Why the Mortgage Crisis Happened Long but worth it

Why the Mortgage Crisis Happened

By M. Jay Wells

Obama’s economic narrative of the mortgage crisis ignores the facts. He has put free-market capitalism at the root of the current mortgage industry debacle, denying the real history of government interference in that market.

On September 15, with banking giant Lehman Brothers filing for bankruptcy protection, Obama was given the opening to begin weaving his anti-capitalist storyline. And that he did. Artfully blurring the mortgage industry crisis with generalized tax policy, Obama declared,

 

“I certainly don’t fault Senator McCain for these problems, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to. It’s a philosophy we’ve had for the last eight years, one that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.”

 

The words were carefully chosen.  That day in Colorado marked his return to the teleprompter and a strictly refocused campaign message intent on surreptitiously fusing the mortgage industry woes and free-market capitalism in general. Confident the American people are primed for his socialist brand of “change,” Obama maintained his anti-capitalist theme, “What we have seen in the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed.” According to Obama, capitalism has been “rendered . . . a colossal failure.”

 

His chat with a Toledo, Ohio, plumber showcases his socialist, redistributionist ideology:

 

“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too. . . . I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

 

He had already said as much at an April debate where he said his plan was to “look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness” (after having just admitted that raising the tax would reduce revenues!). For Obama, increased federal revenue be damned, tax increases are nonetheless necessary for redistributionist “fairness.”

 

Contrary to the Obama narrative, however, it is not free-market capitalism at the root of the current mortgage industry crisis, but rather the very socialism Obama hawks. The historical record makes this fact unmistakably clear.
The Growing Government Hand

 


1933-1938
President Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated a series of “New Deal” reform programs designed to affect the mortgage market and homeownership. Fannie Mae, the Federal National Mortgage Association, was established to facilitate liquidity among lending institutions.

 

1968

 

As part of President Johnson’s Great Society reform plan, much of Fannie Mae became a private owned yet government chartered company, a government sponsored enterprise (GSE) providing authority to issue mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Fannie Mae buys home mortgages in order to preserve liquidity in the secondary mortgage market. Though private, it remained backed by the Federal government.

 

1970

 

President Nixon chartered Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, as a GSE to compete with Fannie Mae. Designed to help grow the secondary mortgage market, Freddie Mac purchases mortgages from lending institutions to either be securitized as MBS and sold in the secondary market or held by Freddie Mac. At this time the secondary market for conventional mortgages was small.

 

1977

 

Sen. Proxmire (D-Wisconsin) introduced a “creeping socialism” community reinvestment Senate bill. Opponents argued the bill would allocate credit without regard for merits of loan applications, thereby threatening depository institutions. Proponents countered that it was only to ensure that lenders did not ignore good borrowing prospects in their communities. The bill’s sponsor stressed it would neither force high-risk lending nor substitute the views of regulators or those of banks.

 

President Carter, pressed by grassroots organizations — though opposed by the banking industry, signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). In the years following the Act has undergone several revisions.

 

To boost community development laws, CRA was a provision designed to stem bank “redlining,” the practice of drawing a red line around low-income communities and denying lending in these areas. The original intent of CRA was to encourage banks to foster homeownership opportunities in these underserved communities in which the lending institutions are chartered.

 

According to Section 801 of title VIII, “regulated financial institutions are required by law to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs [i.e., credit and deposit services] of the communities in which they are chartered to do business.” Accordingly, “regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation” to meet these needs. Moreover, the title required each “appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions.”

 

1980s

 

With CRA came increased oversight of lending institutions to ensure they were giving credit to low- and moderate-income communities. Regulators expressed that CRA was not designed to compel credit allocation, nor did it require risky lending practices. Moreover, ECOA and FHA, not CRA, were in place to address discrimination in lending. But community organization groups like the radical ACORN began efforts to reshape CRA into government-imposition, in accord with what “affirmative obligation” might suggest. They began pressing the semantic open door and stretching the “discrimination” provision to complain about enforcement of the regulations as lending institutions resisted bad lending practices in poor minority communities.

 

August 1989

 

To deal with the savings & loan fallout of the 1980s, Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act. In a move with ominous portent, FIRREA mandated public release of lender evaluations and performance ratings, resulting in added pressure on the banking industry. Such public oversight enabled bullying abuses of community organization groups like ACORN to further influence bank lending practices.

 

1990s

 

With the mechanisms in place, the community organizing groups began developing directed strategies to exert more and more pressure on the lending industry in the cloak of complicity with CRA. Community organizer Barack Obama worked closely with ACORN activists. Employing the radical Alinsky intimidation tactics Obama had learned and was teaching — “direct action” — activists crowded bank lobbies, blocked drive-up teller lanes and demonstrated at the homes of bankers to browbeat risky lending in poor and minority communities. Those who resisted were accused of racism to the media and government officials.

 

The agitators could now stall or hijack bank mergers by filing complaints of non-compliance against the institutions. Lawsuits alleging redlining and racism began flooding the court system. With the prospect of expansions and mergers threatened, banks settled cases and, significantly, increasingly made loans they would not have normally made. The net effect, as ACORN litigation increased, was that credit standards lowered.

 

Initially the GSEs resisted purchasing these risky mortgages but eventually the Clinton Administration instructed them to substantially increase the percentage of these mortgages in their portfolios. The government-backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of the Clinton reforms became “a feeding trough,” in the phrase of Peter Ferrara.

 

The poor communities and their exploitive leaders benefited from the capitalization with a surge of homeownership, at least on the surface. Wall Street benefited from increased sales of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and guaranteed mortgage-backed securities, as the housing market benefited from new capital channeled from Fannie and Freddie. And the GSE heads profited, with political support in Washington in the form of campaign contributions.

 

In the period 1989-2008, topping the list of recipients of contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Dodd (D-Connecticut), who received $165,400. Second on the list is Sen. Obama (D-Illinois), receiving $126,349 with only three years in the Senate. Rep. Frank (D-Massachusetts), received $42,350.

 

February 1990

 

Madeline Talbott, a well-known radical ACORN leader and banking industry agitator, challenged the merger of a Chicago thrift, Bell Federal Savings and Loan Association, who responded that they were being bullied into irresponsible “affirmative-action lending policy.”

 

1991

 

ACORN interfered with a House Banking Committee meeting for two days protesting a move to bring CRA reform.

 

1992

 

Enforcement of CRA was “sporadic,” as the Washington Times notes, until a Federal Reserve Bank of Boston study asserted that there were “substantially higher denial rates for black and Hispanic applicants than for white applicants.” Co-author Lynn Browne was approached by co-author Alicia Munnell to do the study because “community activists were complaining that mortgage loans were not being made in minority communities.”

 

According to the Times, however, “the study had mishandled statistics on minority default rates. When the errors were accounted for, the same study showed no evidence that nonwhite mortgage applicants were being discriminated against.”
Frank Quaratiello, writing in the Boston Herald, cites Stan Liebowitz, “My guess is that they were interested in finding a particular result.” Said Liebowitz, “Richard Syron was head of the Boston Fed at the time. He went on to be the head of Freddie Mac. They were looking for mortgage discrimination and they found it.”
According to Quaratiello, Syron became Freddie Mac CEO and chairman in 2003 and “faced increasing pressure to buy up more and more risky mortgages, some of which the Boston Fed’s guide had, in effect, served to legitimize.” Regarding Syron’s total compensation in 2007 of $18.3 million, Liebowitz reportedly quipped, “Nice reward for presiding over unprofessional research behavior, bankrupting Freddie Mac and crippling our financial system, all in the name of politically correct lending.”

 

September 1992

 

The Chicago Tribune described the ACORN agenda as “affirmative action lending.” And, writes  Kurtz, “ACORN was issuing fact sheets bragging about relaxations of credit standards that it had won on behalf of minorities.”

 

October 1992

 

Congress, enacting the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, allowed legislation to “amend and extend certain laws relating to housing and community development.” The Act created the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) within HUD to “ensure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are adequately capitalized and operating safely.” It also “established HUD-imposed housing goals for financing of affordable housing and housing in central cities and other rural and underserved areas.”

