With the recession, and President Obama’s subsequent stimulus debacle, dominating the media, recent revelations about the true origins of the financial crisis have been (deliberately?) ignored. Contrary to popular perception, the recession and the crisis in the financial markets are two separate and distinct events even though the effects of one affects the other. If you will recall, in September we were led to believe that a financial disaster was imminent. The President, at the urging of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, insisted that drastic action had to be taken immediately or the financial markets would collapse. The stock market plunged and trillions of dollars in value just evaporated. Therefore congress, in a rush, passed the 700 billion dollar bank bailout known as the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Although most of us “informed” citizens are aware of the long term root causes of the financial collapse (the Community Reinvestment act and the toxic assets it spawned) this in and of itself would not have presented its effects as an emergency of such dire proportions. These assets had been fermenting for decades awaiting a flame to ignite them. Now the revelations are coming forth…

On Thursday at roughly 11 AM The Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw down of money market accounts in the USA to the tune of $550 Billion dollars in a matter of an hour or two. Money was being removed electronically.

The Treasury tried to help, opened their window and pumped in $150 Billion but quickly realized they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. So they decided to closed down the accounts.- Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D) of Pennsylvania

In an interview broadcast on C-Span’s Washington Journal, Representative Kanjorski explained what the former Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told congress during the September 2008 closed door session. The meeting was held a few days after the electronic run on the banks on Monday September 15. The Thursday before, that Representative Kanjorski is referring to, was SEPTEMBER 11. Does that day have any significance to anyone??? He continued…

Had they not closed down the accounts they estimated that by 2 PM that afternoon. Within 3 hours. $5.5 Trillion would have been withdrawn and the entire economy of the United States would have collapsed, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.

So there you have the story, as it was told to President Bush and the congress. Action had to be taken quickly to stabilize the markets due to an electronic bank run. It also goes a long way to explaining why one of the first actions taken was to boost the FDIC deposit insurance up from $100,000 per depositor to $250,000. They were pre-empting a possible run on all banks in the event that word leaked out about what had happened.

In contemplating the timing of this event and the reaction of certain key figures, both before and after the electronic bank run, the obvious must be stated: THE FINANCIAL CRISIS WAS DELIBERATELY PLANNED AND DELIBERATELY EXECUTED!! Just who was it that initiated the bank run? The timing of the event, both in the deliberate choice of September 11 as the attack date and the proximity to a presidential election prohibit any realistic acceptance of a “coincidence.” Somebody took 550 billion dollars out of the banks. Even down here in Alabama we know that is a serious amount of money. The question is, who took it out? Why did they take it out? And of course…where is it now? Rest assured SOMEBODY knows!

All of those transactions produced records. You can be certain that all of this was investigated and fast. Yet no-one has revealed any information. Hell, if it weren’t for Representative Kanjorski we wouldn’t even now know that there was a run on the banks. Why is he now talking? Was the United States the victim of an economic terrorist attack? Certainly the choosing of the September 11 date for the bank run leads one to consider Islamic terrorism. However the extreme amount of money involved would eliminate any possibility of any known terrorist group, unless of course they were supported by a wealthy state with the economic resources to pull this off…Saudi Arabia anyone? Venezuela? The attack occurred at a time of surging oil prices, which just happens to financially benefit countries that would like to do the United States harm. The time would never be better for one of these known enemies to make their move. It is also rather telling how swiftly afterward world oil prices plummeted…U.S. economic counterattack?

Certainly we can see how this could have perplexed President Bush. Evidence suggests that the attack was, essentially, repulsed and perhaps the sudden drop in oil prices could have been a U.S. reprisal. However, you must ask yourself how the President would be able to present this to the American people? If he had suggested that the U.S. was attacked the American media, already swooning in their adoration of Barack Obama, would have accused him of playing the “terrorism” card. They would never have acknowledged the reality of such an attack and announcing it may have hurt John McCain’s chances even more than the subsequent stock market crash. Also, a significant part of Bush’s legacy rests on the fact that he prevented further terrorist attacks after September 11, 2001. Even though this was a different type of attack, he may have felt a desire to not acknowledge it publicly to preserve that impression.

It is clear that one of, if not THE, overriding motives for the attack was to influence the election results. If you will recall that in March of 2004 there was an Islamic terrorist attack in Madrid, Spain. This attack also was presented just before an election. It resulted in the appeasement party winning the elections and the government subsequently pulling Spanish troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is exactly the result the terrorists were seeking.

