That "tingle up your leg" is nothing more than ENTHRALLMENT

I received the following in my email. I don't agree with all of it . . .but I certainly found it interesting and thought provoking.


Do any of you see any anything similar to the Hilter craze of the 30s going on here… Too me it is very plain.. But I guess even in Germany there were Germans that figured it out but could not stop it, They are the ones who helped the Jews escape while the rest really started believing they were the “super race”.Hitler hated Jews, his mother was Jewish.
Obama does not like whites, his mother was white. Germany’s economy collasped, our economy is going under (thanks to the Dems) Hitler gave them “hope through change”. Hmm sounds familiar…. I have been through the death camps in Germany, I have stood in the showers where they gassed innocent men, women and children, I have seen lamps and wallets made from human flesh, I have seen the horrible things that man can do against man….Because of one mans agenda…. Now our country is face with a man with an agenda….. How many people are being duped into following what might lead to destruction of a people,,, Will you go slowly , blindly following until it is too late to stop it. I will not go into anything so that one man can persue his own dreams…. I will not go quietly nor will I follow anyone not worth following,,, No man blinds me from right….McCain 2008



TO OB Supporters–that “tingle up your leg” is nothing more than ENTHRALLMENT–something a lot of BO disciples are suffering from. How do I know? A long time ago a man named Hans, who started out in Hilter’s Youth spoke about ENTHRALLMENT. He said Hilter was very charismatic, promised CHANGE. Whenever he listened to Hilter, he felt inspired, he felt hope, he felt energized, –he said he found himself WANTING to believe everything Hilter told him. When asked about RUMORS, he said, yes they heard bad rumors–but, he either dismissed them immediately to the point they literally no longer existed, or, he would immediately put a positive spin on it. He said that he was so ENTHRALLED with Hilter he was no longer thinking for himself–but at the time he did not realize this–and if anyone would have tried to tell him he was enthralled, it would have made him angry. He said, “it took a long time–too long to see the truth.” And now after all these years, We are seeing ENTHRALLMENT for ourselves. PROMISE CHANGE, APPEAL TO THE MASSES, TARGET THE POOR AND HOW YOUWILL HELP THEM, GET INDUSTRY BEHIND YOU. Sound familiar? Don’t feel bad about being enthralled, it has happened to people down through the centuries–just DO SOMETHING about it now before it’s too late.

Obama's Pattern Of Supporting Wealth Redistribution!

October 27, 2008

Listen to this 2001 interview in which Sen. Obama is clear that he supports "redistributive change" and that one of the tragedies of the Warren Court was that it didn't do more to help redistribute the nation's wealth.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=301256

Forward this news item to your friends and family.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA - IN HIS OWN WORDS

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA - IN HIS OWN WORDS

Audacity of Hope: “Lolo (Obama’s step father) followed a brand of Islam ….” “I looked to Lolo for guidance”.

Dreams of my Father: “The person who made me proudest of all, though, was [half brother] Roy .. He converted to Islam.”

Dreams of my Father: “In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school”

Dreams of my Father: “I Studied the Koran.”

Audacity of Hope: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

Dreams of My Father: “I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race”.

Dreams of my Father: “The emotion between the races could never be pure….. the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart.”

Dreams of my Father: “Any distinction between good and bad whites held negligible meaning.”

Dreams of My Father: “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”

Dreams Of My Father: “I 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..”.

Dreams of My Father: “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.”

Dreams of My Father: “There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs,” he wrote. “It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names”

Dreams of my Father: “Desperate times called for desperate measures, and for many blacks, times were chronically desperate. If nationalism could create a strong and effective insularity, deliver on its promise of self-respect, then the hurt it might cause well-meaning whites, or the inner turmoil it caused people like me, would be of little consequence.”

Dreams of my Father: “To avoid being mistaken for a racial sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chi-canos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and p-unk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy.”

Dreams of my Father: “there was something about him that made me wary,” Obama wrote. “A little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.”

Dreams of my Father: “the reason black people keep to themselves is that it’s easier than spending all your time mad, or trying to guess whatever it was that white folks were thinking about you.”

Dreams of my Father: One line in Malcolm X’s autobiography “spoke” to Obama “it stayed with me,” he says. “He spoke of a wish he’d once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged.”





B. HUSSEIN OBAMA:

For 20 years I have attended Trinity United Church of Christ. Ahhh I listened to Rev Wright’s sermons on a weekly basis and entertained him in my home. He was my spiritual advisor, my pastor, ahhh teacher and mentor. He married Michelle and I and baptized my daughters. So we go back a long, long time. In all of those years, ahhh I have never heard Rev Wright making ahhh any racist remarks and wasn’t aware of his poisoned view of this country. Yes, ahh I did appoint him to my official presidential campaign religious council. Then all of these tapes of his sermons became public and ahh I was stunned hearing his racist and anti-American rants. Rev Wright is not the same person that I have known for 20 years.

I know many of you are wondering about my relationship and Tony Rezko. Let me be very clear, ahhhh all I did was ask Tony to help me find a home. Ahhhh I don’t have any control over his generosity. I had no idea he was under investigation. As I look back he is not the same person I once knew!!

