Here is a fascinating phone conversation with Phil Berg on the Obama citizenship issue:
http://www.myfoxtoledo.com/myfox/MyFox/pages/sidebar_video.jsp?contentId=7637919&version=1&locale=EN-US
v/r,
FMC
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Basic Requirements to be President
3 Things are Required to be President:
1) Minimum 35 years old
2) Must have resided in the United States for the past 14 years
3) Must have natural born citizenship status
Why isn't Obama presenting proof that shows he's a natural born citizen? My guess is that Obama does not currently have natural born citizenship status, or else he'd simply provide the documents...c'mon, this isn't rocket science.
This video sums it all up:
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
*Obama should have never screwed with Hillary (remember that Berg was one of Hillary's lawyers).
Does anybody wonder where the Clintons are right now? They're nowhere to be seen. They're likely sitting in the wings and waiting to witness all the carnage that's about to ensue for the Democrat party.
If the DNC nominated an ineligible candidate, roughly half of the country's voters will have been disenfranchised.
Unbelievable.
FMC
1) Minimum 35 years old
2) Must have resided in the United States for the past 14 years
3) Must have natural born citizenship status
Why isn't Obama presenting proof that shows he's a natural born citizen? My guess is that Obama does not currently have natural born citizenship status, or else he'd simply provide the documents...c'mon, this isn't rocket science.
This video sums it all up:
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
*Obama should have never screwed with Hillary (remember that Berg was one of Hillary's lawyers).
Does anybody wonder where the Clintons are right now? They're nowhere to be seen. They're likely sitting in the wings and waiting to witness all the carnage that's about to ensue for the Democrat party.
If the DNC nominated an ineligible candidate, roughly half of the country's voters will have been disenfranchised.
Unbelievable.
FMC
Friday, October 10, 2008
CAN OBAMA PROVE HIS CITIZENSHIP?
Obama’s ability to prove his citizenship is at the core of whether or not he’s eligible to be President of the United States.
The fact that Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii and has dual U.S./Kenyan citizenship may ultimately prove irrelevant to the eligibility argument. This is probably why the Obama camp recently made the dual citizenship info available to the public. It’s merely a distraction. Dual citizenship does NOT disqualify Obama for President…dual allegiance, lack of ‘natural born’ status, and/or age are some legitmate disqualifiers. As such, the dual U.S./Kenyan citizenship issue that has been brought up recently does not, by itself, disqualify Obama for the Presidency.
HOWEVER, if it is found that Obama was born in Kenya, he would simply not be eligible for President of the United States. Also, if Obama was an Indonesian citizen at ANY POINT in his life, he would NOT be eligible for President. Until 2007, Indonesia did not accept dual citizenship for their people. As such, U.S. policy did not recognize dual American/Indonesian citizenship either. The United States has historically mirrored the citizenship rules of the foreign country (in this case, Indonesia). Said another way, if someone before 2007 was an Indonesian citizen they could NOT also be an American citizen at the same time.
When Obama’s mother married an Indonesian man, that man adopted Obama at age five. Since Obama was only five years old, Indonesian law likely deemed Obama a ‘natural’ Indonesian citizen at that time. This fact seems to be supported by local school documents that cite Obama’s citizenship status as Indonesian.
Upon Obama’s return to the United States five years later at age 10, he could have either signed a Certificate of Citizenship upon his return, thus making him a ‘naturalized’ citizen (i.e., not a ‘natural born’ citizen, which is a requirement to be President); OR he could simply come back to the states and not file his citizenship paperwork at all (in which case he'd be an illegal alien)…currently, we don’t know which choice was made because Obama won’t tell us.
Let’s make an important point here…a ‘natural born’ citizen (i.e., a minimum requirement for President) means that you have NEVER ceased to be a citizen of the U.S. You could remain a natural born citizen if you maintained dual citizenship. However, Obama ceased being a ‘natural born’ citizen if & when he became an Indonesian citizen at any point.
Keep in mind that if it is proven that Obama was once an Indonesian citizen but later renounced his Indonesian citizenship (perhaps before running for Illinois Senate, let's say), I don't believe he would be stripped of his senator seat. Senators only have to be naturalized citizens…these yahoos don’t have to meet the higher standard of ‘natural born’ citizen that the President must meet. The founding fathers were very smart in doing this, as they did not want to risk electing a President that had dual allegiances with enemy countries.