If a bombing such as the one in Madrid were replicated in the United States, the result would have almost certainly have been just the opposite. The country would have been, once again, wakened from the slumber that seven years of successfully preventing an attack had induced. John McCain, the tough military man, would have won in a landslide. By contrast, if you want to do something that will help Barack Obama…you have to hurt the economy. Remember Bill Clinton got elected by riding a minor recession and repeating the slogan: “it’s the economy, stupid.” Therefore it would need to be an attack on the U.S. economy that would have the effect of sending a democrat to the White House.

Interpreting the motive for the attack opens still more possibilities. I have thus far suggested that the most likely motive for striking the U.S. financial markets would be to alter the presidential election. It is not likely than an external adversary would have really suspected they could actually destroy the U.S, economy, nor would any country on earth benefit from such a result as we would take every other economy down with us. Therefore if influencing the election was the most reasonable motive for the attack we must also entertain another possibility…that the attack originated from elements WITHIN the United States.

A person, or group of people are absolutely within their rights to take money from their own accounts. It is 100% legal and can only be prevented by the government shutting down the market as it eventually did. We are told that as much as 5 trillion dollars would have been removed had they not interceded. How could they know that? That presumes that an uncontrollable panic involving large numbers of investors had to be involved. If this was designed as an action to induce a stampede of withdrawals then this would have had to be done in a way that was visible so the bank run could continue to build momentum on itself. Was this panic induced by several key investors who went out of there way to be seen withdrawing large amounts of money? Was it their intention to be noticed and subsequently have their actions followed and repeated by thousands of other investors? For it to work, it had to be noticed, observed and recorded. A record of all the withdrawals exists. Therefore the people who monitor such things, The Securities and Exchange Commission, has to be able to know, and most certainly does know, who was responsible. And yet we have been told nothing. Why?

One news story comes to mind immediately. It involves New York Senator Charles Schumer who is credited with initiating a run on the banks a short time before the financial attack of September 11, 2008:

OTS (Office of Thrift Supervision) announced Friday that it was taking over the $32 billion IndyMac and transferring control to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - and the agency pointed the finger directly at Schumer for the failure, accusing him of sparking a bank run by releasing a letter that “expressed concerns about IndyMac’s viability.”

“In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts,” the OTS said in a statement announcing the California-based lender’s takeover. The statement included a quote from OTS Director John Reich saying, “Although this institution was already in distress, I am troubled by any interference in the regulatory process.”

Schumer’s letter on June 26 said he was “concerned that IndyMac’s financial deterioration poses significant risks to both taxpayers and borrowers.” - CNN

Charles Schumer is certainly no stranger to hardball partisan politics, so finding him entangled in a premeditated ploy to intimidate the public into voting democratic is hardly a surprise. As always George Soros’ name also comes up as a likely major player in this affair. After all, he does have the financial resources to initiate a panic and he likewise has a history of trying to use his vast wealth to interfere with government policy. You will recall that in 1992 he sold short more than $10 billion worth of British money thereby forcing The Bank of England to withdraw its currency from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism causing the pound sterling to be devalued. Soros earned an estimated  1.1 billion in the process. Of course George Soros is also a known supporter of various liberal causes including bankrolling the legal team currently trying to Railroad Al Franken into the Senate.

Once again we have to put ourselves in the position of President Bush. How can he possibly present this scenario to the public without himself being accused of trying to mislead the public? Who would have believed him if he had presented evidence that democratic supporters were sabotaging the economy in order to acquire a victory for themselves? Considering his approval ratings, he had almost no choice but to sit on the information. Even if he had released the names of all involved after the election it could have had a devastating effect on our population. But do we not need to know this? Should this be allowed to go unacknowledged? Should we not consider the penalty we must pay as a nation if we allow people to deliberately damage our economy just to further their own political objectives? And what of those political objectives? Considering the damnable stimulus bill they just rammed through the congress do we dare assume they have our best interests at heart? Perhaps President Bush let us down. This will come out, and its effects on the social order of our country will be catastrophic. This of course will be no problem for our current President who will use this impending threat to social order as an opportunity to consolidate more power. H.R. 645 anyone?