 

Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) warned about the impending danger non-regulated GSEs posed. As the Washington Post reports, his concern was that Congress was “hamstringing” the regulator. Complaint was that OFHEO was a “weak regulator.” Leach worried that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were changing “from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the stockholding few.”

 

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) countered, as the Post reports, “the companies served a public purpose. They were in the business of lowering the price of mortgage loans.”

 

September 1993

 

The Chicago Sun-Times reports an initiative led by ACORN’s Talbott with five area lenders “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.” Kurtz notes that the initiative included two of her former targets, Bell Federal Savings and Avondale Federal Savings, who had apparently capitulated under pressure.

 

July 1994

 

Represented by Obama and others, Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Citibank had “intentionally discriminated against the Plaintiffs on the basis of race with respect to a credit transaction,” calling their action “racial discrimination and discriminatory redlining practices.”

 

November 1994

 

President Clinton addresses homeownership: “I think we all agree that more Americans should own their own homes, for reasons that are economic and tangible and reasons that are emotional and intangible but go to the heart of what it means to harbor, to nourish, to expand the American dream. . . . I am determined to see that you have the opportunity and together we can make that opportunity for the young families of our country. I am committed to a new and unprecedented partnership between industry leaders and community leaders and Government to recommit our Nation to the idea of homeownership and to create more homeowners than ever before.”

 

June 1995

 

Republicans had won control of Congress and planned CRA reforms. The Clinton Administration, however, allied with Rep. Frank, Sen. Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and Rep. Waters (D-California), did an end-around by directing HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo to inject GSEs into the subprime mortgage market.

 

As Kurtz notes,”ACORN had come to Congress not only to protect the CRA from GOP reforms but also to expand the reach of quota-based lending to Fannie, Freddie and beyond.” What resulted was the broadening of the “acceptability of risky subprime loans throughout the financial system, thus precipitating our current crisis.”

 

The administration announced the bold new homeownership strategy which included monumental loosening of credit standards and imposition of subprime lending quotas. HUD reported that President Clinton had committed “to increasing the homeownership rate to 67.5 percent by the year 2000.” The plan was “to reduce the financial, information, and systemic barriers to homeownership” which was “amplified by local partnerships at work in over 100 cities.”

 

Kurtz concludes, “Urged on by ACORN, congressional Democrats and the Clinton administration helped push tolerance for high-risk loans through every sector of the banking system — far beyond the sort of banks originally subject to the CRA. So it was the efforts of ACORN and its Democratic allies that first spread the subprime virus from the CRA to Fannie and Freddie and thence to the entire financial system. Soon, Democratic politicians and regulators actually began to take pride in lowered credit standards as a sign of ‘fairness’ — and the contagion spread.”

 

Attorney General Janet Reno, with a number of bank lending discrimination settlements already, sternly announces, “We will tackle lending discrimination wherever it appears.” With the new policy in full force, “No loan is exempt; no bank is immune.” “For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement,” reiterated Reno.

 

1997

 

HUD Secretary Cuomo said “GSE presence in the subprime market could be of significant benefit to lower-income families, minorities, and families living in underserved areas . . .”

 

1998

 

By falsifying signatures on Fannie Mae accounting transactions, $200 million in expenses was shifted from 1998 to later periods, thereby triggering $27.1 million in bonuses for top executives. James A. Johnson received $1.932 million; Franklin D. Raines received $1.11 million; Lawrence M. Small received $1.108 million; Jamie S. Gorelick received $779,625; Timothy Howard received $493,750; Robert J. Levin received $493,750.

 

April 1998

 

HUD announced a $2.1 billion settlement with AccuBanc Mortgage Corp. for alleged discrimination against minority loan applicants. The funds would provide poor families with down payments and low interest mortgages. Announcing the Accubank settlement, Secretary Cuomo said, “discrimination isn’t always that obvious. Sometimes more subtle but in many ways more insidious, an institutionalized discrimination that’s hidden behind a smiling face.”

 

Before the camera, Cuomo admitted the mandate amounted to “affirmative action” lending that would result in a “higher default rate.” The institution would “take a greater risk on these mortgages, yes; to give families mortgages who they would not have given otherwise, yes; they would not have qualified but for this affirmative action on the part of the bank, yes. It is by income, and is it also by minorities? Yes. . . . With the 2.1 billion, lending that amount in mortgages which will be a higher risk, and I’m sure there will be a higher default rate on those mortgages than on the rest of the portfolio.”

 

May 1999

 

The LA Times reports that African Americans homeownership is increasing three times as fast as that of whites, with Latino homeowners is growing five times as fast, attributing the growth to breathing “the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act.” This breath of “life” mandated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages with deviant down-payments and debt-to-income ratios which allowed lenders to approve mortgages for lower-income families that would have been denied otherwise.

 

By now all pretense had disappeared, lending practices were based upon concerns of discrimination in the banking system regardless the consequences. The administration threatened to veto a bill passed by the Senate which had “shortsightedly voted to retrench” CRA, as the advocative Times put it.

 

Under pressure, Fannie Mae was resisting increased targeting, arguing that the result would be more loan defaults. Barry Zigas, heading Fannie Mae’s low-income efforts, argued, “There is obviously a limit beyond which [we] can’t push [the banks] to produce,” the Times reported.

 

Fall of 1999

 

Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned, “Debates about systemic risk should also now include government-sponsored enterprises, which are large and growing rapidly.”

 

September 1999

 

With pressure from the Clinton Administration, Fannie Mae eased credit requirements on loans it would purchase from lenders, making it easier for banks to lend to borrowers unqualified for conventional loans. Raines explained that “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,” reported the New York Times.

 

With this action, Fannie Mae put itself at substantial risk in the event of an economic downturn. “From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” warned Peter Wallison. “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.” The danger was known.

 

September 1999

 

A study by Freddie Mac, confirming earlier Federal Reserve and FDIC studies, contradicts race discrimination arguments for CRA. The study found that African-Americans with annual incomes of $65-$75,000 have on average worse credit records than whites making under $25,000, showing that the difficulty in qualifying was not because of race but because of bad credit records. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas accordingly entitled a paper “Red Lining or Red Herring?”

 

2000

 

The National Community Reinvestment Coalition instructed on how to exploit the new CRA regulations, “Timely comments can have a strong influence on a bank’s CRA rating.” NCRC asserted, “To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application, lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations.” That is, the mere threat to intervene in the CRA review process had equipped the ACORN groups for the massive shakedown.

 

Moreover, ACORN had been given a compelling incentive, as CRA allowed the organizations to collect a fee from the banks for their services in marketing the loans. The Senate Banking Committee had estimated that, as a result of CRA, $9.5 billion had gone to pay for services and salaries of the organizers.

 

Winter 2000

 

City Journal warned that the Clinton administration had turned CRA into “a vast extortion scheme against the nation’s banks,” committing $1 trillion for mortgages and development projects, most of it funneled through the community organizers.

 

March 2000

 

Rep. Richard Baker (R-Louisiana) proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie’s oversight in a House Subcommittee on Capital Markets.

 

Rep. Frank (D-Massachusetts) dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were “overblown” and that there was “no federal liability there whatsoever.”

 

Treasury Undersecretary Gary Gensler testified in favor of GSE regulation. He argued that the bill would promote private market discipline, increase transparency and preserve market competition, reducing the potential for subsidized competitors to distort financial markets.

 

Fannie Mae spokesmen responded by calling the testimony “inept,” “irresponsible,” and “unprofessional.”

 

Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute testified to the subcommittee that the bill was “a milestone in Congressional efforts to gain control of the Government Sponsored Enterprises.” He added that the “political courage and stamina that was required to introduce this bill and to continue to press it forward cannot be overstated.” He emphasized that the bill was only an “interim step in the necessary process of dismantling the GSEs and eliminating both their threat to the taxpayers and to the private financial sector of our economy.”

