN's Madeline Talbott. And to see how Talbott was able to work her mischief, look to Barack Obama.

Then you'll truly know what community organizers do.



Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC

RM Exclusive: Stem Cell committee exporting Michigan jobs, hundreds of thousands of dollars

By Nick,RightMichigan Section News
Posted on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:16:01 PM EST

"It'll bring jobs. It'll bring jobs as dollars become available to do the research. And if intellectual properties are developed from this research, which I'm certain they will be, that will bring more jobs."

That's the prognosis from Dr. Joe Schwarz, the one-time Congressman from Michigan's 7th District and the current front-man for Cure Michigan, the Proposal 2 ballot organization asking voters to legalize taxpayer funded destruction of human embryos via a rewrite of Michigan's current embryonic stem cell laws.

Schwarz made his proclamation during a September 9th discussion of the ballot proposal on Detroit radio WWJ's political roundtable program, Eye on Michigan Politics. He echoed the oft-repeated claims of Prop 2 supporters who have taken a cue from Michigan's 8.9 percent unemployment rate and public opinion polls that consistently rank the economy the top issue in the state, choosing to market their initiative in terms of job creation. Only a week ago he wrote a guest column in the Observer and Eccentric that put a number to his broader statements, stating Prop 2 will create "8,000" Michigan jobs.

But while the campaign sells its issue as an answer to chronic joblessness, their walk doesn't match the talk. A review of the ballot committee's "qualification" campaign finance filings with the Michigan Secretary of State indicates that while embryonic-stem-cell backers continue to spend major dollars advocating a Michigan job creation message, they've created plenty of new jobs already... in places like Arizona, Minnesota, Missouri and California.

When Schwarz made his claims he joined a chorus of Prop 2 backers who use the debate over public financing of the destruction of human embryos to paint themselves as job creators. Liberal columnist (and hero of the Michigan left) Jack Lessenberry was an early champion of the "jobs" argument when in July he penned a propaganda piece titled, subtly, "Jobs depend on victory in stem cell debate." Even Jennifer Granholm has gone on the record promulgating their claims.

The Detroit Free Press and Crain's Detroit Business followed with articles discussing the prospects of creating hundreds of new jobs, should Michigan eliminate the prohibition on taxpayer funded human embryo destruction. (It was months later that the campaign upped their claims from the low hundreds to the many thousands.) The articles discussed the alleged new jobs in terms defined by a study conducted by a liberal public policy front group, the Michigan Prospect.

Cure Michigan's supporters refer to the Michigan Prospect report as an "independent" analysis and claim to have had no control over the outcome but records indicate the precursor to this year's Prop 2 ballot committee, Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research and Cures paid $24,000 to fund the study.

As for their promise to create several hundred new jobs for unemployed Michiganders, the Anderson Economic Group's chief economist, Patrick Anderson, suggests any such assurances are off the mark. In fact, the vast majority of any new jobs would be filled by non-michiganders.

"I see minimal effect on new jobs in Michigan," said Anderson. "We're talking about research activity that already goes on. You not only can do stem cell research but we are doing stem cell research now.

"If there were any jobs that arose from this, the majority of them would probably go to people who are outside the state right now and many of them would stay outside of the state. This is a very specialized narrow area and we don't have a large pool of people in Michigan who can do this kind of work. If in fact the taxpayers raised the money, a chunk of it is going to wind up going out of state, (too)."

Simply put, the unemployment rate among geneticists and the other scientists and assistants skilled enough to conduct stem cell research and living in Michigan is virtually non-existent.

"The opportunities for Michigan to grow in this area are largely outside of embryonic stem cell research," said Anderson. "It's because of all kinds of other skills that we have and if we want to grow jobs we ought to get out of an area where there are legal, moral and ethical restraints.

"This is a very inferior route to go if you want to improve jobs in Michigan, and if it's taxpayer funded I would argue it is a net job loss."

That hasn't stopped Cure Michigan from campaigning on the promise of new jobs for Michigan's increasingly frustrated unemployed voters. Armed with nothing but a bought-and-paid-for partisan analysis supporting their claims, while economists, industry statistics and common sense cover them in a heavy cloud of doubt there is only one place left to look for the truth of the committees promises; their own actions and employment decisions.

On September 18th Cure Michigan complied with Michigan campaign finance requirements and filed their qualification finance statement. According to their own internal reports, the ballot committee billing itself as a Michigan job maker spent more than a few test-tubes full of cash exporting Michigan jobs to eleven other states, including Arizona, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New York and Ohio.

Over the last nine months Cure Michigan has spent nearly a quarter of a million dollars exporting Michigan jobs.

Victory Consultants of El Cajon, California received payments totaling over $30,000. Apparently there weren't any political consultants with experience winning Michigan elections anywhere in Michigan. Sadly, exporting jobs Michiganders can and should have done didn't stop there.

Wilcox and Offutt Consulting, LLC received thousands performing web development for the Michigan campaign, from Nevada. Coral Springs, Florida cleaning company Anago Franchising took home big bucks too. Even temp services were exported to a company called Office Team, in Chicago, Illinois. They saw over $10,000 poured into their business instead of a similar Michigan based company.

Many tens of thousands of additional dollars were spent hiring dozens of out of state "voter registrars" and petition managers to assist in the collection and verification of the petition signatures required for Proposal 2 to make the ballot.

Then we start getting into the big dollar purchases.

In their zeal to find the best ways to sell their proposal to Michigan voters, Cure Michigan brought on a Chicago based consulting agency to conduct focus groups. They spent nearly $35,000 on the Glengariff Group, Inc. Apparently exporting Michigan jobs to Illinois is the best way to figure out how to convince Michigan voters you want to create jobs locally.

All of that before the campaign began in earnest. Now that it has, the number of Michigan jobs and dollars exported to other states is becoming even more staggering.

By now you've seen the television commercials. They're all over cable these days and boy do they look pretty. They look professional. Well made. Well messaged. And they should... they're the best out-of-state ads Michigan money can buy. The wizard behind the advertising curtain is one Joe Slade White.