Before you write this off as making a worst case scenario out of the, thus far, limited revelations of a little known house member, it would be wise to consider the actions of both Barack Obama and John McCain at the time of the attack. If you will recall, John McCain famously suspended his campaign to return to Washington and lead the efforts that would result in the TARP bill. This put the first presidential debate in serious jeopardy of being canceled or delayed. What, pray-tell, did Barack Obama do? Insisting that the debates should go on as scheduled, he uttered one of his most infamous statements:

“There are times for politics, and then there are times to rise above politics and do what’s right for the country. And this is one of those times. It is going to be part of the president’s job to deal with more than one thing at once. I think there’s no reason why we can’t be constructive in helping to solve this problem and also tell the American people what we believe, and where we stand, and where we want to take the country. You know, what I’m going to do is, I’m going to — what I have told the leadership in Congress is that, if I can be helpful, then I am prepared to be anywhere any time.” - Barack H. Obama

Ahh, the the notorious “call me if you need me” line. Not the kind of reaction you expect from a presidential hopeful concerning a crisis of an uncertain nature. No, this is the kind of reaction you get from someone who figures things are going according to the plan. A plan that was designed entirely for his benefit. A plan that succeeded in making him the President of the United States. What wouldn’t a man such as this do to fulfill his ambitions? Dare we want to know what those ambitions portend?

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States. - U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1

I have followed this story from the beginning and, like most people, I have been reluctant to put much faith in it’s validity. The media certainly has buried this story as deep as they can, for this will destroy them as certainly as the perpetrators of this scheme. Events are now are conspiring to bring this story out of the darkness of “urban legend” and into the light of the Supreme Court of the United States. It appears that now, after the election, the allegations that our president-elect is not who and what he appears to be are gaining traction. It’s a long and twisted tale of a man who may be a citizen of as many as four countries, or only three…and one of them would not be the United States! Allow me to present to you the conspiracy of all conspiracies, and one that, to some degree, has deceived us all.

“Deceivers are the most dangerous members of society. They trifle with the best affections of our nature, and violate the most sacred obligations.” - George Crabbe

Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetero, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham and Barry Dunham are all names that our president-elect has been known to use throughout his life. It is no small wonder, therefore, that so many people have been able to easily craft an image of Obama that fits their own hopes and wishes rather than conform to any sense of reality. You see there is no real Barack Obama. That may be the source of the magic that he wields over his hypnotized subjects. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy all bundled up into a perfect “all things to all people” world leader. Of course, that which never was, can never fail us. However we did elect somebody on November the 4th. Somebody who claims to have been born August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. Or was he? This is where our story begins. Hang on, this is going to take you through a lot of twists and turns.

It’s simple really. Most of us have had to produce our birth certificate at some point in our life to prove we are who we say we are. It is the one piece of evidence that can prove that Barack Obama is a natural born American citizen. However attorney Philip J Berg, a Democrat,  alleges that Barack Obama was in fact NOT born in the United States, but instead was born in Mombassa, Kenya.

In Hawaii there are two forms of registering a birth. A medical “birth certificate” filled out at hospital signed by doctor attesting to birth, weight, race etc. of the infant, and a legal document called a “certificate of live birth” which is filled out at a government office. This document is a short form for legal purposes based off the medical record of the “birth certificate.” It is this second document that the Obama campaign produced on their website for a short time early in the campaign to refute the rumors of Obama’s non-citizenship. They didn’t keep it there long, however, since it created more questions than it answered. Largely because a “certificate of live birth” is used when a “birth certificate” cannot be found, and a “certificate of live birth” can be filled out up to a year after the birth. Obviously a “certificate of live birth” does not carry the same legal weight as a “birth certificate” when the absolute certainty of the birth record is required, as should be the case when ascertaining the qualifications for the presidency.

Berg also claims that there is no information available as to which hospital Obama’s mother used in Hawaii. Maya Soetoro, the half-sister with whom Obama was raised, seems not to know where her own brother was born. In the Nov., 2004 interview by the Rainbow Newsletter Maya Soetoro said Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961 at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. In February, 2008 Maya was interviewed by the Star Bulletin. That time she told reporters that Obama was born on August 4, 1961 at the Kaliolani Medical Center for Women and Children.

Another lawsuit originating in Washington state alleges that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a certificate registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Kenya Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen. Later investigators interestingly found that the records had been sealed and would not be made available. Convenient isn’t it? But it gets better.

Hawaii’s Gov. Linda Lingle, a Republican,  has placed the Obama’s birth certificate under seal and instructed the state’s Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances. This was done just days after Obama visited Hawaii to see his dying grandmother and less than a week before the election. It appears a lot of people want to keep something hidden.

Berg also claims he has a recording of a telephone call from the Obama’s paternal grandmother confirming his birth in Kenya as well as signed affidavits testifying to the authenticity of the recording. According to his grandmother, she was present at the birth. Grandmothers, unlike politicians, have an unfailing ability to tell the truth. In fairness though, she probably is unaware of U.S. laws and doesn’t realize that it might actually harm Obama’s chances of holding the office.