 

Wallison explained why Fannie and Freddie “pose a serious problem for both the public and private sectors.” First, they contain an inherent contradiction. “It is a shareholder-owned company, with the fiduciary obligation to maximize profits, and a government-chartered and empowered agency with a public mission. It should be obvious that it cannot achieve both objectives. If it maximizes profits, it will fail to perform its government mission to its full potential. If it performs its government mission fully, it will fail to maximize profits.”

 

He sounded an alarm on a “vicious and dangerous cycle.” “Fannie and Freddie must grow in order to maintain their profitability and hence their high stock prices, but there is no countervailing check on their growth – no effective competition, no required government approvals, and no fear in the financial markets that there is any risk associated with financing this growth. Moreover, their fiduciary obligations to their shareholders require them to exploit their subsidy to the fullest extent possible. These are agencies that are – in the fullest sense of the phrase – out of control.”

 

Congressional Democrats and GSE representatives vigorously attacked any such criticism. “We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the nation’s housing and mortgage markets,” rebuffed Sharon McHale, Freddie Mac spokeswoman. Congressional Democrats and GSE representatives prevailed.

 

June 2000

 

Fred L. Smith Jr., writing  in Investor’s Business Daily, recalls testifying before the House Financial Services Committee that GSE “special privileges create a serious hazard to the market, to taxpayers [and] to the economy.” He warned that these GSEs were “strange organizations, neither private-sector fish nor political-sector fowl” and that “as a result, no one is quite sure how these entities should be evaluated or held accountable.” These new debt portfolios “will certainly increase the likelihood of a Fannie-Freddie default.”

 

Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pennsylvania): “Mr. Smith, that is almost a fallacious argument,” adding that rapid growth of GSE debt holdings was nothing to worry about as it simply reflected “inflation and the growth of population. “Everything, proportionately, is that much larger.”

 

Rep. Marge Roukema (R-New Jersey): “very few banks or S&Ls could, even in this day and age, even now, meet the stress-testing requirements which Fannie and Freddie are required to meet.”

 

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-New York) regarding the Treasury Department line of credit: “It is really symbolic, it is obsolete, it has never been used.” “Would you explain why it would be important to repeal something that seems to be of little use?”

 

Smith: “as long as the pipeline is there, it is like it is very expandable. . . . It is only $2 billion today. It could be $200 billion tomorrow.”

 

Because of Democrat obfuscation, Smith’s “tomorrow” arrived in 2008 when Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship.

 

April 2001

 

Fiscal Year 2002 Budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity,” says a White House release.

 

July 2001

 

Subcommittee hearing on a bill proposed by Rep. Baker to transfer supervisory and regulatory authority over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and abolish the OFHEO.

 

Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pennsylvania) responded: “This bill would dramatically restructure the current regulatory system for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In my opinion, it also represents a solution in search of a problem. Nearly a decade ago, Congress created a rational, reasonable, and responsive system for supervising GSE activities, and that system with two regulators is operating increasingly effectively. H.R. 1409 would unfortunately interrupt this continual progress.”

 

March 2002

 

Business Week interview with Fannie Mae Vice-Chairman Jamie Gorelick about the prospects for the coming year:

 

Gorelick: “we are expecting a very, very strong 2002.”

 

Gorelick: “We believe we are managed safely. . . . Fannie Mae is among the handful of top-quality institutions. . . . . And we have consistently exceeded every standard that the examiners have set for us.”

 

May 2002

 

In an OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, the President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

 

February 2003

 

OFHEO reports that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations . . . the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them,” warning that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market, according to a White House release.

 

2003

 

Rep. Richard Baker (R-Louisiana), chairman of the House Financial Services subcommittee with GSE oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was informed by OFHEO “on the salaries paid to executives at both companies,” according to the Washington Post. Reportedly, “Fannie Mae threatened to sue Baker if he released it, he recalled. Fearing the expense of a court battle, he kept the data secret for a year.” “The political arrogance exhibited in their heyday, there has never been before or since a private entity that exerted that kind of political power,” he said.

 

June 2003

 

Freddie Mac reported it had understated its profits by $6.9 billion. OFHEO director Armando Falcon Jr. requested that the White House audit Fannie Mae.

 

July 2003

 

Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina) and John Sununu (R-New Hampshire) introduced legislation to address Regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill was blocked by Democrats.

 

September 2003

 

In an interview with Ron Insana for CNN Money, Rep. Baker warned, “I have concerns that if appropriate resources aren’t allocated for internal risk management, the consequences will be far more severe than just a real estate slowdown. The losses would fall quickly through the capital these companies have and down to shareholders and taxpayers. These companies have some of the lowest capital margins of any financial institution in the nation, yet, at the same time, they are two of the largest. The concern is that if something doesn’t work out the way they predict, the American taxpayer could be called on to pay off the debt in some sort of bailout.”

 

The New York Times reports that the Administration recommended “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago,” calling for new supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the Treasury Department. Reportedly, Congressional Democrats “fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.”

 

Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies  that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements, says a White House release.

 

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): “I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. . . . I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury. . . . I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing and to set reasonable goals.

 

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): “These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis. . . . The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

 

Rep. Melvin Watt (D-North Carolina): “I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing.”

 

October 2003

 

Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

 

November 2003

 

Council of the Economic Advisers Chairman Greg Mankiw warned, “The enormous size of the mortgage-backed securities market means that any problems at the GSEs matter for the financial system as a whole. This risk is a systemic issue also because the debt obligations of the housing GSEs are widely held by other financial institutions. The importance of GSE debt in the portfolios of other financial entities means that even a small mistake in GSE risk management could have ripple effects throughout the financial system,” from a White House release.

 

Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE,” says a White House release.

 

February 2004

 

Fiscal Year 2005 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore . . . should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator,” reports a White House release.

 

Mankiw cautions Congress to “not take [the financial market’s] strength for granted.” Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by “ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator,” says a White House release.

 

June 2004

 

Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System,” the White House reports.

 

September 2004

 

OFHEO reported that Fannie Mae and CEO Raines had manipulated its accounting to overstate its profits. Congress and the Bush administration sought strong new regulation and authority to put the GSEs under conservatorship if necessary. As the Washington Post reports, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac responded by orchestrating a major campaign “by traditional allies including real estate agents, home builders and mortgage lenders. Fannie Mae ran radio and television ads ahead of a key Senate committee meeting, depicting a Latino couple who fretted that if the bill passed, mortgage rates would go up.” Again, GSE pressure prevailed.

 

October 2004

 

Rep. Baker again warned about the coming crisis in the Wall Street Journal: “Then there’s the lesson of a company, Frankenstein-like, seemingly grown so powerful that it can intimidate and arrogantly flout all accountability to the very government that created it.”

 

Baker adds, “Although their bonds bear the disclaimer ‘not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government,’ the market does not believe it and looks right past the companies’ risk strategies to the taxpayers’ pockets.”

 

In a subcommittee testimony, Democrats vehemently reject regulation of Fannie Mae in the face of dire warning of a Fannie Mae oversight report. A few of them, Black Caucus members in particular, are very angry at the OFHEO Director as they attempt to defend Fannie Mae and protect their CRA extortion racket.

 

Chairman Baker (R-Louisiana): “It is indeed a very troubling report, but it is a report of extraordinary importance not only to those who wish to own a home, but as to the taxpayers of this country who would pay the cost of the clean up of an enterprise failure. . . . The analysis makes clear that more resources must be brought to bear to ensure the highest standards of conduct are not only required, but more importantly, they are actually met.”

 

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): “Through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn’t broke.”

 

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): “Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines.”

 

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-New York): “And as well as the fact that I’m just pissed off at OFHEO, because if it wasn’t for you I don’t think that we’d be here in the first place, and now the problem that we have and that we’re faced with is: maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you’ve given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the, uh, the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they’ve done a tremendous job. There’s been nothing that was indicated that’s wrong, you know, with uh Fannie Mae. Freddie Mac has come up on its own. And the question that then presents is the competence that, that, that, that your agency has, uh, with reference to, uh, uh, deciding and regulating these GSEs. Uh, and so, uh, I wish I could sit here and say that I’m not upset with you, but I am very upset because, you know, what you do is give, you know, maybe giving any reason to, as Mr. Gonzales said, to give someone a heart surgery when they really don’t need it.”