Another thing that throws a wrench into the mix is that Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 when he was 20 years old. This was when Pakistan was on the Do-Not-Travel list of the U.S. State Department, making it very difficult to travel to Pakistan at that time on a U.S. passport. Sources have indicated that Obama perhaps traveled on his Indonesian passport during this time. If this is true, this is bad news for the Messiah. It would prove in another way that Obama was in fact an Indonesian citizen (i.e., you have to be Indonesian to have an Indonesian passport…duh). Obama should be asked: 'When you traveled to Pakistan, did you travel on a U.S. passport or Indonesian passport?' His answer to this question would determine his eligibility.
Confusing?
Bottom line: If it is proven that Obama was an Indonesian citizen at any point in his life, he would not maintain his ‘natural born’ status upon regaining U.S. citizenship and thus would not be eligible for President of the United States.
Hold on to your birth certificates!! The documents (or lack thereof) provided by Obama to the Penn. District Court will hopefully shed some new light on this situation. Things are going to get interesting in the next few weeks!
FMC
The fact that Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii and has dual U.S./Kenyan citizenship may ultimately prove irrelevant to the eligibility argument. This is probably why the Obama camp recently made the dual citizenship info available to the public. It’s merely a distraction. Dual citizenship does NOT disqualify Obama for President…dual allegiance, lack of ‘natural born’ status, and/or age are some legitmate disqualifiers. As such, the dual U.S./Kenyan citizenship issue that has been brought up recently does not, by itself, disqualify Obama for the Presidency.
HOWEVER, if it is found that Obama was born in Kenya, he would simply not be eligible for President of the United States. Also, if Obama was an Indonesian citizen at ANY POINT in his life, he would NOT be eligible for President. Until 2007, Indonesia did not accept dual citizenship for their people. As such, U.S. policy did not recognize dual American/Indonesian citizenship either. The United States has historically mirrored the citizenship rules of the foreign country (in this case, Indonesia). Said another way, if someone before 2007 was an Indonesian citizen they could NOT also be an American citizen at the same time.
When Obama’s mother married an Indonesian man, that man adopted Obama at age five. Since Obama was only five years old, Indonesian law likely deemed Obama a ‘natural’ Indonesian citizen at that time. This fact seems to be supported by local school documents that cite Obama’s citizenship status as Indonesian.
Upon Obama’s return to the United States five years later at age 10, he could have either signed a Certificate of Citizenship upon his return, thus making him a ‘naturalized’ citizen (i.e., not a ‘natural born’ citizen, which is a requirement to be President); OR he could simply come back to the states and not file his citizenship paperwork at all (in which case he'd be an illegal alien)…currently, we don’t know which choice was made because Obama won’t tell us.
Let’s make an important point here…a ‘natural born’ citizen (i.e., a minimum requirement for President) means that you have NEVER ceased to be a citizen of the U.S. You could remain a natural born citizen if you maintained dual citizenship. However, Obama ceased being a ‘natural born’ citizen if & when he became an Indonesian citizen at any point.
Keep in mind that if it is proven that Obama was once an Indonesian citizen but later renounced his Indonesian citizenship (perhaps before running for Illinois Senate, let's say), I don't believe he would be stripped of his senator seat. Senators only have to be naturalized citizens…these yahoos don’t have to meet the higher standard of ‘natural born’ citizen that the President must meet. The founding fathers were very smart in doing this, as they did not want to risk electing a President that had dual allegiances with enemy countries.
Another thing that throws a wrench into the mix is that Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 when he was 20 years old. This was when Pakistan was on the Do-Not-Travel list of the U.S. State Department, making it very difficult to travel to Pakistan at that time on a U.S. passport. Sources have indicated that Obama perhaps traveled on his Indonesian passport during this time. If this is true, this is bad news for the Messiah. It would prove in another way that Obama was in fact an Indonesian citizen (i.e., you have to be Indonesian to have an Indonesian passport…duh). Obama should be asked: 'When you traveled to Pakistan, did you travel on a U.S. passport or Indonesian passport?' His answer to this question would determine his eligibility.
Confusing?
Bottom line: If it is proven that Obama was an Indonesian citizen at any point in his life, he would not maintain his ‘natural born’ status upon regaining U.S. citizenship and thus would not be eligible for President of the United States.
Hold on to your birth certificates!! The documents (or lack thereof) provided by Obama to the Penn. District Court will hopefully shed some new light on this situation. Things are going to get interesting in the next few weeks!
FMC
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
A Good Read
Sometimes I wish I didn't know the facts surrounding the credit crisis...life would be a lot easier.
Here's a good article by Thomas Sowell entitled 'Do Facts Matter?':
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/10/03/do_facts_matter
If you know the facts regarding the current situation, I know it's tough on you. Don't despair! America WILL bounce back.
If Obama gets elected, this blog will begin to address how to make money in the market when Dems are in office...surprisingly, it can be done! More on this later...