In spite of what would appear to be a reasonable enough amount of evidence to merit further hearings in the court, Berg’s case was dismissed on October 24th by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing. A plaintiff wishing to have standing to sue must show (1) a particularized injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff’s particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress. You would think that ANY U.S. citizen should have standing to demand that a presidential candidate prove his qualifications. Especially since one birth certificate will usually suffice.

Berg then took the case to the next level, which is of course, the Supreme Court of the United States. There he presented a request to Justice David Souter to stay the election until Obama’s campaign produced three items:

1. Obama’s “vault” version (certified copy of his “original” long version) birth certificate
2. a certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Citizenship
3. a certified copy of Obama’s oath of allegiance

Well, we had the election so you know that Justice Souter and the court did not halt the election. That was never going to happen without a full hearing of the case. There was not enough time for that. So now the Berg case sits somewhat in limbo as the Obama campaign has thus far failed to respond to a Writ of Certiorari. Apparently Obama has until Dec. 1 to respond to it if they wish. The case can still be taken up for review regardless of whether Obama responds or not, should the court decide they wish to hear it.

In the mean time another suit has been filed by presidential candidate Alan Keyes, vice-presidential candidate Wiley S. Drake, and the Chairman of the American Independent Party, Markham Robinson,  in California’s Superior Court seeking to bar Secretary of State Debra Bowen from certifying to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger the names of electors, and from transmitting to each presidential elector a Certificate of Election, until documentary proof is produced and verified showing that Senator Obama is a “natural born” citizen of the United States, and does not hold citizenship of Indonesia, Kenya or Great Britain. In addition, they have asked that the court issue a peremptory writ barring Senator Obama’s California electors from signing the Certificate of Vote until such documentary proof is produced and verified. Since Alan Keyes was in fact on the ballot as a presidential candidate he should have standing to sue.

But wait! There’s more. A lot more. You see there are many angles to this story. In Berg vs. Obama the main allegation is that Obama is disqualified because of evidence supporting the likelihood that he was born in Kenya and not the U.S. There is another case being tried in the courts that has a more unique point of view. Leo C. Donofrio, Applicant v. Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State alleges that even if it were proven he was born in Hawaii, because his father was born in Kenya, and having been born with split and competing loyalties, he is not a "natural born citizen" as required by Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution.

According to Donofrio the birth certificate and later Indonesian citizenship issues are irrelevant.  Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya which was at the time of Obama’s birth under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Obama was a British Citizen at birth, just like the framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he was born on U.S. soil, he still would not be eligible to be president.

The framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were British citizens and that’s why they  declared that, while they were citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born citizens.” Therefore they created the “grandfather clause” that would allow them to be president. It is very clear:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; - U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1

They didn’t intend for future generations to be governed by a Commander In Chief who had any potential loyalty to another country. In Donofrio’s argument, both parents have to be U.S. citizens for their offspring to be considered a “natural born citizen.” Obama’s father was not an American citizen at the time and never attempted to become one. Interestingly enough, Obama’s British citizenship is something that the Obama campaign readily admitted. This was posted on his website during the campaign:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.” - FactCheck.org as quoted on Obama’s website

So as you can see, we clearly have a constitutional problem that needs cleaning up. Clearly the framers of the Constitution intended that a president not have competing loyalties. This was not an uncommon problem in Europe at the time of our founding. Often royal families would inter-marry across national borders creating all sorts of havoc that the framers were intentionally seeking to keep out of the politics of the United States. Therefore Donofrio is right, Obama cannot be a “natural born citizen,” as defined by the framers of the Constitution, by virtue of his dual citizenship at the time of his birth. Whether you believe it to be fair or not, it is the law and should be looked into.

“All deception in the course of life is indeed nothing else but a lie reduced to practice, and falsehood passing from words into things.” - Robert Southey

If we just left off here you would have enough information to know that we have a real problem. But Barack Obama is good at creating these type of problems so guess what? There is more.

As mentioned earlier in Berg’s request, he was asking for two things not pertaining to the birth of Obama. A certified copy of Obama’s “Certificate of Citizenship,” and a certified copy of Obama’s “Oath of Allegiance.” Why? Because, as we all should know, Obama was also once a citizen of Indonesia. As the story goes, Obama’s parents were divorced and his mother remarried Lolo Soetoro. This is where the other complications to Barack Obama’s qualifications to the presidency arise. Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married this Indonesian citizen and relocated herself and Obama to Indonesia wherein Obama’s mother naturalized her citizenship to Indonesia and Obama followed her naturalization, as he could not have attended public schools there otherwise.