 

Rep. Ed Royce (R-California): “In addition to our important oversight role in this committee, I hope that we will move swiftly to create a new regulatory structure for Fannie Mae, for Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks.”

 

Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Missouri): “This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines.”

 

Rep. Ed Royce (R-California): “There is a very simple solution. Congress must create a new regulator with powers at least equal to those of other financial regulators, such as the OCC or Federal Reserve.”

 

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-New York): “What would make you, why should I have confidence? Why should anyone have confidence, and uh, in, in you as a regulator at this point?”

 

Armando Falcon, OFHEO Director: “Sir, Congressman, OFHEO did not improperly apply accounting rules. Freddie Mac did. OFHEO did not fail to manage earnings properly. Freddie Mac did. So this isn’t about the agency engaging in improper conduct. It’s about Freddie Mac.”

 

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut): “And we passed Sarbanes-Oxley, which was a very tough response to that, and then I realized that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wouldn’t even come under it. They weren’t under the ‘34 act, they weren’t under the ‘33 act, they play by their own rules, and I and I’m tempted to ask how many people in this room are on the payroll of Fannie Mae, because what they do is they basically hire every lobbyist they can possibly hire. They hire some people to lobby and they hire some people not to lobby so that the opposition can’t hire them.”

 

Rep. Artur Davis (D-Alabama): “So the concern that I have is you’re making very specific, what you have correctly acknowledged, broad and categorical judgments about the management of this institution, about the willfulness of practices that may or may not be in controversy. You’ve imputed various motives to the people running the organization. You went to the board and put a 48-hour ultimatum on them without having any specific regulatory authority to put that kind of ultimatum on ‘em. Uh, that sounds like some kind of an invisible line has been crossed.”

 

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut): “Fannie Mae has manipulated, in my judgment, OFHEO for years. And for OFHEO to finally come out with a report as strong as it is, tells me that’s got to be the minimum not the maximum.”

 

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): “Uh, I, this, you, you, you seem to me saying, ‘Well, these are in areas which could raise safety and soundness problems.’ I don’t see anything in your report that raises safety and soundness problems.”

 

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): “Under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines, everything in the 1992 Act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their affordable housing mission, a mission that has seen innovation flourish from desktop underwriting to 100% loans.”

 

Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Missouri): “I find this to be inconsistent and a and a rush to judgment. I get the feeling that the markets are not worried about the safety and soundness of Fannie Mae as OFHEO says that it is, but of course the markets are not political.”

 

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): “But I have seen nothing in here that suggests that the safety and soundness are at issue, and I think it serves us badly to raise safety and soundness as kind of a general shibboleth when it does not seem to me to be an issue.”

 

Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois): “Mr. Raines, 1.1 million bonus and a $526,000 salary. Jamie Gorelick, $779,000 bonus on a salary of 567,000. This is, what you state on page eleven is nothing less than staggering.”

 

Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois): “The 1998 earnings per share number turned out to be $3.23 and 9 mills, a result that Fannie Mae met the EPS maximum payout goal right down to the penny.”

 

Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois): “Fannie Mae understood the rules and simply chose not to follow them that if Fannie Mae had followed the practices, there wouldn’t have been a bonus that year.”

 

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut): “And you have about 3% of your portfolio set aside. If a bank gets below 4%, they are in deep trouble. So I just want you to explain to me why I shouldn’t be satisfied with 3%?”

 

Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae CEO: “Because banks don’t, there aren’t any banks who only have multifamily and single-family loans.”

 

Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae CEO: “These assets are so riskless that their capital for holding them should be under 2%.”

 

January 2005-July 2006

 

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), co-sponsored by Sens. Sununu and Dole and later Sen. McCain, re-introduced legislation to address GSE regulation.

 

“The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006,” reports the Wall Street Journal.

 

Greenspan testified that the size of GSE portfolios “poses a risk to the global financial system. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to bail out the lenders [GSEs] . . . should one get into financial trouble.” He added, “If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis . . . We put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States, a key ingredient of support for homeownership.”

 

Greenspan warned that if the GSEs “continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road . . . We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.”

 

Bloomberg writes, “If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. . . . But the bill didn’t become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn’t even get the Senate to vote on the matter. That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then.”

 

April 2005

 

Treasury Secretary John Snow again calls for GSE reform, “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America. . . . Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system,” from a White House release.

 

May 2005

 

At AEI Online, Wallison warned that “allowing Fannie and Freddie to continue on their present course is simply to create risks for the taxpayers, and to the economy generally, in order to improve the profits of their shareholders and the compensation of their managements. It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit.”

 

January 2006

 

Chairman Greenspan, in a letter to Sens. Sununu, Hagel and Dole, warned that the GSE practice of buying their own MBS “creates substantial systemic risk while yielding negligible additional benefits for homeowners, renters, or mortgage originators.” He stated, “. . . the GSEs and their government regulator need specific and unambiguous Congressional guidance about the intended purpose and functions of Fannie’s and Freddie’s investment portfolios.”

 

March 2006

 

Sens. Sununu and Hagel introduced an amendment to a Lobbying Reform Bill directing GAO to study GSE lobbying and requiring HUD to audit the GSEs annually.

 

May 2006

 

After years of Democrats blocking the legislation, Sens. Hagel, Sununu, Dole and McCain write a letter to Majority Leader William Frist and Chairman Richard Shelby expressing demanding that GSE regulatory reform be “enacted this year” to avoid “the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the Housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”

 

May 2006

 

Sen. McCain (R-Arizona) addressed the Senate, “Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were ‘illusions deliberately and systematically created’ by the company’s senior management. . . . Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. . . . OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.”

 

McCain stressed, “If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole. I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.”

 

April 2007

 

Sens. Sununu, Hagel, Dole, and Mel Martinez (R-Florida) re-introduced legislation to improve GSE oversight.

 

April 2007

 

In “A Nightmare Grows Darker,” the New York Times writes that the “democratization of credit” is “turning the American dream of homeownership into a nightmare for many borrowers.” The “newfangled mortgage loans” called “affordability loans” “represent 60 percent of foreclosures.”

 

September 2007

 

President Bush: “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs . . . the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.”

 

2007-2008

 

The housing bubble began to burst, bad mortgages began to default, and finally the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac portfolios were revealed to be what they were, in collapse. And the testimony is evident as to why. As Wallison noted, “Fannie and Freddie were, I would say, the poster children for corporate welfare.”

 

September 2008

 

Rep. Arthur Davis, whose testimony is found above in October 2004, now admits Democrats were in error: “Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.”

 

Today 2008

 

The narrative is of another socialist experiment failed, this time a massive federal effort, imperiling the whole US banking industry. Facing this economic disaster, will an informed American people put their trust Obama’s socialist ideology to bring remedy? To do so is to trust in an acetylene torch to put out the fire.

‘The Obama Temptation’ Your assignment today is to read this brilliant article by Mark Levin writing at The Corner regarding the American people and the election. “The Obama Temptation:

‘The Obama Temptation’

Rick Moran
Your assignment today is to read this brilliant article by Mark Levin writing at The Corner regarding the American people and the election. “The Obama Temptation:

A small sample:

But beyond the elites and the media, my greatest concern is whether this election will show a majority of the voters susceptible to the appeal of a charismatic demagogue. This may seem a harsh term to some, and no doubt will to Obama supporters, but it is a perfectly appropriate characterization. Obama’s entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The “change” he peddles is not new. We’ve seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government. Obama’s appeal to the middle class is an appeal to the “the proletariat,” as an infamous philosopher once described it, about which a mythology has been created. Rather than pursue the American Dream, he insists that the American Dream has arbitrary limits, limits Obama would set for the rest of us – today it’s $250,000 for businesses and even less for individuals. If the individual dares to succeed beyond the limits set by Obama, he is punished for he’s now officially “rich.” The value of his physical and intellectual labor must be confiscated in greater amounts for the good of the proletariat (the middle class). And so it is that the middle class, the birth-child of capitalism, is both celebrated and enslaved – for its own good and the greater good. The “hope” Obama represents, therefore, is not hope at all. It is the misery of his utopianism imposed on the individual.

