Economic Crisis Could Have Been Avoided!! Democrats Would Not Heed Warning!!

WATCH THIS VIDEO!!! In 2004 Republicans called for tighter regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac! Democrats refused, and now tax payers will be paying for the subprime lending mess! Watch and pass on to your friends! Obama's economic advisor Frank Raines is in this video! Trust me, with economic advise like his, Obama is not fit for the White House!

Obama's Dangerous Friends

What exactly did Obama do as a community organizer? Or more importantly who did he associate with? In this age of media's bias for Obama it's amazing that this story even came out. But here it is from the New York Post:

O'S DANGEROUS PALS

BARACK'S 'ORGANIZER' BUDS PUSHED FOR BAD MORTGAGES

• Comments: 110
• Read Comments
• Leave a Comment

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.

Posted: 3:53 am
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 Commu nity 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 ac knowledges 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.

Of course I'm not blaming Obama for all the economic woes this country is facing, but I do think it shows his mindset on economic issues and it tells a lot about who his friends are!

By the way, if you're tired of the media's bias towards Obama, sign this pledge boycotting NBC, ABC, and CBS news broadcasts until after the election!

DEAR OBAMA

I had this video emailed to me. I think it speaks for itself.

Obama: Can't the brother get a break!

Obama challenging certain members of the black community to do better??? Oh my! And Jesse Jackson wanting to castrate Obama for making this request. What is wrong with this scenario?

I thought Jesse Jackson and the NAACP wanted to help improve the quality of life for their people. I mean you see these same people support things like the United Negro College Fund and make demands to government for better opportunities for their people. Ok so what is the deal when a presidential candidate like Obama challenges certain members of the black community to do better?

Taking the Ricky Ricardo approach; "Jesse you have some explaining to do!"

Obama - Universal Health Care

Universal Health Care is a hot topic with many. Here is a t-shirt that captures the essence of the true price of Universal Health Care.

Get your shirt now and get people thinking about the true cost of "free" health care.

Go here to get your t-shirt!

Obama - The Candidate For Change T-Shirt

Anti-Obama campaign shirts have just been released! Be one of the first to have this rare t-shirt print!

Go here to get yours' now!!!

Don't let Obama "steer" you in the wrong direction

Aldous Huxley, the author of the famous book "Brave New World", also constructed an essay titled "Propaganda under a Dictatorship" in which he introduces the idea of "herd poisoning".

I would like to direct this concept to followers and potential followers of Obama who have been caught up in the mass euphoria and explain why they have been mesmorized so easily.

Huxley explains that "the masses are utterly contemptible. They are incapable of abstract thinking and uninterested in any fact outside the circle of their immediate experience. Their behavior is determined not by knowledge and reason, but by feelings and unconscious drives."

He goes on to explain the propaganda strategies by Hitler who made his strongest appeal to those members of the lower middle class who had been ruined by the inflation of 1923 and then ruined all over again by the depression of 1929 and the following years. Huxley explains, "Hitler spoke of "The masses" which were considered the bewildered, frustrated, and chronically anxious group of millions. To make them more masslike, more homogenously subhuman, he assembled them, by the thousands and the tens of thousands, in vast halls and arenas, where individuals could lose their personal identity, even their elementary humanity, and be merged with the crowd. A man or woman makes direct contact with society in two ways; as a member of some familial, professional or religous group, or a as a member of a crowd. Groups are capable of being as moral and intelligent as the individuals who form them; a crowd is chaotic, has no purpose of its own and capable of anything except intelligent action and realistic thinking."

This concept set forward by Huxley helps explain why prominent and intelligent people can mix into a crowd and lose all forms of reasoning power. This is the reason why the concept of universal healthcare seems like a grand idea even if the real impact of such a plan would devastate America. It seems people rather give precedence to emotions and not facts. Ever heard of "buyer's remorse"? They say people buy on emotion and reason with logic. After your emotions settle down after buying that decked out new car with an added warranty that you didn't need, you start to realize the true impact of your decision with logic and reason. You realize your emotions have deceived you and got you into a binding contract that is not in your favor. Emotions can be deceiving because when you are caught in the immediate experience, you are not always capable of analyzing the true long term impact of the information being transmitted to you, because it is your very emotional framework that the orator is going after and tailoring to. Any public speaking 101 class will teach you that! This same concept goes for the people at an Obama rally.