This also is something that has not been disputed by the Obama campaign. The problem, of course, is that you can not hold dual citizenship and qualify to be president. Therefore there must be a record of Obama re-instating his U.S. citizenship and taking an “Oath of Allegiance.” Likewise he would also have to reside in the U.S. for 14 years afterward before he would be eligible to be president. That qualification certainly is not in doubt. However no record of his “Certificate of Citizenship” or an “Oath of Allegiance” has been presented. Unless Obama produces documents that prove otherwise, we must conclude that Obama failed to take the oath of allegiance when he turned eighteen. This in spite of the fact that he moved back to Hawaii to attend school live with his grandparents in 1971. These documents would exist if either Obama, or his mother, had regained their U.S. citizenships. Where are they?

It has been shown that in 1981 Obama traveled to Pakistan using an Indonesian passport. At the time of his travels to Indonesia, Obama was twenty years old. He was well aware he maintained his Indonesian citizenship, and had yet to regain his United States citizenship. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship. Had Obama regained his United States citizenship, he would have been traveling on a United States passport. Obama’s registration in Indonesia was under the name Barry Soetoro. This poses another problem for our messianic deceiver.  According to Illinois state filings, when Obama registered as an attorney in 1991, under the name Barack Obama, he stated he did not have any former names. If there is one thing we are sure of, it’s that Obama is a man of many names and many places.

Consider another interesting twist in the story. We have all been led to believe Barack Obama is an incredibly smart man. We know he  attended Columbia University and Harvard Law School as well as his being president of the Harvard Law Review. There is no disputing that his education appears formidable. The Obama campaign took great delight in pointing out that John McCain ranked 894th out of a graduating class of 899 at the U.S. Naval Academy. However do you know where Mr. Obama ranked in his graduating class at Occidental, Columbia or Harvard? You don’t know because Obama would not release any of his school records. Many people have openly wondered who paid for Obama’s college education. Such things don’t particularly interest me, however it would be reasonable to assume that he possibly gained an advantage to admission to these prestigious schools by claiming to be a foreign student. Considering we know he used an Indonesian passport at the age of twenty, this would appear to be the secret that Obama is hiding. I’m sure his grades were as outstanding as his disciples faithfully assure us they must be. It looks like Obama is a master at manipulating the system to his advantage. A talent that he appears to retain to this very day. Unfortunately, with no record having been presented that proves he re-instated his U.S. citizenship, we are left to ponder the possibility we have elected a non-citizen to the highest office in the land. If so, we’re done for!

But alas, I did not lead you down this path just to show you that we have delivered ourselves into our own doom. I have come to bring you that which our hypnotized fellow citizens were so enraptured of during the campaign…hope. For you see, we still have a chance. One chance to expose the fraud that is either Barack Obama or all of these challenges against him. Chance, thy name is Clarence Thomas:

A case that challenges President-elect Barack Obama’s name on the 2008 election ballot citing questions over his citizenship has been scheduled for a “conference” at the U.S. Supreme Court. Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. This case is set for a conference Dec. 5, just 10 days before the Electoral College is scheduled to meet to make formal the election of Obama as the nation’s next president.

The Supreme Court’s website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state
in New Jersey, over not only Obama’s name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.
The case, unsuccessful at the state level, had been submitted to Justice David Souter, who rejected it. The case then was resubmitted to Justice Clarence Thomas. The next line on the court’s docket says: “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.”
If four of the nine justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled. The action questions whether any of the three candidates is qualified under the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen.” - WorldNet Daily

That’s right, the first of these many cases has landed into the Supreme Court and you have Justice Clarence Thomas to thank for it. You can also thank Barack Obama as well. Many of you may remember that during a campaign interview Obama was asked which of the nine justices would he have NOT nominated if he had the choice. Well, if you didn’t see the interview I bet you can guess his answer. Although I’m sure that had nothing to do with this.