If that name sounds familiar it should. Mr. White and his media firm have been doing Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden's ads in Delaware for years and they did the Michigan Democratic Party's ads in 2006. The Joe Slade White Company is located in New York, New York with offices in Washington, D.C. and Texas.

Handling the purchasing of ad space and time on Michigan airwaves is Texas firm the Davis Group.

Telephone messages left with both the Davis Group and JSWCo regarding their work with Cure Michigan went unreturned but according to long-time press secretary and media consultant John Truscott (formerly of the Engler campaigns / administration and the DeVos for Governor campaign), the sorts of ads that are running on television today don't come cheap.

"Especially in a Presidential election year, the cost to buy media goes up dramatically," said Truscott. "Just look at the website. Joe Slade White produces very expensive stuff."

Truscott, who has not taken a formal position in support or opposition of Proposal 2, pegs the production costs of a simple thirty-second advertisement in the thousands of dollars. JSWCo's location in New York only drives costs up further. Also, the more complex the ad the more certain costs will reach into the tens of thousands per spot and the industry standard for the sort of work being done by the Davis Group is ten percent of the total media purchase. In other words, over the course of the next four weeks, tens of thousands of additional dollars will be headed to both New York and Texas just to make their Michigan advertising campaign possible. Alternately, hundreds of thousands are expected to be spent in-state promoting the work of New Yorkers.

Undoubtedly Cure Michigan will continue advertising their proposal as a cure to what ails the state's economy, despite the infinitesimally small jobless rate among those who stand to benefit the most. Unfortunately for Michigan's unemployed, the campaign and their spokespeople are putting their money everywhere but where their mouths are.

ACLU Hearts ACORN

The ACLU is on the hunt, suing in states including Michigan charging the mantra of the 2000 election, "disenfranchising voters"

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the Michigan Secretary of State last month in an effort to stop the current purging of voter rolls , saying the actions could disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters. A ruling by U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy on the matter is expected within the next week."
Detroit Free Press

"The ACLU is challenging voter suppression efforts throughout the country, including unlawful voter purges in Michigan. The states covered in the New York Times report are Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina and Ohio...tens of thousands of eligible voters are being illegally removed from voter rolls or blocked from registering to vote"

The ACLU doesn't seem to be bothered by the illegal voter registration frauds across the country by ACORN or the obvious collusion of Ohio's Democrat Secretary of State, who had to be ordered by a judge to check for voter fraud!
The "concern" the ACLU shows is nothing but smoke and mirrors to take the heat off ACORN including;

Blunt Continues ACORN War (The Politico) The ACORN war rages on. Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) called today for a "full-scale" investigation into allegedly ACORN-led voter fraud in Missouri and across the nation. CBS

Investigation of ACORN Voter Fraud is ongoing in 13 states now, including important swing states. Listed below are just a few

In Michigan;

Detroit Free Press reported in 9/14/08 article

"Clerks across the state are reporting fraudulent and duplicate voter registration applications. The majority of the problem applications are coming from the group ACORN."Detroit Free Press

In Nevada;

ACORN's Las Vegas headquarters has been raided by Nevada authorities looking for evidence of voter fraud.
Fox News

In Ohio;

Judge Rules Ohio Secretary of State is Breaking Federal Election Law, Must Check for Voter Fraud Cleveland Leader

In Wisconsin:

Recently , Milwaukee's top election official announced plans to seek criminal investigations of 37 ACORN employees accused of offering gifts to sign up voters (including prepaid gas cards and restaurant cards) or falsifying driver's license numbers, Social Security numbers or other information on voter registration cards. Newsbusters

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Media Silence on Abortion Aids Radical Obama



Not News?

In Illinois, Obama Voted Against Protecting Born Babies;
Later Smeared Pro-Lifers as 'Liars'"

Two of the three presidential debates have now passed without either candidate being asked about abortion, an issue that nearly four out of ten voters said was "very important" to them, according to an August Pew survey. See:
Pew survey

What makes the abortion issue especially salient this campaign year is Barack Obama's extremely liberal record which may also explain why the big broadcast networks have practically avoided the subject.

TV reporters barely mentioned Obama's pro-abortion stance during the
primaries from the launch of his candidacy in January 2007 through the end of the primaries in June 2008, just six out of 1,289 network evening news stories about Obama (0.46%) mentioned his position on abortion; none discussed it in any detail. It was thus unusual when ABC's Terry Moran pointed out, in a February 25, 2008 story on World News, that Obama was "considered a reliable liberal Democratic vote in Illinois...opposing efforts to ban so-called 'partial birth abortions.'"

Obama's stance protecting partial birth abortions puts him to the left of many liberal Democrats -- 17 out of 47 Democratic Senators,including Obama's running-mate Joe Biden, voted to outlaw such abortions in 2003, a position backed by 75% of the public, according to a 2007 Pew survey.

Senate vote


Pew

But besides the Moran story, only two other network evening news stories mentioned Obama's support for the procedure, including an April 21, 2007 CBS Evening News story briefly noting Obama's condemnation of the Supreme Court for upholding the federal law banning such abortions.

But Obama's most extreme pro-abortion move came in Illinois, when he voted against a bill to protect babies born alive following unsuccessful abortions, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

A similar bill was brought before the U.S. Congress, bolstered by the testimony of a Chicago-area nurse named Jill Stanek, who described how a baby who survived an "induced labor abortion" was abandoned by the hospital staff. Stanek testified: "I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a soiled utility room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about half a pound, and was about 10 inches long."

In 2002, the federal law protecting born-alive babies passed on a voice vote without objection from any Democrat, including strong liberals such as Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer.

But in Illinois, Obama helped kill a similar bill when it came before the Health and Human Services committee he chaired. Challenged about his vote this summer, Obama lashed out at pro-lifers, claiming the state bill he opposed lacked a "neutrality clause" protecting the status quo on abortion, something liberals demanded and received before agreeing to the federal law.