What is really at stake in this election – at bottom – is human liberty. Are we to accept a promised economic security offered by government in exchange for our ability to decide our own destiny? We have been listening to the left scream about exchanging “liberty for security” for 8 years. But that was in the context of being physically secure from attack.

What Obama offers is different. It is the sacrificing of freedom for dependence on government. You cannot be both free and dependent. And conservatives like Levin don’t like the bargain.

Read the whole thing.

The Dirty Thirty

PDF 110th-congress

The Dirty Thirty

Will you help us expose the hidden big tax-and-spend records of 30 so called “Fiscal Conservative” freshmen members of Congress?

The National Tax Limitation Committee is exposing 30 so called “centrist” Democrats who ran as fiscal conservatives in 2006, but have since voted like tax-and-spend liberals!

These are the most important House seats in the country – the districts have a history of spending pro-taxpayer Representatives to Congress, but now they have some of the nation’s biggest taxers and spenders!

You may remember in 2006 when House Democrat campaign leader Congressman Rahm Emanuel, and others, campainged on the theme that the “new” Democrats were fiscally reliable moderates who could be counted on to control government spending and restore financial order in Washington.

Many fiscally conservative voters tired of special interest earmarks and reckless spending of the reigning GOP leadership, voted for what seemed like change.

Our Plan to Tell the True Story

  • We will buy ads exposing the Dirty 30 in their key districts!

  • We will educate Taxpayers on the true deceitful Dirty 30 and how they voted when they got to Washington!

  • We will identify, organize, and inform taxpayers through mail, phone and internet to help spread the TRUTH!

Thirty of these “Fiscal Conservative” Democrats replaced Republicans in 2006. They provided necessary votes to make Nancy Pelosi Speaker.

Now, after nearly two years in power, we decided to see if the votes of the Dirty Thirty matched their promises. It was a shocking eye-opener!

You and I must rip the lid off this scam and warn the fiscally conservative taxpayers in these key districts before they return the Dirty Thirty to Washington to squander billions more of your tax dollars!

The taxpayers in these districts are fiscally conservative. They have elected solid fiscal conservatives in the past. But today, these voters are being told their new Representatives are budget hawks when the Congressional Record proves this just isn’t true.

Not a Dime’s Worth of Difference

Obama, white supremacy and all that jazz

Obama, white supremacy and all that jazz

By Ted Belman

Barack Hussein Obama would have us believe that Ayers was “just a guy in the neighborhood” and that Rev Wright “preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life…the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.” Would, that it was true.

Great VIDEO on the United Socialist States of America. A vote for Obama will bring this about.

The truth of the matter is that both Ayers and Wright blame white supremacy for the troubles of the world and that Obama was and is in agreement with them.

Ayers and Dohrn just published a new book ‘White supremacy’ responsible for America’s troubles.” Amazon summarizes the core of the book as

    “Arguing that white supremacy has been the dominant political system in the United States since its earliest days – and that it is still very much with us – the discussion points to unexamined bigotry in the criminal justice system, election processes, war policy, and education,”

WorldNetDaily reviews this book and adds,

    “a former FBI informant who penetrated the group claims he participated in a discussion in which members of the group Ayers and Dohrn co-founded, the Weather Underground, discussed a future communist takeover of the United States in which 25 million “diehard capitalists” would need to be killed to prevent counterrevolution.”

It reports on one commenter

    “Bill Ayers ‘gets it.’ Here’s what he understands: One strategy to undermine culture is to discredit its values and history. Of course, reducing American history to a simplistic notion of ‘white supremacy’ is absurd, but that’s the point. The point is to slowly undermine the confidence of people about the values and history of their own culture so they’ll be less willing to defend and protect it. Along the way, you’ve also created a structure of ‘them’ (so-called ‘white’ people, meaning, in this context, people from western and northern Europe) and ‘us’ (everyone else). This creates internal conflict based on simple, easy to understand qualities like skin color.

Now Rev Wright’s church, the one Obama attended for twenty years, is wedded to “Black Liberation Theology” which found its radical, revolutionary roots in the sixties as did Ayers.

Kyle-Anne Shiver’s Obama, Black Liberation Theology, and Karl Marx makes the connection

    “Understanding that black liberation theology is Marxism dressed up to look like Christianity helps explain why there is no conflict between Cone’s “Christianity” and Farrakhan’s “Nation of Islam.” They are two prophets in the same philosophical (Marxist) pod, merely using different religions as backdrops for their black-power aims.” 

    [..] “Which is precisely why Cone and his disciples are able to boldly proclaim that if the Jesus of traditional Christianity is not united with them in the Marxist class struggle, then he is a “white Jesus,” and they must “kill him.” (Cone; A Black Theology of Liberation; p. 111)

So where does Obama fit into all this?

In Obama’s book, DREAMS OF MY FATHER.. he writes

    * “I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER’S RACE” 

    * “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites”

    * “That hate hadn’t gone away,” he wrote, blaming “white people — some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives.”

    * (Obama) vowed that he would “never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.”

    * “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.”

It is immediately apparent that Obama, at a gut level, is rooted in Black Liberation Theology and Farrakhan’s the Nation of Islam. William Ayers and all radical leftists/socialists/Communists find common cause with them.

Moving right along. All these revolutionaries follow the Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky.

In Barack Obama’s Stealth Socialism , IDB advises,

    A careful reading of Obama’s first memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as “Frank” — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his “subversive,” “un-American activities.” 

    As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis’ feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.

    “They’ll train you so good,” he said, “you’ll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**.”

    After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences “for inspiration,” Obama followed in Davis’ footsteps, becoming a “community organizer” in Chicago.

    His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman’s a disciple of the late Saul “The Red” Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the “Rules for Radicals” and agitated for social revolution in America.

    The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama’s early political supporters.

    After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to “bring about real change” — on a large scale.

    While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky’s “agitation” tactics.

Yid with a Lid says Obama’s socialism is not stealth but open. Yid with a Lid has a great article in which he explained “Obama was an active member of the Chicago Democratic Socialist Party and this is where his “income redistribution tax plan” evolved from:

On their website the Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) has a description of their political perspective and a preview of the Senator’s Tax Plan, called Where We Stand. It says, in part,

    We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. 

    We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.

 

Ryan Lizza, in March ‘07, filled in more of the reality in The Agitator

    [Obama’s] teachers were schooled in a style of organizing devised by Saul Alinsky, the radical University of Chicago trained social scientist. At the heart of the Alinsky method is the concept of “agitation”–making someone angry enough about the rotten state of his life that he agrees to take action to change it; or, as Alinsky himself described the job, to “rub raw the sores of discontent.”

This is how Obama trained ACORN and why he supports them. He needs them to bring on the revolution.

Far from being a mainstream Democrat, as Obama presently positions himself, he is a dedicated revolutionary.

BEWARE.

Landslide Victory for McCain — In the Military

Landslide Victory for McCain — In the Military

October 26, 2008 – by Greyhawk

[1] Surprise — at least one poll shows a huge McCain lead: “[Senator John] McCain, R-Ariz., handily defeated Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., 68 percent to 23 percent in a voluntary survey of 4,293 active-duty, National Guard, and reserve subscribers and former subscribers to Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, and Air Force Times.” Or perhaps not so surprising: there’s a history involved here.

In 1864 the nation was nearing the end of the Civil War — but some wanted it ended sooner than others. Democrats offered a [2] platform declaring that it was “the sense of the American people, that after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which . . . the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part, . . . justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities.” In short: end the war now.