Nonetheless, as I have shown the evidence against Obama is there to be seen and it is substantial. Now, the fate of the country, if not the entire free world, will be decided in a room with nine justices. No one from the outside is allowed in during these conferences. They are the ultimate in secrecy…

Five minutes before conference time, 9:30 or 10 a.m., the Justices are summoned. They exchange ritual handshakes and settle down at the long table. The Chief sits at the east end; the other Justices sit at places they have chosen in order of their seniority…

The Chief Justice opens the discussion, summarizing each case. The senior Associate Justice speaks next, and comment passes down the line. To be accepted for review, a case needs only four votes, fewer than the majority required for a decision on the case itself. Counsel for the litigants are directed to submit their printed briefs so that each Justice has a set several weeks before argument.

Let us hope they choose to hear the case in full, whatever the outcome may be. There are those who believe that the people of the United States might revolt in the event Obama is denied the presidency. Let them. A decent, armed citizenry WILL restore order. Nothing good can come from allowing someone to accede to the highest office in the land through deception. There are also those who claim this is merely republicans crying in their beer and being sore losers. The cases hitting the courts now were all initiated BEFORE the election. In the case of Berg, he wanted Obama removed from the democratic ticket even before he won it. These are serious matters. Anyone who would conspire to such a magnitude as to deceive an entire nation has not got the the best interests of that nation at heart.

Obama can provide proof of his true qualifications if there are records of them. It is entirely his responsibility to prove he is qualified. Unfortunately there appears to be plenty of proof that he may not be. This will not go away even if the Supreme Court abdicates its responsibility to look into the matter. As Secretary of State of the United States it also falls to Condoleeza Rice to certify the results of the election. She too should demand that Obama provide proof of his origin of birth as well as proof that he re-instated his citizenship. I would say our best hope for review comes from the courts. Certainly you shouldn’t look to the media for any help. You won’t find this story there unless, or until, it explodes out of the Supreme Court. The media made Obama, largely by omitting anything negative that might be found. Their credibility, or what’s left of it, goes down with Obama. They will sink with his ship.

“Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every neighbour will walk with slanders. And they will deceive every one his neighbour, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, and weary themselves to commit iniquity. Thine habitation is in the midst of deceit; through deceit they refuse to know me, saith the LORD. Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, Behold, I will melt them, and try them; for how shall I do for the daughter of my people? Their tongue is as an arrow shot out; it speaketh deceit: one speaketh peaceably to his neighbour with his mouth, but in heart he layeth his wait. Shall I not visit them for these things? saith the LORD: shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this? - Jeremiah 9:4-9

Melt them did he say? Ouch! I wouldn’t want to be that nation, would you? There are those who fear that Obama is the Antichrist, the infamous “Beast” from the Biblical book of Revelation. As I have said before, he is NOT the Antichrist. However, the person who is the Antichrist will not ascend to his position of power without help from other world leaders. If we are currently living in the Biblical last days, that would require the consent of the United States. Barack Obama, especially if he is so great a deceiver to have pulled off such a fantastic scheme, would be just the kind of enabler the Antichrist will need.

If you will recall your Biblical eschatology, after the Beast ascends to power he turns against a portion of his power base and destroys it. The great “Mystery Babylon,” portrayed as the most powerful nation on earth, is annihilated in just one hour. A man who could deceive an entire nation, could easily watch it burn. A president who attained his office through deceit could easily order its powerful nuclear arsenal to remain sheathed even as his country is obliterated. Defenseless by executive order of the Commander in Chief. Once the “United States Of Mystery Babylon” is destroyed, at the hands of the Beast and his presidential conspirator, who will dare oppose him? Such events don’t seem so far fetched anymore do they?

For those of you who were hypnotized into voting for Barack H. Obama, a true “citizen of the world,” I have but one question to ask you: What have you done?

---

"I think that's all fine and good but here's what I think, in the next 47 days you can fire the whole trickle-down, on-your-own, look-the-other way crowd in Washington who has led us down this disastrous path. Don't just get rid of one guy. Get rid of this administration, Get rid of this philosophy. Get rid of the do-nothing approach to our economic problem and put somebody in there who's going to fight for you." -Barack H. Obama

With the explosion of news coming out of the financial markets these days you could be led to believe the United States is on the verge of a massive economic collapse on par with the Great Depression. The stock market plunges 500 points one day on the news of AIG's impending failure then rebounds 700 points the next two days. Markets in other countries have to be closed because they are rising too fast! All this on the news that the Federal Government is coming to the rescue with hundreds of billions of our dollars by assuming control of still more of the mortgage industry. Ahh, the smell of socialism comes to America and Wall Street rejoices. With the collapse of the mortgage industry, a lot of politicians are calling for heads to roll. Somebody should have said something...right? Somebody should have done something...right? Well my friends, somebody did say something and somebody did do something. Step inside a twisted tale Hollywood could have never imagined, yet most assuredly, will vote for...