"I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely, fully in support of the federal bill," Obama told CBN on August 16. "That was not the bill that was presented at the state level."
CBN story

Four days later, the Chicago Tribune documented how Obama and his committee voted 10-to-zero to add the required "neutrality clause" to Illinois Senate Bill 1082 -- and then Obama and five other state senators voted to kill the bill later that same day. A CNN "fact check" on that day's Situation Room refused to conclude that Obama had unfairly attacked his critics as liars. "Looking at the bills, the language is similar, but the Obama camp says...there were concerns about undermining Illinois abortion law," reporter Mary Snow delicately suggested.

Chicago Tribune

NRLC post

As for the broadcast networks, none have yet mentioned this radical aspect of Obama's record. That silence helps the Democrat cast himself as more centrist than he really is, but shows how hopeless the media's "watchdogs" are when it comes to their liberal friends.

Archive with the previous editions

The 700 Billion Dollar Man


"I'm a free-market Republican."—Kashkari, at an American Enterprise Institute conference, Sept. 19, 2008

Well we may find out however "he is not expected to stay on at the Office of Financial Security when a new administration is installed in January."

But then who knows? He might just change his mind.
Meanwhile all eyes will be on him as he decides how to spend the government's $700 billion fund.

Kashkari to take onus of bailout
(Contact)

At Neel Kashkari's confirmation hearing in June, Senate banking committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd stumbled over both the nominee's first and last name.

It's unlikely Mr. Dodd will repeat his mistake now that the 35-year-old Treasury Department official and former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. investment banker has been tapped to set up and start spending the government's $700 billion fund to rescue Wall Street and prevent a global economic implosion.

Just three days after Congress approved the bailout plan, the Treasury Department, as expected, named Mr. Kashkari interim head of the new Office of Financial Stability. Mr. Kashkari, a close aide to Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., has been assistant secretary for international affairs.

The son of Indian immigrants with a master's degree in aerospace engineering, Mr. Kashkari faces a major challenge just filling in the spaces on the sketchy blueprint approved by Congress last week. The first purchases are not expected until mid-November.
Anthony Ryan, acting undersecretary for domestic finance, said the program's first priority is to hire private financial analysts and asset managers to oversee the program, designed to buy up huge numbers of bad mortgages and mortgage-based securities now burdening the books of the nation's lenders.

"We're going to need people and we're also going to need to tap into the services of financial institutions and other advisers to ensure that we assess this appropriately, we think through some of the challenges, and we implement it appropriately," Mr. Ryan said in an interview on Bloomberg Television.

The Treasury Department on Monday released a set of 14 preliminary guidelines for selecting asset management contractors and avoiding conflicts of interest. Many of the firms eligible to assist already have links to the thousands of banks and financial institutions that could be part of the government buyout.

The department set a Wednesday afternoon deadline for applications for the first three contracts - to manage mortgage securities, whole loans and the auction of investments.

Treasury officials said they may not use customary competitive bidding practices on some of the contracts because of the "compelling urgency" to resolve the financial crisis.

The rescue package gives Mr. Kashkari and the Treasury Department only the barest instructions on how to structure individual deals, when they should be made and how to set prices for the now-worthless mortgage-related assets.

While the credit crisis built and the rescue plan was debated in recent weeks, Mr. Kashkari, along with fellow Paulson confidants Robert Hoyt, Treasury general counsel, and Phillip Swagel, assistant secretary for economic policy, briefed top lawmakers and staffers repeatedly on Capitol Hill. As chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, Mr. Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, now should be familiar with Mr. Kashkari's name.

Mr. Kashkari originally trained as an aerospace engineer. His wife, Minal, still works in the field for Lockheed Martin.
After obtaining a master's degree in business administration from the Wharton School of Business in 2002, he worked for Goldman Sachs in its San Francisco office, dealing mainly with financing for high-tech firms.

He was recruited to the Treasury by Mr. Paulson, a former chairman of Goldman Sachs, in 2006, and advised the secretary on issues that included expanded trade with India, energy policy and the emerging weaknesses in the U.S. housing market.

The young Treasury official will have virtually unprecedented power over a major segment of the U.S. economy, but not for long. He is not expected to stay on at the Office of Financial Security when a new administration is installed in January.

cResearcher Clark Eberly contributed to this report.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Back to the Future

New York Times

September 30, 1999

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

Timeline of How Democrats Engineered the Ecomonic Meltdown

THE TOTAL PACKAGE™

Here’s the simple, frank truth about this crisis
the mainstream media will never tell you …
Here’s a quick timeline — all easily checkable online:

Gee, thanks, Mr. Carter …
1977: Jimmy Carter rams the Community Reinvestment Act through Congress. It all began 31 years ago when Billy Carter’s brother Jimmy heard that some lenders were “discriminating” against low-income borrowers …

Now, nobody I know has ever accused Mr. Carter of being the sharpest crayon in the box … But he did know one thing: He was by-god incensed — incensed, I tell you — at discrimination of any kind!

Make no mistake here: Oprah was NOT having problems getting loans; nor were most of the millions of other hard-working, responsible minority wage-earners in America.

And it’s not like credit was available to low-income white people with no savings, no down payment and lousy credit histories.

But the facts, of course, didn’t matter to Carter. All that mattered was that someone had used the “D” word, so something had to be done. Political correctness demanded it.

And so, unfazed by the fact that lenders are supposed to be discriminating when deciding who’s a good credit risk — and blissfully unburdened by even the glimmer of an understanding of the catastrophic long-term impact of his actions — Mr. Carter sprang into action.

And in no time flat, Jimmy’s Community Reinvestment Act – “CRA” for short – had sailed through the Democratic Congress.

Suddenly, any lender caught denying mortgages and other loans to low-income people faced serious penalties — including denial of applications to open new branches, to do mergers and acquisitions and other draconian measures.

1992: The Fed drops a bombshell. In what was then heralded as a "landmark study,” the Boston branch of the U.S. Federal Reserve announced that, despite the many pounds of flesh the CRA exacted from lenders who turned down low-income loan applicants, mortgage discrimination was still pandemic in the financial system.

So in a matter of days, the Boston Fed produced a manual for mortgage lenders nation-wide stating, "Discrimination may be observed when a lender’s underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants."


“Hey buddy – forget the beer.
You want a HOUSE?”
So what were these "arbitrary” and “outdated" criteria?