This mass "Obama" euphoria is happening for a very strategic reason and I believe it is dangerous and deceptively calculated. Barack Obama is preying on the same feelings, hopes, and aspirations of people that Hitler appealed to in Nazi Germany from 1923-1929. It is no different.

Beware of herd poisoning. Don't let yourself get "steered" in the wrong direction.

Think!!!

Former CIA Director says Obama is Dangerous

In a town hall meeting recently, Obama made claims that the GOP is responsible for Osama bin Laden going free and that the GOP also helped engineer the distraction (Iraq War) that took their eye off of the people who committed 9-11.

People who really have minds and can think rationally will know that the GOP along with Democrats made joint decisions to enter into Iraq and commit the United States to fighting terrorism abroad. If the statement about the GOP engineering a distraction is true, then the Democratic party must also be included because members of that party voted to enter Iraq, including Senator Clinton. Mr. Obama is capitalizing on the ignorance of the uninformed or rather those that would rather not think for themselves and as a result become victims of good old fashioned Nazi like "herd poisoning".

In a conference call with reporters, McCain adviser Randy Scheunemann said Tuesday: "Senator Obama is a perfect manifestation of a September 10th mind-set. ... He does not understand the nature of the enemies we face."

Former CIA director James Woolsey said Obama has "an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism ... and toward dealing with prisoners captured overseas who have been engaged in terrorist attacks against the United States."

I think a former CIA director is a credible and reliable source when it comes to analyzing a presidential candidate.

He says Obama is dangerous, I agree.

Supreme Court Supports Terrorism!

Today was a sad day in American history. The Supreme ruled 5-4 in favor to give detainees in the war on terror held at Guantanamo the constitutional right to challenge their incarceration in the federal courts.

First off, these terrorists or even suspected terrorists are not U.S. citizens and are enemies to the state. What does this say to our soldiers engaged in the war on terror? Do they have to read these jihadists their Miranda rights first before incarcerating them? This ruling enables the enemy even more.

So if the U.S. apprehends Osama Bin Laden, does he get due process and passage to the appellate courts too? This is obscene what the court has done. Oh and U.S. taxpayers will be proud to know that their tax dollars will now be going to fund the support of terrorism. The federal courts will be actively involved now in hearing appeals from detainees. Who is going to pay for that? That's right, good ol' Uncle Sam.

And of course, Shiek Obama supports the court's ruling, which speaks volumes about which kind of justice he would nominate if a vacancy became a available on the high court during his stint as president if it happened.

We need to be concerned about the Constitution, the court, and the unborn in this election.

A wrong choice with the Supreme Court can set many bad things in motion as demonstrated today. We don't need another liberal on the highest court of the land.

Censorship: What Radical Change Does To A Country

If Barack Obama becomes president, you can be sure that new elements of censorship will follow to protect his own causes. Radical leaders throughout history have shown that in order to preserve and sustain power, one must control the media. (I am sure non-radical leaders know this too.)

Hitler knew this, Stalin knew this, and many of the other whack jobs in history who have held positions of power knew this.

Hitler himself was quoted as saying: "By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise."

Oh and some of my other Hitler favorites:

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."

"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think."

With any good propaganda movement you have countermeasures in place to ensure that the dissemination of information is not disrupted.

The problem with this is that you will always have a group of people who will naturally resist and challenge the establishment if the group feels threatened or imposed upon. In the case of the oppression caused by censorship from the Chinese government, you have groups like the creators of "Goolag" to help combat the oppressor.

There is so much more to be discovered about Obama and his intentions, especially in regards to censorship and media usage. The information that we do have now about him, is enough to be concerned, very concerned.

People have been caught up in the "light bearing", euphoric, and seducing promises of an evil Obama campaign.

Fortunately for Obama, his followers don't think!

Obama wants a piece of your American Pie!!

Besides Obama and his wife wanting to take a piece of my American Pie, after watching this video I had another thought come to me. First off I can understand people being caught up in a sense of pride because of the gains minorities have made in this country which I wholeheartedly support. The thing that I don't like is when race has to be a primary influential component that defines a person's candidacy like in the case of Obama.