The Federal National Mortgage Association, aka Fannie Mae, was created in 1938 as part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. Ironically, it was originally created to bail out failing banks after the collapse of the national housing market in the wake of the Great Depression. Borrowers were defaulting on mortgages not unlike they are in the current situation. Fannie Mae was established in order to provide local banks with federal money to finance home mortgages in an attempt to raise the level of home ownership and the availability of affordable housing. It operated like a national savings and loan, allowing local banks to charge low interest rates on mortgages for the benefit of home buyers.

In 1968, due to economic pressure created by the Vietnam War, President Lyndon B. Johnson privatized Fannie Mae in order to remove it from the federal budget. At this point, Fannie Mae began operating as a GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise), generating profits for stock holders while enjoying the benefits of exemption from taxation and oversight as well as implied government backing.

The Federal Home Mortgage Corporation, aka Freddie Mac, was created in 1970 also as a GSE privately owned and operated by shareholders and financially backed by the Federal Government.  These government protections include access to a line of credit through the U.S. Treasury, exemption from state and local income taxes and exemption from SEC oversight. Freddie Mac was created largely for the purpose of preventing Fannie Mae from operating as a monopoly.

Although these entities have been getting all the media attention due to their recent failures, the true culprit of the mortgage debacle is something called The Community Reinvestment Act, signed into law by Jimmy Carter in 1977! The CRA allowed banks to lend money based on minority status, not the ability to repay the loans. Banks who were given federal money to lend were assessed ratings that were not based on the soundness of the risk of their loans, but on the number of loans given to minorities. President Bill Clinton took the CRA even farther by committing U.S. banks to make available nearly one TRILLION dollars for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects.

Banks were required to furnish a certain percentage of their loans to low income minorities, regardless of their inability to re-pay the loans, and the banks' ratings were tied to these loans. In other words, the banks could not maintain a high rating unless they participated in this disastrous practice. Government coercion at its finest! The standard 20% down-payment rules were eliminated. New terms of length were installed, abolishing the traditional 20 year mortgage and giving loans of up to 40 years!

Left wing community groups like ACORN were allowed to set up offices to help minorities qualify for  loans and banks were required to accept the information provided by ACORN. Information that was often false! Borrowers, who often made as little as $30K a year, were listed as having incomes of over $70K in order to qualify and the banks were required to accept that information without question. There were even loans like NINJA (no income, no job or assets) loans. Unstable income, such as child support payments or welfare payments, were allowed to be considered part of the borrowers income! How dependable is that for a source of income? This was a disaster waiting to happen. Somebody should have said something! Somebody should have done something! Unfortunately those who opposed the Clinton Administration's Financial Modernization bill were often called bigots for opposing these lending practices that were, on their face, designed to encourage minority participation in home ownership. The reality was that this became a pet banking system for the democratic party and some of its most questionable allies.

Enter Franklin Raines, Vice-Chairman at Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1996. In 1996 he joined the Clinton Administration as the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, where he served until 1998. In 1999, he returned to Fannie Mae, but this time it was as the CEO, the first black man to head a Fortune 500 company. In 2004 Raines accepted what was called an "early retirement" after a report from The Office of Federal Housing Oversight found numerous accounting discrepancies in Fannie Mae's operation. Raines tried to take his money and run, but he did not get away.

Raines was accused by The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the regulating body of Fannie Mae, of widespread accounting errors, which included the shifting of losses so senior executives, such as himself, could earn large bonuses. Exactly the behavior that led to the infamous ENRON scandal.
In 2006, the OFHEO initiated a lawsuit against Raines in order to recover some or all of the $50 million in payments made to Raines based on the falsified earnings statements. He is accused of overstating Fannie Mae's assets to the tune of 6.3 billion dollars.

Then there is the case of James A. Johnson. The same Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight report from September 2004 found that, during Johnson's tenure as CEO, Fannie Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses. This enabled top executives, including Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to receive substantial bonuses in 1998. A 2006 OFHEO report found that Fannie Mae had substantially under reported Johnson's compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million in compensation.

With all these shenanigans going on in government sponsored entities you would think somebody would have wanted to get involved. Somebody should have said something...right? Well, somebody did, as this report from 2003 indicates:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt - is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. -New York Times

Though the President was attempting to take action he was of course met with criticism from the usual cast of characters whose statements now seem rather foolish:

''These two entities 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." 
 -Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

''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."  -Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina

That's keeping your eye on the ball. Why do you think these democrats were so defensive of this particular enterprise? Why would they go out on a limb to defend the indefensible? As always those who sought to criticize the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were accused of bigotry and hostility to the poor. Still, somebody else did dare to say something in 2005:

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, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that 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. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs-and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. 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.