Their candidate was General ([3] still on active duty throughout the presidential campaign) George McClellan. He [4] assured voters that restoration of the Union was a worthwhile endeavor, but hinted that other goals had since corrupted the purpose of the war he himself had once waged and nearly lost. “The Union is the one condition of peace,” McClellan wrote. “We ask no more.” He likewise pledged to restore America’s standing in the eyes of the world — in his words, “resume our commanding position among the nations of the earth.”

And along with all that, Democrats [5] supported the troops:

Resolved, that the sympathy of the Democratic Party is heartily and earnestly extended to the soldiery of our army and sailors of our navy, who are and have been in the field and on the sea under the flag of our country, and, in the events of its attaining power, they will receive all the care, protection, and regard that the brave soldiers and sailors of the republic have so nobly earned.

Which was a good thing because [6] America was trying something brand new that year: “absentee voting” — intended to ensure that those troops would be able to cast their ballots, too. But while Republicans claimed that voting was “a right vested in the individual which could adequately be exercised through written media, regardless of location,” Democrats countered that votes must be cast in person: “Like marriages and wills, votes required competent witnesses, defined by the Democrats as fellow citizens with shared concerns and responsibilities. Army officers appointed by the federal government could not fill this role. These conservative Democratic views of the mid-19th century seem alien to our thinking today, as absentee voting has since become a firmly established practice.”

So as Sherman marched on Atlanta [7] a different sort of war was waged in the North:

Wisconsin was the first to permit their soldiers to vote in the field through absentee ballots. California, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania all followed suit. However, Illinois, Indiana, and New Jersey, which all had Democratic-controlled state legislatures, did not pass legislation allowing soldiers to vote in the field.

But Secretary of War Edwin Stanton [8] ensured the troops were given absentee ballots or granted leave to vote in person, and Lincoln himself asked General Sherman to allow Indiana soldiers to return home to vote. Lincoln was reelected with 55 percent of the popular vote and an Electoral College landslide, and while not decisive in the election, he received over [9] 70 percent of the military vote.

The above shouldn’t be misconstrued as a claim that Democrats are anti-war. In fact, American involvement in World Wars I and II, then Korea and Vietnam, would begin under Democratic presidents with spines of steel. As the 20th century ended, President Clinton, after withdrawing American troops from the humanitarian mission in Somalia launched by his predecessor, actually deployed U.S. forces to several “small wars,” including two European conflicts, and launched periodic air attacks on Iraq. Still, by the year 2000 the nation thought itself “at peace.”

Odd then that combat terms were used by the New York Times in [10] this story from November 2000:

Retreating under fire from Republicans, Florida’s attorney general, a top ally of Vice President Al Gore, said today that local officials should count absentee ballots from overseas military voters that were thrown out because they lacked postmarks. …

The most common reason cited for challenging and rejecting ballots was the absence of postmarks, or illegible postmarks, which Florida law requires on all overseas ballots. …

That seemed particularly galling to critics, since military mail can be sent without a postmark.

According to the figures provided by the Times, Bush had received about two-thirds of those absentee votes that were counted. However, even with the state attorney general’s urging, local officials still didn’t count the remainder. That prompted the Bush campaign to [11] file suit — an action that resulted in Judge Lacey A. Collier’s [12] decision that any federal write-in ballot thrown out only for lack of a postmark must be considered valid (something I remembered four years later as I prepared my own Florida absentee ballot in Iraq).

Which brings us back to [13] this year:

Fairfax general registrar Rokey Suleman said Thursday that he has had to reject some of the ballots because of a Virginia law passed in 2002. That law — then called Senate Bill 113, sponsored by then-state Sen. Bill Bolling — requires that when an overseas citizen wants to request an absentee ballot and cast a vote with the same paperwork, it requires not only a witness signature but also the current address of the witness.

The McCain campaign said there’s not even a space for the witness to list an address. Suleman agreed; he said the federal document was changed in recent years and the space for the witness address was removed. But the Virginia law hasn’t changed.

Yes — military absentee ballots once again. But the law is the law, after all. And besides, [14] Suleman is a busy man:

Suleman said his office, at the request of criminal defense attorneys who approached his staff, delivered registration forms and absentee ballots to inmates with misdemeanor convictions and those awaiting felony trials.

Suleman, who is listed as a founder of the Trumbull County (Ohio) Young Democrats, ran for office in the Buckeye State as a Democrat earlier this year. He said the office he holds in Virginia is nonpartisan.

As opposed to those [15] partisan military folks of 2008: “Officers and enlisted troops, active-duty members and reservists, those who have served in combat and those who haven’t, all backed McCain by large margins, to about the same extent they supported President Bush four years ago.”

And four years before that, and Lincoln back in 1864.

But “resentment of those who would block their votes” doesn’t make the list of reasons they give for doing so. And while “the economy” and “character” do, I offer [16] these quotes as additional explanation of why so many choose to vote against a seeming shortcut to peace: “I cannot vote for one thing and fight for another”, and “I do not see how any soldier can vote for such a man, nominated on a platform which acknowledges that we are whipped.”

At least, that’s how they felt in 1864.

But maybe things are different now.

The Campaign Takes a Very Strange Turn

The Campaign Takes a Very Strange Turn

October 25, 2008 – by Victor Davis Hanson

Questions Still Not Answered

Why didn’t Colin Powell and Co. jump ship in, say, June or July, and endorse Obama after many months of campaigning when his positions were already well known? That is, why wait until late October when, after the financial meltdown, Obama surged in the polls? Had Powell come out even in the first week of September, he could have demonstrated that although Obama was down by three points, he was willing to stick his neck out with a principled endorsement that may well have made him persona non grata in a McCain-administration Washington.

Why didn’t the media or McCain just ask Obama a few of the following questions: Why did you keep emailing and phoning Bill Ayers for three years after 9/11, when the country was gripped by fear of terror, and Ayers, like bin Laden, said that he had not done enough bombing, and had no regrets about the terrorism he had committed?

Why did Obama say in 2004 to the Chicago Sun-Times that he went to Trinity Church every Sunday at 11AM, and then later claim he had not been there that regularly once Rev. Wright’s venom was disseminated to the general public? Is Obama for, or not for, a simple yes or no, missile defense, nuclear power, off-shore drilling, and coal-powered electrical generation? There might be legitimate answers, but surely the public could profit by them, rather than worry over the Palin pregnancies, wardrobe, or Tasergate.

Why did the greatest furor against Palin originate with women, both liberals like a Gail Collins, Maureen Dowd, or Sally Quinn, or conservatives such as a Peggy Noonan or Kathleen Parker?

So far, none of them has adduced the necessary arguments that would justify their venom against Palin: they have not demonstrated that Vice Presidential nominee Palin has less government or executive experience than does Presidential nominee Obama; they have not shown that she has said anything in two months as disturbing as what Joe Biden says almost any day, and, in that vein, they have written few columns about Biden’s lunatic assertions, such as FDR addressing the nation on television as President in 1929, or that our nation’s enemies will test Barack Obama, and his reaction will so disappoint the American people that his polls will immediately sink; they have not shown that Palin’s ideas about shrinking government and keeping taxes low are less sound than Obama’s in time of economic downturn to raise aggregate taxes and expand government. So whence the vitriol, especially the frequent invective about Palin’s family, education,  accent, or mannerisms, or the rather sexist suggestions that her looks bewitched either McCain or others?

Why do so many conservatives think that an Obama-elect might be prove a centrist, and so why do they use phrases like “I pray” or “I hope” that Obama might turn out, well, not to be Obama?

Jimmy Carter did exactly what he promised: raised taxes, grew the government, told the world he had no inordinate fear of communism, trashed our allies as retrograde right-wing authoritarians—and we got the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Iranian hostage-taking (have we forgotten that the “Great Satan” originated as a slur against Nobel laureate Carter?), communism in Central America, the Cambodian Holocaust, and spikes of 12% inflation, 18% interest, and 7% unemployment.

For his first two years (until 1994 Gingrich’s ‘Contract with America’ revolution, and Dick Morris’s ‘triangulation’), Bill Clinton, as promised, raised taxes, raised spending, tried to ram through socialized medicine, and by fiat wanted to force the military to accept those openly gay.