FMC
Monday, October 6, 2008
Obama is the Poster Child for 'Affordable Housing'
Cut & paste into your address bar:
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/
v/r,
FMC
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/
v/r,
FMC
How Do Liberals Think? Part II
The leadership of the Democrat party is more agenda-driven than most of us can imagine. These thugs know exactly how to get what they want and what buttons to push to reach their goals. Just look at the housing crisis and the techniques employed by Congress and leftist organizations such as ACORN to increase the % of sub-prime loans on bank's portfolios. Deliberate attempts to force banks to offer more loans to low-income demographics was an agenda-driven strategy carried out by some on the far-left.
Increasing the number of sub-prime loans is exactly what Democrats Schumer, Dodd, Obama and Frank desired. The money that flowed into Fannie as a result of the explosion in the sub-prime market paved the way for huge bonuses for Fannie Mae executives, as well as larger campaign contributions for Democrats...again, all of this stemmed from an agenda-driven approach to provide low-income families with 'affordable housing' at the grass roots level.
If banks did not comply with quotas, they were threatened with litigation by thugs such as ACORN and yes, Barack Obama. Obama actually sued Citibank early in his career to push for more affirmative-action home loan policies...these are the same policies that led to the current economic crisis...Obama is the poster-child for these types of strong-arm tactics. To me, this entire strategy is like Robin Hood economics administered in gangster-like fashion.
Lets be clear...the Democratic Party of Kennedy is NOT the same Democrat Party of today. The Democrat party of today is a party of special interests. All you have to do is follow the money trail to realize this.
Far-left socialist liberal policies are ruining the fabric of America. If the trend toward liberal thought continues to grow in our country, we’ll see more American businesses move to places like Ireland where the corporate income tax rates are around 11%. If we continue to accept socialist tenets as mainstream public policy (the bailout is just a 1st step), an environment of more governmental intervention is inevitable.
If the Dems are allowed to increase the costs of doing business (higher taxes), how can we expect American businesses to magically increase their productivity? If you increase a manager's costs, they'll either 1) increase their prices if they can (not likely), or they'll 2) cut costs in other areas (jobs are usually the 1st thing to go). ECONOMIC GROWTH is needed to increase productivity...you create economic growth by providing incentives in the marketplace. You simply cannot increase companies' taxes in a recession and expect to increase the rate of growth in the GDP. It doesn’t work.
In my view, the Dems are wishful thinkers...their policies don't work in the real world. They can get away with failed policies because they've 1) perfected the blame game in Washington; and 2) they have such a strong sense of denial that, in their minds, abdicates them from taking any responsibility for the results of their own actions. This second point can be traced back to the very core of a liberal's belief system...you can NEVER question a liberal's motives and you can NEVER hold them accountable...they won't allow this to happen, at least in their own minds. This type of attitude was clearly on display on O’Reilly’s show last week when Barney Frank freaked out and would not accept any responsibility for the crisis. Liberals will NEVER take responsibility for their actions because they have no core belief system from which to judge themselves. Folks like this would rather talk about what the meaning of "is" is rather than accept responsibility for what they've done.
The moral compass of a far-left liberal (not necessarily a Reagan-Democrat) is always shifting...there's a consistent moving line of what's acceptable or unacceptable...it all depends on the situation. I believe that this is the root cause of why so many liberals on the far left are so miserable in their personal lives...this moving line of what's right or wrong is entirely dependent on the moment at hand. This view of the world says that whatever is convenient for the situation (i.e., whatever supports the agenda) is what's right. Deep down many of these folks know something is wrong with this belief system...they know they're miserable, but they don't know WHY. These folks are the ones who need to read my blog.
Final Thoughts:
You've got to hand it to the Dems. The class warfare and entitlement message have served them well in the past and this tactic seems to be working again. The Dems are great at creating disasters, placing the blame on others, denying any responsibility, and claiming to be the solution to the problem. Seen it a hundred times...
To believe any of the left’s claims, you have to be either incredibly gullible or just misinformed. I suspect that most of the Reagan Democrat-types simply don't know all of the facts.
FMC
Increasing the number of sub-prime loans is exactly what Democrats Schumer, Dodd, Obama and Frank desired. The money that flowed into Fannie as a result of the explosion in the sub-prime market paved the way for huge bonuses for Fannie Mae executives, as well as larger campaign contributions for Democrats...again, all of this stemmed from an agenda-driven approach to provide low-income families with 'affordable housing' at the grass roots level.