Who was this man who dared to present legislation to gain control of these two GSE entities that were running amok? Senator John S. McCain. It looks like he was ahead of the curve on this economic crisis just like he was ahead of the curve on the need for more troops in Iraq. What were the objectives of this bill?

In lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and  the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.

Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting.

Like the Bush administration's attempt to reign in the renegade GSE's two years earlier, this bill failed to get through congress. In fact it died in committee. Is it a coincidence that the ranking Democrat on the committee (and its current chairman) is also the number one recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae? Senator Chris Dodd received $165,400 in contributions from the wayward GSE. It appears to be money well spent as it helped Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac navigate the hostile waters of republican meddling. After the Democrats retook the House and Senate in 2006 it looked like smooth sailing. Well, until the housing market hit its zenith and started to slow down, causing home values to go down and these dubious mortgages to accelerate their defaulting.

Which brings us to the conclusion of our master deception. How does this play out to the voters in this year's presidential election? Well, there is an interesting twist to the final act in this drama. Consider this statement concerning the action the government is now taking to try and rescue the situation:

"One of the central requirements that I have consistently set in evaluating any intervention under this new legislation is that such action protect taxpayers and not bail out senior management from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Multi-million dollar severance payments for the executives who helped steer these institutions into the current crisis situation would violate the spirit of the authority granted by Congress to the Treasury Department and would violate the public's trust." -Barack H. Obama

It would appear from this statement that Barack Obama feels that the executives of these companies are the villains. Strange when one considers that both Franklin Raines and James Johnson, the two CEO's who profited from the fraudulent and misrepresented reporting at Fannie Mae, have found themselves working for... Barack Obama! That's right. Mr. Obama, who claims to be worried about violating the public's trust, has found it within himself to trust these two criminal CEO's to work with his campaign. I guess the reason he did not want the government to bail out the senior officials of these companies is because he wanted to bail them out himself! And this from a man who claims his "judgement" qualifies him for the presidency.

James A. Johnson was tapped by Obama to head his search committee to choose his Vice President. Perhaps another disastrous failure in and of itself considering the result. And though Obama is attempting to deny that Franklin Raines is actually one of his economic advisers, Raines has already confirmed that he has had several "conversations" with Obama regarding economic policy and, ironically, the mortgage crisis. I guess you can say Obama showed good "judgement" by consulting an "expert" on the subject. This is extremely disconcerting when one considers that presidents generally pick their staff and cabinet from the pool of people who advise them during their campaigns. How does the prospect of Franklin Raines' and James Johnson's hands fondling the federal treasury appeal to you?

Obama also has dirty hands when it come to being a recipient of some of Fannie Mae's "generosity" regarding political contributions. Fannie Mae donated $126,349 to Obama. Second only to Senator Dodd, and we know what "favors" they received from him. What, praytell, do they expect to receive from Obama? With the taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars, why would Obama accept contributions from such a source? In fairness, the list of Senators and representatives that have received contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from 1989 to 2008 is a long one. John McCain himself received $21,550. But Obama has only been in the senate since 2004! Yet he is the second largest recipient! So much for change you can believe in.

In conclusion, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, combined with enhancements to The Community Reinvestment Act, have been creations and favored pets of democrats and Clinton administration appointees. It was an illusion that on its face appeared to be designed to make mortgages available to people who were ill suited to pay for them. Hidden from public view, it was a banking system to funnel money to left wing operations and democratic operatives who were handsomely rewarded for their misreporting and misrepresenting of the going's on within their criminal enterprise.

Remember when Nancy Pelosi came in as Speaker of the House and promised the most ethical House of Representatives ever? Where are the prosecutions? The investigations? Funny how she loses interest in such ethical matters when its the Democrats who are on the take. Gotta restart those "impeach Bush" hearings again!

Try as he might, there is no way Barack Obama can lay this crisis at the feet of the Bush administration or John McCain. Both men made valiant attempts at intervening. Somebody should have said something. They did. Somebody should have done something. They did. Unfortunately too many others were looking out for their own interests and not the taxpayers. Don't be deceived any further. It is Barack Obama and his sycophants whose lips are firmly wrapped around Fannie Mae's nipples...and you know what that sucking sound is!