“Oh, little things,” said the Fed. “Like the size of the mortgage payment relative to income. And the prospective borrower’s savings or credit history.

“And don’t even bother checking to see if the borrower has any income at all,” said the Fed. “If you do … and he doesn’t … and you deny the loan … you’re a dirty, no good discriminator!”

“In fact, come to think of it,” the Fed mused, “if the applicant has participated in a credit-counseling program, that means he’s now a responsible borrower. Better grant him the loan or you’re toast!”

“Oh. And also? Welfare payments and unemployment benefits are valid income so you’d better include them when qualifying loan applicants.”

And so lenders did what they were told under penalty of law and the surge of bad loans accelerated.

1995: Bill Clinton cranks it up a notch. Thirty-six months later, still alarmed at the “discrimination” the Fed had uncovered and eager to reward low-income voters for sending Bubba to the White House, Andrew Cuomo — Clinton’s secretary of Housing and Urban Development — investigated Fannie Mae for racial discrimination.

He “found” it of course — and quickly proposed that fully HALF of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low-income borrowers by the year 2001.

Next, Clinton introduced significant revisions to the Community Reinvestment Act. In testimony prior to the new bill’s passage, Gene Ludwig — Clinton’s Comptroller of the Currency — explained why reform was so desperately needed:

“Fifteen years ago,” said Ludwig, “Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act. But the CRA has never achieved its full promise.

“The proposed reform package will channel billions of dollars a year in new credit into America’s distressed communities.”

PLAIN ENGLISH TRANSLATION: Hey, lenders! You’re still not giving enough money to people who can’t — or won’t — pay it back. This law ensures that you will!


“Don’t want to give loans to lousy credit risks?
“I’ll fix you!”

Staggeringly idiotic. Right? But wait — the Clinton administration was only getting warmed up.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the president and his Democratic majority in Congress "… mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains."

Then, the Clinton administration added the final kicker: Fannie, Freddie and the nation’s lenders would be allowed to turn these subprime loans into securities and sell them to financial institutions and investors world-wide!

Given the fact that Clinton enjoyed a Democratic majority in Congress at the time, it should come no surprise that the revisions sailed through Congress in no time flat.

1999: It’s working! Four years later, with low-income borrowing skyrocketing, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae could be heard publicly bragging about “the end of discriminatory lending in America.”

It even singled out its most shining example: A lender, it said, that worked with community organizers and followed "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted."

Previously, this lender had made only $1 billion in low-income loans. By 1992, under the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act, it had loaned $80 billion to low-income borrowers. And thanks to Clinton’s “refinements,” that firm’s loans to low-income borrowers were well on their way to surging to over $600 billion.


“We just did what Congress told us to do. ”
– Angelo Mozilo, CEO Countrywide Financial

So, one might ask, “Who was this virtuous lender that had increased its loans to low-income people a whopping 59,900% in just over one decade?”

You guessed it: It was the very lender whose demise in 2007 turned out to be the first domino to fall in the subprime lending mess: Countrywide Financial.

2001: Bush administration warns of impending doom. In Bush’s first year in office, the White House’s chief economist, N. Gregory Mankiw, warned Fannie and Freddie’s loans to unqualified borrowers and other complications at the two institutions were creating a huge risk for the entire financial system.

Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) denounced Mankiw, accusing him of having no "concern about housing."

The New York Times fell into lockstep with its Democratic masters in Congress, reporting that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were "under heavy assault by the Republicans," but that it was O.K. — because these entities still had "important political allies" in the Democrats.

Congressional Democrats dug in their heels and made absolutely sure nothing was done to address the impending crisis.

2003: The Bush administration tries to avert catastrophe a second time. Alarmed by fraud and abuses that had been discovered at Fannie and Freddie, President Bush repeatedly urged Congress to pass a bill increasing oversight on the two companies.

The Bush administration had every reason to be worried: A report by outside investigators had concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors. Experts were warning that Fannie Mae was not adequately hedging against rising interest rates.


“These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis.” Representative Barney Frank (D-MA)
Arguing against Republican attempts to reform the two corrupt mortgage lenders in 2003.

Bush’s Treasury Secretary, John Snow, told the House Financial Services Committee, ”There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises.”

After the hearing, two Republican congressmen — Representative Michael G. Oxley of Ohio, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee — announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration’s proposal.

”We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed” by the independent agency that regulated Fannie and Freddie, said Oxley.

But once again, congressional Democrats and their lackeys in the media scoffed at the Bush plan to save Fannie and Freddie. Some went so far as to point at the plan as proof that Republicans hate minorities and poor people.

And Barney Frank (D-MA) now the Chairman of the powerful House Financial Services Committee — the sack of excrement in a suit you see grandstanding on TV as Congress mulls this newest bail-out — denied there was any crisis at all.

“These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” declared Frank, “are not facing any kind of financial crisis.”

And so, yet another opportunity to avert the crisis that now is — according to Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson — threatening to “completely destroy the entire U.S. financial system” was lost.

The simple truth
Despite everything the Democrats in Congress are telling you now …

Despite all the mindless spin the mainstream media is trying to shove down your throat on the six-o’clock news …

Despite all the talk about how “greedy lenders and incompetent CEOs and lax government regulation” caused this crisis …

Despite the ridiculous claims that only increased government regulation and intensified congressional oversight can end the crisis (regardless of the fact that political regulation and oversight caused it) …


“The Government Did It”

“Through the stick of the CRA and the carrot of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Fed created the mortgage market debacle.”

– Economist Yaron Brook

And despite the lies congressional Democrats and their presidential candidate are telling in an unbelievably hypocritical attempt to hang this crisis on the Bush administration (and by extension, on John McCain) …

The simple truth is, this crisis was engineered and implemented almost entirely by Democrats.

The more frightening truth is, they once again control Congress — just like they did when the laws were passed that created this crisis.

And the terrifying truth to anyone who cares about his family’s financial security is that they will probably also control the White House, come next January.


The CRA — the idiotic law that created this crisis — also made Obama who he is today. “Why is that so terrifying?” you ask …

Consider this: According to his autobiography, Obama spent his years after college and before he ran for the Illinois Senate becoming an expert in real estate law and fair housing while working as a “community organizer.”