Now I understand that Bill Ayers is a home grown terrorist? Well I think I was about eight years old when he did those bad things. I didn’t know, he was just a neighbor to me. Well OK we were working on community matters but ahhhh well OK I helped him with millions in tax payers funds but I didn’t know much more about him then.

With respect to Larry Sinclair, ahhhh he makes these allegations of a sexual encounter and so on ahhhhh and says his is telling the truth well you know it all depends on what is ..is … ahhhh he too is not the same person I once knew.

You accuse ahhh my step father, Lolo, who I look to for guidance of being a radical Muslim. Well let me be very clear ahhh he is not the same person I once knew.

I supported and encouraged my cousin Railo Odinga’s political ambitions in Kenya several years ago. Ahhh at that time I did not know that Railo was an Islamic Militant. When he led a rebellion that killed hundreds of Kenyans I was shocked. Railo is not the same person I once knew.

It looks like I’m attracted to people who transform themselves to villains’ right under my nose. I know ahhhhh my past doesn’t look good but I will redeem myself. If elected I hope to get a fresh start and ahhhh meet with Ahmadiejad, Kim Jong II, Hugo Chavez, Fidel & Raul Castro and even Mugtada al-Sadr.

Some of you have questioned ahhhh my perspective on the global front. Well you know that we cannot expect others to respect us while we drive SUV’s, eat as much as we want, and set our thermostats at 72 degrees. Ahhhhh we need to change our life style and set the example and learn to speak a foreign language.

Now let me clarify my ahhh position on the flag pin and anthem. As I’ve said before about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking sides. There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. I’m wearing it now just to satisfy my critics. And the Anthem itself ahhh conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song ‘I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing.’ If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.’

I am not a Muslim now but…. If the political winds shift in an ugly direction I will stand with the Muslims.

The TRUTH About Where Our Economic Troubles BEGAN!!

They want you to believe that it’s been the Bush policies of the “last eight years” that have cause our current economic troubles. That’s BULL

So here's the breakdown of what led to our economic troubles. It's long, but our troubles actually started a long time ago with a Democrat. So if you care to learn the truth, Here it is!

In Short, here is the most relevant part:
Rep. Arthur Davis (D-Ala), …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."



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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

November 2000
George W. Bush elected President

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.”

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.

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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

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.

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. 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. 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.”

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,…

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
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.

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.”

From an article by M. Jay Wells: ‘Why the mortgage crises happened’

WHAT DOES THAT LAST SENTENCE MEAN!?!? SCARY!!

John Tennant wrote on John McCain's Facebook page
at 9:13pm on 10/23/08

“Mark my words,” Biden told donors at a Seattle fund-raiser Sunday night.
“It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America.
“Watch. We’re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.
“And he’s going to need help . . . to stand with him. Because it’s not going to be apparent initially; it’s not going to be apparent that we’re right.”

Two main things abou Biden's statement concerns me: 1st- he isn't talking to the " public" but to supportors. 2- WHAT DOES THAT LAST SENTENCE MEAN!! He is basically saying " We (obama & dems) are going to do something and you may not think its the right thing but TRUST us, it will be right.

Obama Thinks He's Gonna 'Fix' Washington Politics???????

Richard Semrau (UIllinois) wrote on John McCain's Wall on Facebook
at 7:42pm - 10/23/08


Chicago Politics

Body Count In The Last Six Months

292 Murdered In Chicago

221 Killed In Iraq


Our Leadership In Illinois ;

Sen. Barack Obama

Sen. Dick Durbin

Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.

Gov. Rod Blogojevi Ch

House Leader Mike Mad Igan

Atty. Gen Lisa Madigan

Mayor Richard Daly

All Democrats


Thank You For The Combat Zone In Chicago


Of Course They Are Blaming Each Other.


Can't Blame The Republicans, Because There Aren't Any!!!!!


State Pension Fund $44 Billion In Debt, Worst In The Nation.


Cook County (Chicago) Sales Tax 10.25%, Highest In The Nation.


Chicago School System One Of The Worst In The Nation.


This Is The Political Machine That Obama Says He Comes From In Illinois .


And Now


Obama Saya He's Gonna 'Fix' Washington Politics!?!?!?!?!?

Save America

OUTSTANDING piece of investigative work

This is an OUTSTANDING piece of investigative work by two young conservative journalist. Very comprehensive with solid supporting evidence:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/21/the-comprehensive-argument-against-barack-obama/

Pass it on!!

This Should Make Us All Think!

This was posted on John McCain's Wall on Facebook by a lady named Anna.

I had never even thought of this but WOW does it make me go HMMMMMMM!
________________________

Barack Obama has put out an ad that simple-minded John McCain cannot use
a computer.




Well guess what: Barack cannot land a jet plane on an aircraft carrier
at night.




If Barack Obama would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret
Service, he would be disqualified because of his past association with
William Ayers, a known terrorist.




If he became an officer in any of the Armed Services, he would not
qualify for a top secret security clearance.




If he is elected President he would not qualify to be his own body
guard!
(And sadly, one-half of all Americans are ready to vote him into the
highest office in the land.)

Howard Stern Exposes Why Black People Support Barack Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg4Njtmbb10

Is it actually possible that people are REALLY going to Vote on something OTHER than the ISSUES??? UNREAL!

Lawsuit Filed Against Obama-Does Not Qualify For President