If banks did not comply with quotas, they were threatened with litigation by thugs such as ACORN and yes, Barack Obama. Obama actually sued Citibank early in his career to push for more affirmative-action home loan policies...these are the same policies that led to the current economic crisis...Obama is the poster-child for these types of strong-arm tactics. To me, this entire strategy is like Robin Hood economics administered in gangster-like fashion.
Lets be clear...the Democratic Party of Kennedy is NOT the same Democrat Party of today. The Democrat party of today is a party of special interests. All you have to do is follow the money trail to realize this.
Far-left socialist liberal policies are ruining the fabric of America. If the trend toward liberal thought continues to grow in our country, we’ll see more American businesses move to places like Ireland where the corporate income tax rates are around 11%. If we continue to accept socialist tenets as mainstream public policy (the bailout is just a 1st step), an environment of more governmental intervention is inevitable.
If the Dems are allowed to increase the costs of doing business (higher taxes), how can we expect American businesses to magically increase their productivity? If you increase a manager's costs, they'll either 1) increase their prices if they can (not likely), or they'll 2) cut costs in other areas (jobs are usually the 1st thing to go). ECONOMIC GROWTH is needed to increase productivity...you create economic growth by providing incentives in the marketplace. You simply cannot increase companies' taxes in a recession and expect to increase the rate of growth in the GDP. It doesn’t work.
In my view, the Dems are wishful thinkers...their policies don't work in the real world. They can get away with failed policies because they've 1) perfected the blame game in Washington; and 2) they have such a strong sense of denial that, in their minds, abdicates them from taking any responsibility for the results of their own actions. This second point can be traced back to the very core of a liberal's belief system...you can NEVER question a liberal's motives and you can NEVER hold them accountable...they won't allow this to happen, at least in their own minds. This type of attitude was clearly on display on O’Reilly’s show last week when Barney Frank freaked out and would not accept any responsibility for the crisis. Liberals will NEVER take responsibility for their actions because they have no core belief system from which to judge themselves. Folks like this would rather talk about what the meaning of "is" is rather than accept responsibility for what they've done.
The moral compass of a far-left liberal (not necessarily a Reagan-Democrat) is always shifting...there's a consistent moving line of what's acceptable or unacceptable...it all depends on the situation. I believe that this is the root cause of why so many liberals on the far left are so miserable in their personal lives...this moving line of what's right or wrong is entirely dependent on the moment at hand. This view of the world says that whatever is convenient for the situation (i.e., whatever supports the agenda) is what's right. Deep down many of these folks know something is wrong with this belief system...they know they're miserable, but they don't know WHY. These folks are the ones who need to read my blog.
Final Thoughts:
You've got to hand it to the Dems. The class warfare and entitlement message have served them well in the past and this tactic seems to be working again. The Dems are great at creating disasters, placing the blame on others, denying any responsibility, and claiming to be the solution to the problem. Seen it a hundred times...
To believe any of the left’s claims, you have to be either incredibly gullible or just misinformed. I suspect that most of the Reagan Democrat-types simply don't know all of the facts.
FMC
How Do Liberals Think? Part I
Part of the liberal mindset dictates that 1) results aren’t important; and 2) a liberal's motives should never be questioned, period.
Regarding the 1st point, 'Results Aren’t Important'…we can clearly see the dire economic results of the Democrat’s failed affordable-housing program…the country’s economy is now on the brink of disaster. However, these results apparently don’t matter to Democrats…in their mind, all of the current economic failures are someone else’s fault…anyone presented with the facts knows otherwise.
Regarding the 2nd point, 'Motives Should Never be Questioned'…have you noticed that whenever Obama is questioned in any way whatsoever, the questioner is viciously attacked, sometimes even accused of being a racist? An AP reporter accused Governor Palin of being a racist a couple of days ago...you've got be kidding me. Bottom line: you simply cannot question a liberal’s motives without these folks completely freaking out...
When you think about it, a far-left liberal’s motives change like the wind…in their mind, this ‘flexibility’ is part of what makes their thinking ‘progressive’…a liberal does not understand or embrace the concept of principle-centered decision-making. Anything principle-centered is too restrictive for these folks. Liberals believe that their own beliefs and values are continually evolving...as such, it becomes easier for them to shift their positions, shift blame, shift reasoning, and shift public policy to support the popular belief of the day or to support their underlying social agenda. In using this flexible approach, liberals honestly believe they’re being ‘objective’ and that their ‘progressive’ outlook on life somehow ‘advances the human race’. Realizing that a liberal views his or herself as objective provides some insight into the liberal way of thinking.