Certain black people should be no prouder of Obama running for president than I should if David Duke were to decide to make another run for the White House. I would not support David Duke if he was running for obvious Klan associated reasons but hey that's just me. It's ludicrous to allow race to be the sole component to judge a man's candidacy. (If you don't know who David Duke is, google him.)

This blog does not seek to question Obama due to his race, but rather his political views. His political views will be the driver in creating radical change not his skin color. Besides, if anyone has made it a matter of race it is Obama's wife, Michelle Obama. She is not making a strong case for Barack with her sketchy comments about her American or un-American pride whichever way you look at it. If I were Obama I would keep her on a very short and firm leash when it comes to public appearances.

But this whole race thing pales in comparison to the fact that Obama wants a piece of my American Pie.

No PIE for YOU Mr. Obama!!!!

Obama has his Gun Sights on Entrepreneurs!!!

In economic theory you have what are known as factors of production or productive inputs which consist of labor, land, and capital. These are the very factors that enable the production of goods and services in any economy. There is a fourth factor of production to consider and that is entrepreneurship.

The way these factors are controlled though is a matter of government.

In a market economy, considered as a separate factor, entrepreneurs combine the other factors of production, land, labor, and capital in an innovative way to make a profit. In a planned economy, central planners decide how land, labor, and capital should be used to provide for maximum benefit for all citizens.

Entrepreneurs provide innovative solutions and create value in the marketplace, and as a result new jobs are created. This factor of production seems to be the most important and you would think politicians would seek to enable this area of production in order to stimulate the economy and create more jobs. Entrepreneurs are risk takers and invest a lot of money into their ventures and should naturally be rewarded, not punished.

If you are Barack Obama though, the idea of improving economic conditions at home involves punishing the most productive people in our economy who create wealth and value in the market place.

Just listen to his speeches and you will begin to pick up on the implicit hints that he gives for his economic program that will further enable the "welfare state" and punish the innovators and wealth creators that drive America.

Recently Barack Obama gave a speech in Raleigh, North Carolina attacking John McCain's economic policies and at the same time revealing his own but not being very specific. He did say his programs would be paid for by a combination of tax increases, elimination of waste and spending cuts elsewhere in the federal budget, which he did not detail.

In response to his speech, McCain, who was at fundraising events in Washington and Virginia on Monday, issued a statement belittling the Obama speech.

"While hardworking families are hurting and employers are vulnerable, Barack Obama has promised higher income taxes, Social Security taxes, capital-gains taxes, dividend taxes and tax hikes on job creating businesses," a McCain spokesman, Tucker Bounds, said in a statement issued before Obama spoke. "Barack Obama doesn't understand the American economy, and that's change we just can't afford."

Entrepreneurship has always been important to America, from the small flower shop owner to the big time automobile manufacturer, these are all the results of risk taking individuals who are innovative and have vision. Not to mention entrepreneurship creates jobs.

Here is an idea Obama, why don't we enable entrepreneurs more instead of punishing them with more taxes. America needs change but not change that is going to take us in a backwards direction and make us less competitive in the marketplace not to mention enhance the welfare state.

Obama's New Bumper Sticker

Get the message out! Beware of Obama!

To get your very own Obama Soviet sticker, go Here!

DRIVE HAPPY!!!

Beware: False Messianic Promises

An article from the American Thinker titled "Obama's Politics of Collective Redemption" poses some interesting parallels.

Barack Obama has been painted as a messiah to some and many have been caught up in the euphoric message of change much like the germans of the Hitler era, where in the beginning Hitler promised change and instilled a strong sense of nationalism in Germany that laid the groundwork for Nazi doctrines that would eventually threaten and ruin the world.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Hitler himself had a slogan when he was rising to power: "Alles muss anders sein!" ("Everything must be different!")

Change can be perilous, especially if it is combined with radical religious and political fervor.

Consider the comments of Pope Benedict:

"...where the Marxist ideology of liberation had been consistently applied, a total lack of freedom had developed, whose horrors were now laid bare before the eyes of the entire world. Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic."

History has shown us that messages of radical change have paved the way for disasters that have not only threatened the country where they were preached, but also to the entire world.