What he was really doing was blackmailing Chicago lenders into throwing money at his low-income constituents. And the club Obama used to bludgeon banks into submission — into granting loans to people with no down payment, no job, no income and lousy credit histories — was called … you guessed it … “The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.”

Now, to anyone who has even the glimmer of an understanding of how Washington works, it should come as no surprise that Mr. Obama was well-rewarded for his untiring efforts to force banks to throw money at unqualified borrowers — and it should also come as no surprise that those rewards flowed from the two quasi-private companies that benefited most from the explosion in subprime mortgages: Fannie and Freddie.

Recently, we learned that of the hundreds of political contributions made by Fannie Mae over the last couple of years, Obama received the second highest amount — second only to the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Christopher Dodd (D-CT).

Other Democrats were also well-rewarded for this catastrophic explosion in subprime lending with lucrative jobs at Fannie and Freddie. And four of these former Fannie and Freddie big shots — former CEOs and a board member of these corrupt institutions — have been on the Obama bandwagon since Day One:


1. Franklin Raines, former Clinton administration budget director who earned $90 million in his five years as Fannie Mae CEO, from 1999 to 2004 — has been called by the Obama campaign several times for advice on (believe it or not) housing and the economy according to The Washington Post …


2. James Johnson, former aide to Democratic Vice President Walter Mondale, who earned $21 million in his last year alone serving as Fannie Mae CEO from 1991 to 1998 — was appointed to head Obama’s vice presidential selection committee …


3. Jamie Gorelick, former Clinton administration deputy attorney general, who earned $26 million as vice chair of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2003 — has been mentioned as a prime candidate for a possible cabinet position in an Obama administration by insiders, and …


4. Rahm Emanuel, former Senior Advisor in the Clinton White House served on the Board of Directors for Freddie Mac where he is said to have opposed every reform proposed by the Bush Administration. Emanuel is credited with being the one man responsible for rallying support for Obama early on among Congressional Democrats.

Take a good, long look at those names and faces: These, along with the aforementioned Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, are the eight people who created this crisis and who profited the most from it — both politically and financially.

Now, their abysmal economic ignorance, political ambition and mindless greed are killing great American companies … robbing millions of their home equity and their paychecks … driving the federal deficit through the roof … and pushing us to the brink of the greatest financial catastrophe in U.S. history.

Plenty more blame to go around
Now, I make it no secret that I’m no fan of either one of the major political parties.

Like Reagan, I believe that government isn’t the solution; it’s the problem. And by studying history, I’ve learned that whenever Washington attempts to solve any problem, it’s a slam-dunk it will only wind up creating two, three or even more far more serious ones.

Even the most casual observer would conclude that as a class, politicians in both parties are notorious for their inability to locate their own arses — even if allowed to use both hands. Until now, we have tolerated them because they — and the massive, bloated, abusive, oppressive government they have created — have been merely a dead weight on us.

Not now. Now, there’s a very real risk that their lust for power, political ambition, corruption and cowardice will cost you your job, your home, and any prospects for a prosperous life.

The ONLY way to limit the damage they do to you, to me and to every other American is to keep Washington on a short leash … prohibit them from dabbling in matters they have no business fooling with … and to strictly limit the size and scope of the government.

“A pox on both their houses,” is my studied philosophy.

So I don’t mind telling you that plenty of Republicans bear guilt for this crisis as well.

Many are guilty of not having the guts to scream bloody murder while these mindless laws were being passed …

Of not taking a stand when Bush tried not once but twice to head off this crisis at the pass …

Or worse; voting with the Democratic majority for laws that elevated populism and political correctness above financial prudence.

And sure: Many CEOs at our distressed or defunct financial institutions are guilty of the same things.

And of extending the same courtesies the government demanded for low-income borrowers to the middle class; luring millions of others into more house than they could afford with no-down-payment loans and adjustable rate mortgages with irresistibly low interest rates.

Plus, the way I see it, there’s no reason why anyone with an IQ larger than my shoe size (11) would invest a penny in mortgages signed by people who had no means or no intent of repaying them.

And of course, millions of Americans are also complicit for allowing themselves to be seduced into taking on more debt than they could ever repay.

But make no mistake: It took two Democratic presidents working with Democratic majorities in Congress to engineer this crisis. Without the disastrous “fair housing” legislation imposed on this country by Carter, Clinton, Frank, Dodd and other Democratic lawmakers, this crisis would never have happened.

And never forget; it was the Democratic Party that killed not one but two attempts by the Bush administration to stop this credit catastrophe before the first subprime lender bit the dust.

This is what happens when hysterical race-baiting and populist politics are allowed to subvert prudent business practices.

This is what happens when despicable politicians are allowed to buy votes from low-income people with laws that endanger your financial survival.

This is what happens when imbeciles — most of whom have never held a real job or have had to make payroll in a company of their own — are allowed to tamper with the economy.

And now, these same clowns
are about to make matters worse
… AGAIN!
Unbelievably, these same drooling morons — the very people who caused this mess in the first place — are now charged with saving our economic system from certain destruction.

Because they are the majority party in Congress, the very Democrats who engineered this crisis — most notably Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (Fannie Mae’s fair-haired boy and #1 beneficiary of its political contributions) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (who blocked every early attempt to avoid this crisis) — are running the show.


And if the current state of the presidential polls are any indication, our next vice president — Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden, a loyal Democrat while this disaster was being created in Congress — will be available to break any ties on future Senate votes.

And of course, Obama himself — the self-proclaimed “Candidate of Change” — who has never attempted to change or reform one, blessed thing in his entire life …

Who, much to the contrary, shamelessly exploited Chicago’s notoriously corrupt “pay-to-play” political system for all it’s worth and also built his entire political base on the very law that created this crisis …


… Will soon be lighting up his beloved Marlboros in the Oval Office.