Liberals prefer to develop belief systems based on wishful social theories rather than economic realities. I believe that liberals view the world in this way because it's 1) more gratifying for them on an intellectual level to develop social theories of what America could be; and 2) they believe in their hearts that they're doing society a favor in implementing these social programs (remember, a Liberal's actions are often narrowly focused & primarily agenda-driven...these folks do NOT take into account the potential negative effects of their actions). As we're now seeing, the taxpayers who will be hurt by the 'affordable housing' program seem far less important to the left.
The Dems care about keeping their constituents happy, which means supporting specific agendas. Why else would Dems have attempted to funnel $20 billion of the orginal $700 billion bailot package to ACORN, an activist group found guilty of voter fraud? Appeasing groups like ACORN got us into this economic mess in the first place(remember that ACORN strong-armed banks to offer more sub-prime loans). When you're dealing with die-hard liberals, you have to realize that it's all about social action and social justice (i.e., agendas & bullying). What the libs don't tell you is that in their 'Ideal Utopia', all Americans will have to pay higher taxes to make this vision a reality.
It’s pretty sad when you think about how a die-hard leftist liberal views the world. They’re beliefs are always in flux…there's no core from which to base decisions. It must be a miserable existence emotionally for many people who view the world in this fashion. From Obama, we've heard what a horrible country America is...of course, he has cut back the rhetoric, but this is the exact same type of message that Reverend Wright has espoused from the beginning. From my perspective, it’s next to impossible to reason with someone who views the world in such an extreme manner. I realize that not all Democrats are like Obama...many honest, hardworking Democrats are simply being misled as to what their party truly represents.
Let's face it...the Dem platform is based on a 'Hate Bush' message. It's sad that this is apparently the type of representative leadership most Americans are looking for...only a person filled with a certain degree of hate could view our nation in such a way.
PLEASE don't vote for Obama...to do so would simply be rewarding the behavior and ideology that led to the current economic crisis.
v/r,
FMC
Regarding the 1st point, 'Results Aren’t Important'…we can clearly see the dire economic results of the Democrat’s failed affordable-housing program…the country’s economy is now on the brink of disaster. However, these results apparently don’t matter to Democrats…in their mind, all of the current economic failures are someone else’s fault…anyone presented with the facts knows otherwise.
Regarding the 2nd point, 'Motives Should Never be Questioned'…have you noticed that whenever Obama is questioned in any way whatsoever, the questioner is viciously attacked, sometimes even accused of being a racist? An AP reporter accused Governor Palin of being a racist a couple of days ago...you've got be kidding me. Bottom line: you simply cannot question a liberal’s motives without these folks completely freaking out...
When you think about it, a far-left liberal’s motives change like the wind…in their mind, this ‘flexibility’ is part of what makes their thinking ‘progressive’…a liberal does not understand or embrace the concept of principle-centered decision-making. Anything principle-centered is too restrictive for these folks. Liberals believe that their own beliefs and values are continually evolving...as such, it becomes easier for them to shift their positions, shift blame, shift reasoning, and shift public policy to support the popular belief of the day or to support their underlying social agenda. In using this flexible approach, liberals honestly believe they’re being ‘objective’ and that their ‘progressive’ outlook on life somehow ‘advances the human race’. Realizing that a liberal views his or herself as objective provides some insight into the liberal way of thinking.
Liberals prefer to develop belief systems based on wishful social theories rather than economic realities. I believe that liberals view the world in this way because it's 1) more gratifying for them on an intellectual level to develop social theories of what America could be; and 2) they believe in their hearts that they're doing society a favor in implementing these social programs (remember, a Liberal's actions are often narrowly focused & primarily agenda-driven...these folks do NOT take into account the potential negative effects of their actions). As we're now seeing, the taxpayers who will be hurt by the 'affordable housing' program seem far less important to the left.
The Dems care about keeping their constituents happy, which means supporting specific agendas. Why else would Dems have attempted to funnel $20 billion of the orginal $700 billion bailot package to ACORN, an activist group found guilty of voter fraud? Appeasing groups like ACORN got us into this economic mess in the first place(remember that ACORN strong-armed banks to offer more sub-prime loans). When you're dealing with die-hard liberals, you have to realize that it's all about social action and social justice (i.e., agendas & bullying). What the libs don't tell you is that in their 'Ideal Utopia', all Americans will have to pay higher taxes to make this vision a reality.
It’s pretty sad when you think about how a die-hard leftist liberal views the world. They’re beliefs are always in flux…there's no core from which to base decisions. It must be a miserable existence emotionally for many people who view the world in this fashion. From Obama, we've heard what a horrible country America is...of course, he has cut back the rhetoric, but this is the exact same type of message that Reverend Wright has espoused from the beginning. From my perspective, it’s next to impossible to reason with someone who views the world in such an extreme manner. I realize that not all Democrats are like Obama...many honest, hardworking Democrats are simply being misled as to what their party truly represents.