So why would any conservative think that Obama—friend of Ayers, Khalidi, Meeks, Pfleger, and Wright, veteran of mysterious campaigns in which rivals in 1996 and 2004 simply dropped out or were forced out, erstwhile advocate of repealing NAFTA, controlling guns, stopping new drilling and nuclear plants, zealot for bringing all troops home by March 2008, advocate of a trillion dollars in new spending, and raising the tax burden on the 5% who now pay 60% of the aggregate income taxes, supporter of more oppression studies and racial reparations—would not likewise try to govern as he has lived the last 20 years?

Why would anyone think that an Obama would not wish to enact the visions of those who first backed him—the Moveon.org crowd, ACORN, The Huffington Post, Sen. Reid, Rep. Pelosi, a Chris Dodd or Barney Frank—rather than the late pilers-on like Colin Powell or Scott McClellan? We should remember that, unlike the cases of Carter and Clinton, Obama would have both houses of Congress, and a (Republican) precedent of the federal government intervening into the free market, in the manner of 1932.

The Fox Ambush

I don’t like dry-gulching journalism, but there was a strange scene when the Fox reporter caught up to Bill Ayers and stuck a microphone in his face as he went up the sidewalk of his rather impressive home: Ayers, with a bright red star on his T-shirt, shoos away the reporter with the apparent mumble “this is private property” before the police arrive. How strange that an advocate for communalism and an erstwhile attacker of police stations reverts to the notion of property rights and police to protect him from an intrusive reporter. Right out of Thucydides Book III and the strife on Corfu, when the historian warns that those who destroy the protocols of civilization may well one day wish to rely on them.

What Was Conservatism?

Few seem to know anymore. The decline in the fortune of the Republican Party has prompted some conservatives to claim they were abandoned, and now must seek refuge  of all places in the agenda of Barack Obama—as if growing government, larger entitlements, and higher taxes are the proper antidotes to the unhappiness of the last eight years. One is unhappy with the excessive spending of the Bush administration and the former Republican Congress so he favors the greater spending of the new administration and congress to come?

The tragedy of the Bush administration was largely fiscal. There were, of course, two costly wars, the economic downturn after September 11, Katrina, and the unregulated Fannie and Freddie fiasco that proved the catalyst to the Wall Street subprime speculation.

But that said, by spending beyond the rate of inflation, running up large annual deficits, adding to the national debt, and voting in more entitlements that could not be funded with existing revenues, conservatives committed two suicidal acts. One, they discredited tax cuts, which under George Bush clearly brought in more aggregate revenue and primed the economy. Had we balanced budgets by spending restraint, no politicians would now dare to suggest the answers for our present budget woes were to be found in higher taxes.

Second, conservatives grew the size of the government. Perhaps No Child Left Behind or the Medicare Prescription Drug supplement was felt to be necessary to ensure bipartisan congressional support for the unpopular Iraq War, perhaps not. But when a conservative grows the size of government, he not only suffers the wage of hypocrisy, but he wins the additional charge of encouraging all others to do the same. The inattentive  water master who opens the flood gates of the dam can hardly complain that torrents cascade  out.

Yet Conservatism is pretty simple, and is based on just a few principles. Human nature remains constant, and thus is predictable across time and space. There is a certain humility that comes with conservatism, since the ways of the world, despite the technological chaos, are constant. We know, 1000 years past or right now, that the more we tax something the less we get of it, while the more we subsidize, the more we obtain—given that people will slack when they can, and won’t when they can’t.

Sometimes this conservative take on human nature can get a little depressing, when we know that punishments really do deter crime, or silly things like high walls keep or fines on employers really do keep out illegal immigrants, or strong nations ready for war are not attacked while weak ones eager for peace are. So here we are on the eve of yet another  great retrograde experiment, akin to the European socialist model that contradicts human nature–one that its creators over there are now fleeing from as we apparently, a day late, a dollar short, seek to emulate it.


Article printed from Works and Days: http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson

Obama Citizenship Suit Dismissed -Berg To Appeal to Supreme Court

Obama Citizenship Suit Dismissed -Berg To Appeal to Supreme Court

Last night a Philadelphia Court Dismissed Philip Berg’s lawsuit challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president, base on the fact that he might not be a natural born US Citizen.

The Judge, Barclay Surrick, Ruled that Mr Berg had no standing, in other words, a US Citizen has no right to ask if a presidential candidate meets the minimum qualifications to be a Presidential Candidate because he wouldn’t be personally damaged.

Berg said, “I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick’s decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States – the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world – then who does?

So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.

What happened to ‘…Government of the people, by the people, for the people,…’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.

We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States,” Berg said.


According to Jeff Schreiber on America’s Right

The harm cited by Berg, Surrick wrote, “is too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.”

So, who does have standing? According to the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, that’s completely up to Congress to decide.

If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.
Judge the 34-page memorandum.

…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

Intangible or not, Berg said, we have a case where “an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate’s eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure.”

So Mr. Berg Goes on, so does the other eight law suits, and if these suits are nonsense all Mr. Obama has to do is release his Birth Certificate. McCain did, but then again he has nothing to hide. Senator Obama DO YOU?

Prosecute ACORN With RICO Immediately

Prosecute ACORN With RICO Immediately

Here is the RICO case to save our great nation.

Prosecute ACORN With RICO Immediately, Save Our Elections by Jakob Rood

“Vote early, vote often.” – Chicago gangster Al “Scarface” Capone

Across the political spectrum, millions of Americans have become aware of an urgent, compelling need for a federal investigation into the widespread, systematic fraud the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is committing as part of its nationwide drive to register “voters” (often ineligible non-citizens) for this national election. Since it now become apparent the presidential election and many other hotly contested races across the country could be decided by fraudulent voting, in less than two weeks, authorities must move quickly.

Federal authorities must immediately launch – and publicly announce – a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)[i] investigation into ACORN and its voter-registration operations, conducting simultaneous raids of ACORN’s front organizations in multiple states where voter fraud has been observed and documented. Involved could be hundreds of thousands, or more, falsified votes. It is critical that citizens call state and federal authorities to demand immediate action, especially the Department of Justice and your territorial State’s Attorney.[ii]

ACORN is the largest radical group in America, with 400,000 dues-paying member families and 1,200 chapters in over a hundred U.S. cities, operating in at least 38 states.[iii] But incredibly, all of ACORN’s power is directed by a single family, the Rathkes.[iv]

I. Why a RICO Case is Appropriate for an ACORN Investigation:

ACORN employees have broken many state laws, some already netting convictions.[v] State election fraud appears coordinated and paid for by ACORN leaders. The purpose of this fraud is transparently to create pools of illegal ballots. Notable is an obvious central coordination of these activities, spreading across the nation. The idea that many states would simultaneously, yet coincidentally create the same pattern of voter fraud crime, via a single entity, is nonsensical.

This type scenario is exactly why RICO was created. Such sprawling, masterminded, nationalized crimes overwhelm any one state, which have no means to take on massive crime syndicates, or address criminal activity outside their territory. If ACORN is doing such planned interstate fraud, and by way — misusing funds, they are operating as a de-facto interstate crime syndicate, defrauding donors and the Government, and misusing fees to perpetrate crime. So RICO clearly applies to ACORN. (SCOTUS has also ruled legitimate businesses also fall under RICO (Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co[vi])).

Department of Justice guidelines, in their Criminal Resource Manual (USAM 9-110.000),[vii] say RICO cases should be select, but great latitude exists to choose cases meritoriously. The USAM (9-110.310) says if 1 of 7 reasons exist for a RICO prosecution, it should be launched.[viii] Virtually all of these rules apply to the ACORN case, but one compelling reason to launch one is the alarming, emerging pattern of coordinated, widespread fraud. RICO allows combining many crimes in separate states as a whole. Seeing ACORN as one major problem of many parts, as opposed to many smaller state crimes is key. Further, the manual encourages taking on cases…“in which the federal government has a significant interest.” (USAM 9-110.000)[ix] Is there a greater conceivable Government interest than making presidential and senatorial elections safe, and not discredited or overturned by fraudulent ballots?