So …

The next time you hear that your home equity has vanished into thin air and that your house is now worth less than you paid for it; maybe even less than you OWE on it …
Or find that your credit limit has just been slashed or you get rejected when you apply for a loan …
Or check your stock portfolio or retirement plan only to find that it’s a mere shadow of what it once was …
Or discover to your horror that our massive federal deficit has gutted your buying power and driven the price you pay at the supermarket or gas station sky high …
The next time you hear that a friend or family member has been laid-off, is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy and in danger of losing everything he or she has ever worked for …
The next time you want to kick the dog because your newly nationalized mortgage or insurance company is suddenly exhibiting all the competence of the U.S. Post Office and the sensitivity of an IRS collection agent …
And the next time Barney Frank or Charlie Rangel or Joe Biden or any other one of these unrepentant, hypocritical scoundrels tells you he’s raising your taxes because you’re not shouldering “your fair share” of the $1 trillion burden his blundering has saddled you with …
You know who to thank.

The moral of the story:
If you trust Washington to save you; you’re screwed.

If this crisis proves anything, it’s that these people don’t give a good goldarn about you. You’re not rich enough to bail out or poor enough to be given a hand-out.

So you, my friend, are on your own.

There are certain things you can do to protect yourself, though. And with this crisis unraveling at a breakneck pace, there’s no time to waste.

Here’s a checklist I hope will come in handy …

1. Rake in every dollar you can. First and foremost, it is absolutely critical that you do everything in your power to increase your income while you still can. Pull out all the stops in your business. If you work for someone else, work overtime or even multiple jobs if you have to. Sell stuff you don’t need or don’t use. Scrape together all the dollars you can.

2. Save every dollar you can. Guard every one of them like a junkyard dog. You’re going to need them. Go through your family budget with a fine-toothed comb and ruthlessly, unapologetically slash every unnecessary expense. The more you save now, the more you’ll have to see you through when the ca-ca hits the air conditioner.

You might also want to check with a financial advisor to explore ways to cut every payment you have to the bone. Because when the trillions of counterfeit paper dollars Washington’s now creating out of thin air begin working their way through the economy, you’ll probably be able to repay every debt you owe with dollars that are worth a fraction of what they’re worth today.

Also — whether you realize it or not, your single largest monthly expense is NOT your mortgage or your car or your health insurance or anything else. Your largest financial burden by far is the government — the federal, state and local taxes you pay dwarf every other expense you have.

So seeing a qualified tax advisor about ways to make absolutely sure you’re paying the absolute minimum required by law would be a stellar idea. Be sure not to forget your property taxes. If your home is declining in value, you may be able to appeal for a downward adjustment that could save you thousands.

3. Watch your bank accounts like a hawk. Whatever you do, do NOT assume that your bank is safe just because this most recent bail-out proposal is likely to become law.

Most banks have already suffered massive losses. Many are wounded; bleeding; struggling to survive. And many still have huge amounts of toxic loans in their portfolios that are steadily eroding their asset bases even further.

The bail-out is NOT going to replace the money they originally paid to buy those investments — and that means they’ll be booking even more losses as they dump those investments into the U.S. Treasury in the months ahead.

If you have more than $100,000 in a bank, make absolutely sure that no single account at any one bank contains even a single dollar more than the limit that’s insured by the FDIC. If you’re not clear on the rules, check out the FDIC website at WWW.FDIC.GOV

4. Program your business for success in this tough environment. If you are starting a business or are considering expanding your business’ product line, carefully consider this new economic environment when setting your strategy.

Think especially hard about recession-proof products and services — the things people can’t live without. Seriously consider products and services that cater to the very wealthy who are likely to be least affected as this crisis unfolds. Also consider things that might help beleaguered wage-earners, consumers, taxpayers, and other business owners get through this alive.

5. Expect stocks and mutual funds to plunge. If you own stocks — either directly, in a mutual fund or ETF or through a retirement or pension plan — you should seriously consider the risk you’re taking with that money.

Some analysts, including the ones who have been the most accurate in their warnings about this crisis from the get-go, are warning that, with the economy and stock market now as nervous as a hooker at a snake-handler convention, the next chunk of bad news that hits the wires could be the straw that breaks the market’s back.

And please — for all our sakes:
HELP US GET THE WORD OUT!
Send this article — in its entirety — to everyone you know. Post it or link to it on every blog, every forum you can think of. Send more links to everyone on your Contacts List and to reporters at the newspapers you read and the TV networks you watch.

Write letters to both of your Senators and Congressperson and urge everyone you know to do the same.

Demand that they repeal the Community Reinvestment Act that caused this crisis (yes, it’s still on the books and still being enforced!).

Tell them you know what they did to cause this crisis.

Demand that criminals in Congress who actually DID cause this crisis suffer at least as distressing a fate as the corporate CEOs they’re scapegoating.

The sooner Washington gets the message that we’re on to them and that we’re not going to take it any more, the sooner things can begin to change.

This is YOUR financial future we’re talking about here. If Washington’s power brokers have proven anything, it’s that they can NOT be trusted to do the right thing until millions of us rise as one and shout “Enough!”

Yours for Bigger Winners, More Often,

Clayton Makepeace
Publisher & Editor
THE TOTAL PACKAGE™

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Saying What McCain Should

I just saw this on TV!

The Judicial Confirmation Network




And lets not forget;

Obama work worked as a leadership trainer for the radical leftist organization, ACORN. ACORN used intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in "subprime" loans to uncreditworthy customers by abusing the Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) including home loans to undocumented aliens in California

In Michigan the Detroit Free Press reported in 9/14/08 article

"Clerks across the state are reporting fraudulent and duplicate voter registration applications. The majority of the problem applications are coming from the group ACORN."

1. Franklin Raines, former Clinton administration budget director who earned $90 million in his five years as Fannie Mae CEO, from 1999 to 2004 — has been called by the Obama campaign several times for advice on (believe it or not) housing and the economy according to The Washington Post …

2. James Johnson, former aide to Democratic Vice President Walter Mondale, who earned $21 million in his last year alone serving as Fannie Mae CEO from 1991 to 1998 — was appointed to head Obama’s vice presidential selection committee …

3. Jamie Gorelick, former Clinton administration deputy attorney general, who earned $26 million as vice chair of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2003 — has been mentioned as a prime candidate for a possible cabinet position in an Obama administration by insiders, and …

4. Rahm Emanuel, former Senior Advisor in the Clinton White House served on the Board of Directors for Freddie Mac where he is said to have opposed every reform proposed by the Bush Administration. Emanuel is credited with being the one man responsible for rallying support for Obama early on among Congressional Democrats.