Let's face it...the Dem platform is based on a 'Hate Bush' message. It's sad that this is apparently the type of representative leadership most Americans are looking for...only a person filled with a certain degree of hate could view our nation in such a way.
PLEASE don't vote for Obama...to do so would simply be rewarding the behavior and ideology that led to the current economic crisis.
v/r,
FMC
Which Came First, the Crisis or the Cause?
It’s staggering just how much Americans have been misled regarding the credit crisis. I’ve heard commentators make arguments that confuse and confound the public.
Utter chaos is a liberal’s delight. As such, the current economic environment is a perfect opportunity for the left to ‘save the day’, at least in their own minds. Sadly, it appears that most Americans are drinking this Kool-Aid, buying into biased versions of what actually transpired.
If I hear the “plenty of blame to go around” argument one more time, I’m gonna puke. While it is technically true that individuals from both parties are to blame to some extent, the MASS MAJORITY of culpability (99%) rests squarely on the shoulders of the Democrats in Congress. Fannie wasn’t run by Republicans. It was run by Democrats, protected by Democrats, and it contributed primarily to Democrats.
If there are any folks out there that believe Obama can ‘fix’ all of the problems in our economy, do a favor and ask yourself the following:
Would the crisis have occurred if affirmative-action housing programs were NOT pushed by Democrats and liberal special interest groups?
Answer: No. Absolutely not.
It’s really this simple. If Republicans had gotten their way and more regulatory oversight of Fannie was allowed, the affirmative-action housing program that led to the crisis would NOT have happened to such a large extent.
Consider what could have been prevented if John McCain’s bill for more oversight of Fannie had passed a few years ago:
1) Banks would NOT have been encouraged to engage in as many questionable lending practices for low-income borrowers
2) The sub-prime market would NOT have grown over 2,700% over the past two years (the Bush administration warned about this excessive growth in the OFHEO hearings, but this claim was shot down by senators Schumer, Frank, and Dodd)
3) Banks would NOT have been pressured by special interest groups to offer as many bad loans
4) Banks would NOT have been compelled to offer kickbacks to special interest groups (i.e., ACORN) to avoid potential lawsuits by these radical community groups
5) Rating agencies would NOT have had a chance to collude with investment banks to such a large extent; said another way, there would have been less sub-prime mortgage securities on the market and thus less collusion overall
6) The Ponzi scheme would have never had an opportunity to flourish if artificial demand for sub-prime had not been initially encouraged. Think about it…if gov had not pushed affordable housing, Fannie and Freddie would NOT have purchased these worthless loans, packaged these worthless loans and sold these worthless assets to investment banks. As such, investment banks would NOT have later packaged these worthless loans from Fannie and later sold these worthless instruments to investors…all roads point back to Fannie in this scheme…who ran Fannie? The Dems ran Fannie.
In a nutshell, the current crisis would have NOT happened to such a large extent if leftist special interest groups and liberal politicians had been stopped a few years ago with the proposed McCain bill. This entire crisis could have been prevented.
It’s easy for the liberal media to confuse voters on this issue. They purposefully get their audiences mired in one of the six points outlined above and never get to the root cause of the crisis. Anyone who dares criticize the true culprits is often called a racist…this is typical and par for the course. When you observe the beliefs of the left closely, the same themes pop up repeatedly…class warfare, higher taxes, income redistribution, & bigger government…these folks claim that government can solve all problems. If this is true, why should anyone accept any personal responsibility?
Liberalism…it’s not really as ‘fair’ and ‘neighborly’ as the Democrats would have you think. If Obama gets elected, God help our country.
FMC
Utter chaos is a liberal’s delight. As such, the current economic environment is a perfect opportunity for the left to ‘save the day’, at least in their own minds. Sadly, it appears that most Americans are drinking this Kool-Aid, buying into biased versions of what actually transpired.
If I hear the “plenty of blame to go around” argument one more time, I’m gonna puke. While it is technically true that individuals from both parties are to blame to some extent, the MASS MAJORITY of culpability (99%) rests squarely on the shoulders of the Democrats in Congress. Fannie wasn’t run by Republicans. It was run by Democrats, protected by Democrats, and it contributed primarily to Democrats.
If there are any folks out there that believe Obama can ‘fix’ all of the problems in our economy, do a favor and ask yourself the following:
Would the crisis have occurred if affirmative-action housing programs were NOT pushed by Democrats and liberal special interest groups?
Answer: No. Absolutely not.