II. Basic Description of RICO:

RICO is codified as Chapter 96, Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968.[x] It was originally drafted to eradicate organized crime, but allows prosecution of groups satisfying four basic criteria: (i) An enterprise; (ii) affecting interstate commerce, (iii) creating a crime pattern, (iv) via at least two acts of racketeering (USAM 9-110.000).[xi] Racketeering is a pattern of crime created through at least two predicate crimes, over ten years. There are 35 RICO predicate crimes,[xii] and RICO does not require any mens rea (intent to conspire) beyond that necessary for the predicate acts.[xiii]

RICO prohibits using income from a pattern of racketeering activity used to acquire an interest in enterprises affecting interstate commerce, or conducting/participating in an enterprise affecting interstate commerce through a pattern of racketeering activity, or conspiring to participate in any of these activities. RICO’s purpose is to remove organized crime from the legitimate business community. (USC §1962)[xiv]

RICO provides criminal sanctions, including prison terms up to 20 years, and forfeiture of racketeer derived gain. It authorizes courts to issue restraining orders prior to conviction to prevent transfer of potentially forfeitable property.[xv] RICO prosecutions need not focus on economic crimes.[xvi]

To See how ACORN Fits in to the Four-Part RICO Test: CLICK HERE

Obama-Care is Bad for Your Health

Obama-Care is Bad for Your Health

Posted: 25 Oct 2008 09:29 PM CDT

Here’s a little “fun fact,” when Barack Obama talks about how his health plan, is designed to give coverage to 47 Million uninsured Americans, he is including the 12 Million illegal immigrants in his estimates. More than 25% of the uninsured are in the United States illegally.

As the saying goes, “put that in your pipe and smoke it.” On second hand you better not smoke anything, because even if you don’t get sick from smoking or from the increased tax burden from supporting twelve million people who have entered the United States illegally, you may get sick from the lack of coverage you will get. Because Obama-care will add such a large quantity of people to the heath care system, doctors will have to choose who gets what care. So your family member who needs that treatment might have to forgo a lifesaving procedure because it was given to someone who broke the law to come here.

Buts there’s much more about Obama-Care that’s bad for your health:

Beware of ObamaCare

Sen. Barack Obama has a plan for American health care. He has pledged to solve the problem of the uninsured and ever-increasing health-care costs in a way that, by comparison with what we had heard from his fellow Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, almost seems moderate and thoughtful.

Mr. Obama’s silver tongue has indeed lulled many in the media, including both sides of the aisle (see the Wall Street Journal, “The wages of HillaryCare” Feb. 7), to report that ObamaCare calls for more competition and only moderate government control. But those comforting misconceptions are only fool’s gold to those who more feared Mr. Edwards’ total government take-over of health care and Hillary’s edicts for health insurance on her terms, whether you want it as she construes it or not.

It is understandable that Mr. Obama’s plan might seem reasonable when compared to those of his rejected Democratic competitors, who declared they would further empower government, micromanage health insurance, marginalize the independence of patients and doctors and then force it on a naive American public that mistakenly seems to believe that if government pays it is free and that government-run health care is higher quality.

Beware the superficial illusion of moderation – Mr. Obama’s plan is filled with fantasies about costs, new government mandates and bureaucracies, and in the end, taxes and faith in big government that necessarily will be far greater and broader than his campaign admits, or perhaps worse yet, fails to understand.

First, let’s be very clear: Mr. Obama’s plan would instill new government mandates and expand costly government entitlement programs already stressed far beyond their sustainability. He creates a mandate that all families buy health insurance coverage for their children. He expands Medicaid and SCHIP eligibility, programs already overreaching by either covering families who can already afford insurance but choose not to, or by insuring adults (even childless ones) via a program designed strictly for children. He establishes a new government-run National Health Exchange, a Big Brother bureaucracy that will oversee the private insurance industry and “will act as a watchdog and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans.”

He calls for a new public insurance entitlement program for those without employer-provided care, once again repeating the mistake of positioning the government as the all-knowing insurer rather than as the provider of money to empower individuals and families so they themselves can purchase insurance they value.

Government mandates are in fact one of the root causes of high health insurance costs – the approximately 2,000 different state mandated benefits currently increase the cost of basic health coverage by little less than 20 percent to more than 50 percent, depending on the state.

Moreover, government-controlled health insurance has proven unable to rein in costs. Most other countries, including even the mother of all welfare states, Sweden, recognize this and are turning toward instilling competition and privatization to bring down costs.

Second, Mr. Obama’s plans are funded by fantasies and new taxes. The financing of his plan depends heavily on purely hypothetical cost savings, most of which are already discredited by the Congressional Budget Office (see May 2008, “Evidence on the Costs and Benefits of Health Information Technology”), including his naive estimates from “investments in IT to reduce administrative costs, better disease management, reduced insurance overhead, reinsurance, and reduced uncompensated care” and claims that “businesses will save $140 billion annually in insurance premiums… and the typical family will save $2,500 per year.”

He goes on to paint the illusion of pain-free government expansion and his new public insurance system by invoking key tenets of unabashed class warfare, anti-business liberalism with his new personal income taxes “on the rich” and new payroll taxes, both of which ultimately reduce workers’ wages and inhibit much needed economic growth.

Americans have a clear choice between candidates on this issue. John McCain empowers the individual, not the government, by putting control of the health-care dollar in the hands of Americans, so they can make value-based purchases of health insurance they actually want, rather than insurance they are forced to buy.

Mr. McCain’s health-care tax credit will introduce fairness into the tax treatment of health-care expenses, and specifically assist lower-income workers and their families, as well as small-business employees, i.e. those who do not benefit from the current tax treatment of health coverage, to purchase private health insurance coverage.

Mr. McCain will force transparency on the system with access to information on quality, price and healthy lifestyles for disease prevention. He will create insurance affordability for all, by generating a new, competitive national health insurance market.

The concept of bold change may be the central theme of Mr. Obama’s campaign, and a significant proportion of Americans has been attracted to that vision. But in health care in particular, it is crucial to both recognize reality and to understand the consequences of misguided policy. Hiding under the veneer of positive change, Mr. Obama’s health plan relies on a radical expansion of overburdened entitlements, and on creating new government programs that only seem moderate when compared to other extremist advocates of even more centralized power.

And just as other promises of entitlements to the American public, this one requires new taxes, far more intrusive government bureaucracy, a trust in government over the American people in the most personal decisions of all, and a naive belief in health-care fantasies rivaling even former President Jimmy Carter, who shockingly proclaimed in a 2002 address to the people of Cuba in support of Fidel Castro’s dictatorship that Cuba has superb systems of health care and universal education” while admonishing America’s government for withholding the “right” of universal health care from its people.

While Americans may reel from fear and uncertainty regarding the future of a sick economy, we can only hope they understand the stakes may be even higher when voting on the future of their own health.

Scott W. Atlas is senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and professor at the Stanford School of Medicine.

We have launched a new, powerful ad exposing Obama’s radical agenda and his dirty little secret.

 

We have launched a new, powerful ad exposing Obama’s radical agenda and his dirty little secret.

This 30-second ad exposes Obama’s ‘dirty little secret the media won’t talk about’ – his radical plan to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits and Medicaid, full healthcare coverage.

By Obama’s own count there are 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. and he wants them all getting government benefits.

Obama has stated he also wants to give each and everyone of them amnesty and citizenship.

As for them learning English, he has stated he thinks American kids, your kids, should learn Spanish.

There is no doubt this man is the most radical leftist ever nominated by the Democratic party.

We have already exposed Obama’s shocking plan to give illegals driver’s licenses – even though everyone knows the 9/11 plot began with 13 of the 19 terrorists getting driver’s licenses.

As the American people find out about Obama and his plans, they will turn on him.

McCain can still win this.

Take a moment today to:

See our New TV Ad ‘Obama’s Social Security Plan for Illegals’ – Click Here Now

and . . .