Ahmed Yousef, a top political adviser for terrorist group Hamas, said in an interview on WABC radio in New York that the group supports Obama. “We like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,” Yousef explained. Hamas, which seized control of the Palestinian Gaza last June, has long been designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department.

The Obama campaign has claimed to be “flattered” by the fact that the Hamas endorsement compared their candidate to Kennedy. Obama himself told the Atlantic magazine that he understands why Hamas would support him. “It’s conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, ‘This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he’s not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush.’”



Or sitting down with terrorist regimes without
pre conditions

Published: November 2, 2007
New York Times

Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.

But hey it's only a 30 second ad

Friday, October 3, 2008

State Senate approves Michigan business tax cut

On the heels of the McCain announcement to pull his campaign out of Michigan, some good news for Michigan

Mlive.com

by David Eggert Associated Press
Thursday October 02, 2008, 6:43 PM

LANSING -- As promised, Senate Republicans on Thursday voted to more quickly phase out a 22 percent surcharge that was added to Michigan's business tax to help resolve last year's budget crisis.

The move delighted the business community and garnered some Democratic votes, too. The unresolved question: How to offset the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue for state government?

The legislation passed 26-12 and was sent across the Capitol to the Democratic-led House. A spokeswoman for Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm said she would be open to Michigan Business Tax adjustments if they were "pared with reforms that can save the state money."

Republicans did not list specific spending cuts. The vote appeared to be an attempt to start talks that may not get serious until 2009, after the November election and short lame-duck legislative session.

"It's our obligation to try to help out our Michigan business owners," said GOP Sen. Mark Jansen of Kent County's Gaines Township.

Senate Democrats accused the Republican majority of "shooting from the hip" without addressing potential budget implications or examining Michigan's overall tax policy.

Jansen, who led a subcommittee exploring the MBT that took effect at the start of this year, said the surcharge drew the most complaints from businesses. Under the bill, the 21.99 percent surcharge would drop to 14.66 percent in the 2009 tax year, to 7.33 percent in 2010 and be eliminated in 2011. It likely will go away in a decade under current law.
After passing and then quickly abandoning a tax on services last year, Granholm and the Legislature approved the surcharge to help balance a $1.8 billion budget deficit.
Businesses have vowed to repeal it ever since.

"Now more than ever Michigan needs to encourage businesses to invest and grow jobs here, not chase them away," said Richard Blouse Jr., president and CEO of the Detroit Regional Chamber.

The MBT was a revenue-neutral replacement of the Single Business Tax.

The state Department of Treasury said that even with the surcharge generating more than $700 million a year for state government, nearly 98,600 businesses will owe less in taxes this year than in 2007. Nearly 45,600 will pay more. About 13,900 will see no change in their tax liability.

Also Thursday, the Senate voted 27-11 for a bill that would remove sales taxes from the calculation of gross receipts. MBT liability in part is based on gross receipts, and critics say including sales taxes was unintentional.

House Votes on Pork Barrel Bailout Bill Today

Needs 218 votes to pass

I called Blunt, Cantor, House Republicans, my repMike Rogers, and Boehner to urge them to VOTE NO
Unfortuntely, it looks like it may pass

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
Benjamin Franklin

The Real Sarah Shows Up


Gov. Plain certainly didn't wave a "white flag of surrender" Thursday night in her debate with Joe Biden.

I watched Thursday's debate with a couple of girlfriends who are not politicos like myself. I really wanted to get the opinion of a some what "average voters"

The consensus?

What ever doubts Americans had about Governor Sarah Palin's qualifications should be dispelled after Thursdays' debate. Governor Palin not only managed to bring the debate back time and again to one of her greatest strengths, Energy Policy but also a very personable Governor Palin used Joe Biden's own words questioning the readiness of Barack Obama made before Biden joined the Obama ticket.

Palin ruffled Biden's feathers time and again and put him on the defensive a great deal of the night. Even to the point where Biden whined , "Just because I am a man doesn't mean I don't know what it's like to raise two kids alone, I don't know what it's like to have a child you're not sure is going to -- is going to make it -- I understand"

She was Reaganeque in the patriotism and gratefulness to America and being American which stood out as a strong contrast to Biden and the Obama campaign apologist stance of America.

However the biggest impact Gov. Palin made was that she just didn't talk about Main St she WAS Main St.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Roll Call of Senators voting NO to Senate Bill H.R. 1424

Only 25 Senators had the courage to vote NO to the Senate's back dooring of the BAILOUT BILL. If you don't see your Senator's name here than you need to make a call to them


NAYs ---25

Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 1
Kennedy (D-MA)

Complete Roll Call here

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Who was Looking Out for the Chicken House when the Foxes were Entering?

From a 1999 NY times article

September 30, 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

Senate Back dooring the Bailout Bill

FOX NEWS

The Senate is set to vote later today on the new “rescue plan/bailout bill” (or whatever one wants to call it). This thing is a doozy.

Despite assurance by New York Senator Chuck Schumer that it wouldn’t be “christmas tree’d” (adding all kinds of unrelated things to pretty it up) that’s exactly what looks to be happening.

This bill, which has to be attached to a current energy bill for procedural reasons - in this case an alternative energy measure - not only includes increases in caps on FDIC insurance, but also other stalled measures such as tax break extenders, patches to the AMT and tax credits for those impacted by natural disasters.

There is also discussion in the House about their new/changed bill, which may include a $1,000 stimulus check for those under specific incomes. Remember that the Senate’s stimulus plan failed last week, but looks like it may be reborn.

The “bailout bill” may end up passing this week, but it’s going to look less like a financial guarantee package and more like a “what old, stalled legislation can I stuff into the bill” bill.

Total bill is now 406 pages. Will add more detail later.

At its heart the Bill remains the same — a plan to allow the US Government to spend $700 billion to buy up the financial sector's toxic, mortgage related assets

The Senate is trying to back door the same bailout bill that those courageous House members defeated!