It’s really this simple. If Republicans had gotten their way and more regulatory oversight of Fannie was allowed, the affirmative-action housing program that led to the crisis would NOT have happened to such a large extent.
Consider what could have been prevented if John McCain’s bill for more oversight of Fannie had passed a few years ago:
1) Banks would NOT have been encouraged to engage in as many questionable lending practices for low-income borrowers
2) The sub-prime market would NOT have grown over 2,700% over the past two years (the Bush administration warned about this excessive growth in the OFHEO hearings, but this claim was shot down by senators Schumer, Frank, and Dodd)
3) Banks would NOT have been pressured by special interest groups to offer as many bad loans
4) Banks would NOT have been compelled to offer kickbacks to special interest groups (i.e., ACORN) to avoid potential lawsuits by these radical community groups
5) Rating agencies would NOT have had a chance to collude with investment banks to such a large extent; said another way, there would have been less sub-prime mortgage securities on the market and thus less collusion overall
6) The Ponzi scheme would have never had an opportunity to flourish if artificial demand for sub-prime had not been initially encouraged. Think about it…if gov had not pushed affordable housing, Fannie and Freddie would NOT have purchased these worthless loans, packaged these worthless loans and sold these worthless assets to investment banks. As such, investment banks would NOT have later packaged these worthless loans from Fannie and later sold these worthless instruments to investors…all roads point back to Fannie in this scheme…who ran Fannie? The Dems ran Fannie.
In a nutshell, the current crisis would have NOT happened to such a large extent if leftist special interest groups and liberal politicians had been stopped a few years ago with the proposed McCain bill. This entire crisis could have been prevented.
It’s easy for the liberal media to confuse voters on this issue. They purposefully get their audiences mired in one of the six points outlined above and never get to the root cause of the crisis. Anyone who dares criticize the true culprits is often called a racist…this is typical and par for the course. When you observe the beliefs of the left closely, the same themes pop up repeatedly…class warfare, higher taxes, income redistribution, & bigger government…these folks claim that government can solve all problems. If this is true, why should anyone accept any personal responsibility?
Liberalism…it’s not really as ‘fair’ and ‘neighborly’ as the Democrats would have you think. If Obama gets elected, God help our country.
FMC
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Quote of the Week
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”
-Albert Einstein
-Albert Einstein
Friday, October 3, 2008
SARAH BARRACUDA!!!
I'm so proud of Sarah...she did an awesome job! We love her!
Whenever I get inspired by Sarah, I like to play the Barracuda song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpkitLUbeEg
v/r,
FMC
Whenever I get inspired by Sarah, I like to play the Barracuda song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpkitLUbeEg
v/r,
FMC
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Broken Trust
Here are a few legitimate reasons Americans should NOT trust some of the nut-jobs in Congress:
1) Democrats lied about having a deal sewn up before John McCain arrived in Washington…completely untrue
2) Democrats stating that John McCain’s arrival sabotaged the bill that they had already had a consensus on…this is a lie on top of another lie
3) Partisan grand-standing by Pelosi in front of cameras and on the House floor…these attacks were vicious and completely unnecessary
4) Barney Frank lying on camera, claiming no responsibility for the current credit crisis whatsoever…he’s on the record to the contrary
5) Barney Frank calls Bill O’Reilly a far-right lunatic. It takes someone extremely far left to call someone that plays it down the center a far-right loon.
6) The initial version of the bailout bill had Democrats giving 20% of the $700 billion to Acorn, an Obama-supported group convicted of voter fraud
7) Democrats attempted to put the blame solely on the Republicans for the credit crisis when the evidence strongly suggests otherwise…one simply has to view the OFEO hearings to see this…it’s all on the record
8) Version 2 of the bill shows approximately $800 billion in total spending…Congress just couldn't help themselves...they had to add another $100 billion.
9) Senator Dodd, one of the people chiefly responsible for the current crisis, praises himself on television, stating that we were lucky to have him as part of the solution to this crisis…unbelievable.
10) Senator Dodd, along with Barney Frank, said that they would hold hearings to get to the bottom of the crisis…what a joke…these two ring-leaders were a central cause of the entire problem…how could these hearings possibly be taken seriously?
11) Pelosi took a vote to the House floor when she didn’t even have enough votes for the bill to pass. This was pure stupidity on display. She had no idea what was going on in the House whatsoever.
12) Barney Frank gets in front of TV cameras and sarcastically states that he wants to know the names of the Republicans who voted against the bill, claiming these ‘no-votes’ by Republicans meant that these conservatives didn’t care about their country. The REALITY is that 12 of Barney Frank’s own senior Democrat committee members voted against the bill as well…why didn’t Barney question his own folk’s patriotism? Answer: double-standard.