Promises of change that involve making people more dependent on the government and weakening the working class and making America less competitive in this global economy, is this the kind of change that America needs?

Do we need change that involves catering to our enemies? Don't be confused by the message that we need to improve the American image in the international spotlight. Does America need to be diplomatic, yes of course. But America does not need to cater to an international community that does not have America's interests in mind.

Obama has created euphoria in America and is exploiting the hopes and dreams of hard working Americans with a false sense of meaningful and liberating change. Are we going to all of a sudden live in this utopian society where everyone has each other's interests in mind. It is an ideal situation, one not very well aligned with a capitalist society. Don't forget, capitalism is not the evil that Marxists and other anti-capitalists would have you believe. Capitalism should always go hand in hand with altruism. I am digressing here, but look at historical capitalists like Andrew Carnegie and the Rockefellers.

Obama's idea of political and economic change will ultimately weaken people and create further dependence on social programs, not to mention his idea of change will hit America in the pocket book and further cause the economy to go into a tailspin.

What do I say to Obama and his causes, Yes We Can't!

Obama: A Clear and Present Danger

In an address to a crowd in Oregon, Obama minimized the threat that countries like Iran pose to the United States, further demonstrating not only to the United States itself, but also to the world that this error in judgement is a clear and present danger and also an example of inexperience talking.



The facts are laid on the table and the Iranian president has made some very bold statements not only to the United States but also to countries friendly to the US such as Israel. Does "wiped off the map" ring a bell? Iran has also been pressured to stop supporting the insurgency that is present in Iraq fighting against and killing American troops. Iran supports terrorism, plain and simple, but more than that, they support any cause that undermines American foreign policy.

If Obama is to take a soft stance with Iran, what does that mean to the world, to the United States? What kind of message does that send to our enemies? Are we supposed to court them and give out cupcakes? Diplomacy only goes so far with fanatics like the ones we are seeing in Iraq and Iran. We need a leader that will not entertain thoughts of courting our enemies. Courting allows them to buy time to get stronger and a lot more dangerous. We also need to be midful of our enemies' allies, Iran is also friendly with Venezuela and Mr. Hugo Chavez, they have reps that sit on the same OPEC panel.

Here is an interesting question, if Iran is just taking an internal perspective and building a nuclear program for civil purposes, then why do they feel so threatened and demonstrate resistance and a defense stance when confronted?

Answer: Iran feels threatened overall by the US and it's foreign policies in that part of the world. Iran wants to establish supremacy in that region and it doesn't want it's ultimate goal of building a nuclear arsenal to be disrupted. It also does not want America to spread and establish a dominant influence in that part of the world. The US military has always had a huge military presence in that part of the world, especially after the first Gulf War.

With comments like what Obama uttered to that crowd in Oregon, it is apparent that we not only have a clear and present danger abroad but also right here in our own backyard.

Reference article: Obama comments on Iran

Cutting Ties For Political Gain

My comments below are derived from the article "Obama: Stealth Socialist?"

By now we have all heard the commentary through various media outlets of the radical Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the former spiritual mentor of presidential candidate Barack Obama. Even though Barack Obama has denounced his former spiritual leader publicly, you still have to be skeptical about this move. If Barack Obama was not running for president, do you think he would have cut ties with Jeremiah Wright or distanced himself from his church which he has been attending for the last 20 years? It should be noted that Obama has been a loyal, pledged member of the Trinity United Church of Christ since 1991 but has worshiped there for 20 years.

It is reasonable to conclude that during the past twenty years, a message aligned with Jeremiah Wright's open comments about hating America and the economic slavery of black people caused by "white" capitalism was preached with Obama in attendance. Why has Obama been hailed as the "black Jesus". This a radical idea and a stretch.

Do you honestly think that Obama has forsaken his ties internally with these associates of the Trinity United Church of Christ? No

His denouncement of Wright's comments is nothing more than a political tactic to show face in the arena of public opinion. These radical views expressed by Wright are not commonly shared with a majority of people and would obviously be detrimental to Obama's campaign. It is a matter of political survival at the moment. Oh by the way, as the campaign goes on and people demand clarification of the message of change, you will begin to see some interesting shifts as Obama will naturally have to appease to big constituent groups like labor unions and others.

Change is good, just as long as it is not at the peril of the United States.