Call your Senator and say ," NO BAILOUT, WORKOUT ONLY

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

American Heroes


I was watching C-Span as the votes were being tallied in one of the most important bills in our lifetime.

Was the free market economic markets of America to become socialized or would the charge to defeat this bill lead by House Republicans win?

I prayed as I watched the tally and then came the final tally, H.R. 3997 was defeated!!!!!

I was amazed and ecstatic at the same time, I had been glued to the TV set all day while making calls to my Rep. Congressman Mike Rogers, House Republicans, Mike Pence encouraging them to hang tough.

And then it happened, DEFEAT and VICTORY

Defeat of H.R. 3997 and victory for our Democratic Republic and the American people.

Congratulations and many, many thanks to those American heroes, the House Republicans who lead the charge and those 133 Republicans and 95 Democrats who prevented the socialization of the American free market

Monday, September 29, 2008

HOUSE REJECTS BAILOUT BILL!!!

205 YEA
228 NAY

Bailout Summary

SUMMARY OF THE “EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT OF 2008”

I. Stabilizing the Economy

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) provides up to $700 billion to the Secretary of the Treasury to buy mortgages and other assets that are clogging the balance sheets of financial institutions and making it difficult for working families, small businesses, and other companies to access credit, which is vital to a strong and stable economy. EESA also establishes a program that would allow companies to insure their troubled assets.

II. Homeownership Preservation

EESA requires the Treasury to modify troubled loans – many the result of predatory lending practices – wherever possible to help American families keep their homes. It also directs other federal agencies to modify loans that they own or control. Finally, it improves the *HOPE for Homeowners program by expanding eligibility and increasing the tools available to the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help more families keep their homes.

III. Taxpayer Protection

Taxpayers should not be expected to pay for Wall Street’s mistakes. The legislation requires companies that sell some of their bad assets to the government to provide warrants so that taxpayers will benefit from any future growth these companies may experience as a result of participation in this program. The legislation also requires the President to submit legislation that would cover any losses to taxpayers resulting from this program from financial institutions.

IV. No Windfalls for Executives

Executives who made bad decisions should not be allowed to dump their bad assets on the government, and then walk away with millions of dollars in bonuses. In order to participate in this program, companies will lose certain tax benefits and, in some cases, must limit executive pay. In addition, the bill limits “golden parachutes” and requires that unearned bonuses be returned.

V. Strong Oversight

Rather than giving the Treasury all the funds at once, the legislation gives the Treasury $250 billion immediately, then requires the President to certify that additional funds are needed ($100 billion, then $350 billion subject to Congressional disapproval). The Treasury must report on the use of the funds and the progress in addressing the crisis. EESA also establishes an Oversight Board so that the Treasury cannot act in an arbitrary manner. It also establishes a special inspector general to protect against waste, fraud and abuse


* Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, today announced his intention to introduce legislation that will create a new program within the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to provide aid to distressed borrowers currently trapped in mortgages they cannot afford. Under the “HOPE for Homeowners Act of 2008," new mortgages that are offered by FHA-approved lenders will refinance abusive loans at a significant discount for homeowners facing difficulty meeting their mortgage payments.


So then from reading this summary, its STILL A BAILOUT.
The House is still voting and we'll have to wait and see which Republicans
will keep to NO BAILOUT but instead extending insurance to banks, Wall Street to cover the bad debt allowing them to remove the debt from the books in order to unfreeze money needed for mortgages and other loans.

Also III calls for companies that sell some of their bad assets to the government to provide warrants so that taxpayers will benefit from any future growth these companies may experience.

However what if these companies eventually fails? Then how will the warrants be honored?

And under V the legislation gives the Treasury $250 billion immediately, then requires the President to certify that additional funds are needed ($100 billion, then $350 billion subject to Congressional disapproval).

Is there any doubt that under a Obama administration and Democrat Congress that the "additional funds" would not be approved?

And also, EESA also establishes an Oversight Board so that the Treasury cannot act in an arbitrary manner.

Who will be on the Oversight Board and who chooses? Will it be stacked with people like Paulsen who created the panic and was the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs since the firm’s initial public offering in 1999.

Or maybe Obama-type buddies like Jim Johnson, corporate finance managing director for Lehman Brothers. Johnson served as Fannie Mae CEO from 1991 to 1998

Or Franklin Raines, the head of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2004,who agreed in April to pay nearly $25 million in a settlement with the government in an accounting scandal.

And what do we know about this new “HOPE for Homeowners Act of 2008", other than Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) receiving the highest amount in contributions from Fannie and Freddie and as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs SHOULD have been aware of this looming economic meltdown, authored it.

The bottom line, as this bill is presented I say VOTE NO House Republicans and do not settle for anything less than an INSURANCE PROGRAM as opposed to a BUY OUT. I spoke with Congressman Rogers Saturday at a fund raiser by phone. I asked him if House Republicans will hang tough and not approve or vote for a BAILOUT. He assured me that he would not vote for a BAILOUT.

Shortly, we will know who has voted against and for this Bill.

McCain/Palin should come out AGAINST this bill as it stands

Most Americans are against it

This is a perfect chance to point out why and who contributed to the problem, Dodd, ACORN, with Obama ties etc

And why the Republican House plan protects taxpayers because IT IS NOT A BAILOUT
The insurance plan would only cost 35 billion as opposed to 700 million!

And Republicans should call for a complete investigation by the FBI, no "bi-partisan" committee

ACORN is out of the bill but I believe that Dodd's new program could funnel money to ACORN and probably is the reason he proposed it...as a means for libs to continue to rape the economic system

Two words:

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Contact Congressman Rogers HERE;

133 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4872
Fax: (202) 225-5820

1327 E. Michigan Ave.
Lansing, Michigan 48912
Phone: (517) 702-8000
Toll Free: 877-333-MIKE
Fax: (517) 702-8642

Contact House Republicans HERE;

House Republican Conference
Main Office Phone: (202) 225-5107
Press Office Phone: (202) 226-9000
Office Fax: (202) 226-0154
Email: GOP@mail.house.gov