13) Pelosi called House Republicans unpatriotic on television
14) Bernanke and Paulson have repeatedly been wrong on the economy throughout this entire year
15) Anecdotal evidence keeps surfacing that many creditworthy individuals are not having any trouble securing loans
16) Prominent CEOs appearing on television stating that banks shouldn’t be allowed to loan the same amount of funds as has been done in the past
17) McCain completely blew an opportunity handed to him by the President to side with the American people and oppose the bill
18) Obama says he’ll lower taxes, yet his voting record screams otherwise
19) Democrats forced corporations to meet demographic quotas on mortgage loans, which directly led to the crisis
20) Neil Cavuto was on the air the other day stating that loans among corporations have actually increased over the past 3 months…go figure
Why is John McCain down in the polls and getting blamed for the economic crisis? I believe people don’t know who to trust and they’re unwilling to do any effort to search for the facts…the Democrats are lying their butts off to a degree that’s unprecedented. As such, it looks like most folks are buying into the lies and the tripe the liberal media is dishing out every day.
All roads lead back to Fannie & Freddie…the facts don’t lie. I attribute most of the reactions listed above to the Dems panicking… they know they’re guilty.
If the current polls are accurate, it goes to show that most Americans are not only uninformed, they’re deliberately misinformed.
FMC
1) Democrats lied about having a deal sewn up before John McCain arrived in Washington…completely untrue
2) Democrats stating that John McCain’s arrival sabotaged the bill that they had already had a consensus on…this is a lie on top of another lie
3) Partisan grand-standing by Pelosi in front of cameras and on the House floor…these attacks were vicious and completely unnecessary
4) Barney Frank lying on camera, claiming no responsibility for the current credit crisis whatsoever…he’s on the record to the contrary
5) Barney Frank calls Bill O’Reilly a far-right lunatic. It takes someone extremely far left to call someone that plays it down the center a far-right loon.
6) The initial version of the bailout bill had Democrats giving 20% of the $700 billion to Acorn, an Obama-supported group convicted of voter fraud
7) Democrats attempted to put the blame solely on the Republicans for the credit crisis when the evidence strongly suggests otherwise…one simply has to view the OFEO hearings to see this…it’s all on the record
8) Version 2 of the bill shows approximately $800 billion in total spending…Congress just couldn't help themselves...they had to add another $100 billion.
9) Senator Dodd, one of the people chiefly responsible for the current crisis, praises himself on television, stating that we were lucky to have him as part of the solution to this crisis…unbelievable.
10) Senator Dodd, along with Barney Frank, said that they would hold hearings to get to the bottom of the crisis…what a joke…these two ring-leaders were a central cause of the entire problem…how could these hearings possibly be taken seriously?
11) Pelosi took a vote to the House floor when she didn’t even have enough votes for the bill to pass. This was pure stupidity on display. She had no idea what was going on in the House whatsoever.
12) Barney Frank gets in front of TV cameras and sarcastically states that he wants to know the names of the Republicans who voted against the bill, claiming these ‘no-votes’ by Republicans meant that these conservatives didn’t care about their country. The REALITY is that 12 of Barney Frank’s own senior Democrat committee members voted against the bill as well…why didn’t Barney question his own folk’s patriotism? Answer: double-standard.
13) Pelosi called House Republicans unpatriotic on television
14) Bernanke and Paulson have repeatedly been wrong on the economy throughout this entire year
15) Anecdotal evidence keeps surfacing that many creditworthy individuals are not having any trouble securing loans
16) Prominent CEOs appearing on television stating that banks shouldn’t be allowed to loan the same amount of funds as has been done in the past
17) McCain completely blew an opportunity handed to him by the President to side with the American people and oppose the bill
18) Obama says he’ll lower taxes, yet his voting record screams otherwise
19) Democrats forced corporations to meet demographic quotas on mortgage loans, which directly led to the crisis
20) Neil Cavuto was on the air the other day stating that loans among corporations have actually increased over the past 3 months…go figure
Why is John McCain down in the polls and getting blamed for the economic crisis? I believe people don’t know who to trust and they’re unwilling to do any effort to search for the facts…the Democrats are lying their butts off to a degree that’s unprecedented. As such, it looks like most folks are buying into the lies and the tripe the liberal media is dishing out every day.
All roads lead back to Fannie & Freddie…the facts don’t lie. I attribute most of the reactions listed above to the Dems panicking… they know they’re guilty.
If the current polls are accurate, it goes to show that most Americans are not only uninformed, they’re deliberately misinformed.
FMC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
