VOTER FRAUD REPORTED IN MICHIGAN – 200,000 NEW REGISTRATIONS – ACORN GROUP TIED TO ACTIVITIES: By Detroit Free Press

BY L.L. BRASIER • FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER • September 14, 2008

Several municipal clerks across the state are reporting fraudulent and duplicate voter registration applications, most of them from a nationwide community activist group working to help low- and moderate-income families.

The majority of the problem applications are coming from the group ACORN, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, which has a large voter registration program among its many social service programs. ACORN’s Michigan branch, based in Detroit, has enrolled 200,000 voters statewide in recent months, mostly with the use of paid, part-time employees.

“There appears to be a sizeable number of duplicate and fraudulent applications,” said Kelly Chesney, spokeswoman for the Michigan Secretary of State’s Office. “And it appears to be widespread.”

Chesney said her office has had discussions with ACORN officials after local clerks reported the questionable applications to the state. Chesney said some of the applications are duplicates and some appear to be names that have been made up. The Secretary of State’s Office has turned over several of the applications to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office on Friday declined to confirm whether an investigation was taking place.

In recent years, ACORN’s voter registration programs have come under investigation in Ohio, Colorado, Missouri and Washington, with some employees convicted of voter fraud.

ACORN officials said they were looking into the problem.

“We’ll do an investigation to see what’s happening,” said David Lagstein, a spokesman for the Detroit office. “If it’s really as many as that, it warrants further investigation.”

In Pontiac, where several thousand applications have been submitted by ACORN in the last few weeks for the November election, the clerk’s office is finding that numerous applications are sometimes filed under one name.

“What it causes is a slowdown of our operations,” said Pontiac City Clerk Yvette Talley. “They’re steadily coming in, and we are finding a huge number of duplications.”

Talley said she could not provide an exact number.

Clerks are required to check their records against a statewide database of all registered voters within their jurisdiction, so it would be unlikely that duplications would allow voters to cast their votes more than once, Talley said.

“We catch them all, but it’s taking up a lot of our time,” she said.

In Oak Park, clerk Sandra Gadd said they have been seeing “lots of duplication” from ACORN in recent months but were reassured by ACORN officials that the group was working to correct the problem.

“They’ve been very cooperative,” Gadd said. “I spoke with them this week. They called me, and they’re willing to go door-to-door to do whatever they have to do to take care of this.”

ACORN is the nation’s largest community organization for low- and moderate-income families. Created more than 30 years ago, it has branches in 100 cities and claims 350,000 families as members. It works to help create affordable housing and health care, and to improve job conditions and neighborhood schools.

Lagstein said ACORN’s Detroit office has hired dozens of employees for the voter registration program and that any problems likely stem from sloppiness or incompetence — not an intent to let people vote more than once.

“We’re proud of our efforts to increase voter registration, and we have aggressive training for our staff to make sure the cards are filled out appropriately,” he said.

ACORN has a method to track the workers who filled out individual registration cards, which will allow investigators to question the workers, Lagstein said.

“We certainly do our best to keep the duplications as low as possible, so we’ll have to evaluate what’s happening here,” he said.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008809140383

The Financial Services & Housing Crisis – How Did We Get Here?

Merril Lynch goes under!

Lehman Brothers will be sold!

Just how did we get here?

There are Politicians who will tell you the failure of these Financial Service Companies are a result of the “bad economy”. THAT CLAIM IS FALSE. 

Thats right.  The economy didn’t cause these companies to fail – implying that the economy did is simply putting the “horse before the cart”.  The same “bad business practices” these companies practiced are to blame for hurting the economy.  The Financial Service Companies that are in trouble today are in that trouble because they invested heavily in “sub-prime”,  “Liar or NINJA” Mortgage Loans. Thats right, the Housing & Financial Services Crisis, like the Housing Crisis is not the result of a faltering economy, instead they are causing the economy to falter.   

The recent “take over” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and today’s sale of Merrril Lynch and the potential bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers is directly related to the number of failing “NINJA or LIAR LOANS” used to back mortgages in an over hyped Housing Market. This situation is similiar to the “Stock Market Bubble” of the 1990’s, when “stocks” were sold on “over evaluated” or “non-existent” companies.        

Ok, so the Feds have announced they will be taking over lending giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The two institutional lenders either hold or back half of the outstanding mortgages in the US.

Lets tell the truth about the sudden and dramatic worsening of the mortgage markets. The foreclosure rate has nearly doubled since the end of March. There are those facing foreclosure due to the slowing economy, but that number of individuals has remained consistent over the months and matches past historical numbers. The “recent financial results and trouble in the mortgage market has shifted to homeowners who took out exotic loans with little or no proof of their income and assets”. http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/sep/05/fannie-mae/. Half of Freddie & Fannie’s  losses come from sour Liar Loans. http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008809070341

The Financial Services Companies in trouble today invested heavily in these same mortgages.

The Obama/Biden ticket are trying to make political hay – claiming the that the culprit for the current surge in foreclosures is the economy – when in fact the blame should be laid squarely on “egregious lending practices and rampant speculation by home builders and small investors alike”. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/1310ap_home_foreclosures.html. For those of us who don’t use “egregious” in everyday speech, Webster’s says it means: conspicuously offensive <flagrant errors>; especially : so obviously inconsistent with what is right or proper as to appear to be a flouting of law or morality <flagrant violations of human rights>.

The Mortgage Industry nicknamed these “egregious” loans “NINJA or LIAR LOANS”.

The Detroit Free Press, known to be a liberal publication, defined  “NINJA LOANS” as loans where little or no effort was made to verify a borrowers income or assets. The FREEP pointed out that NINJA stood for  NO INCOME, NO JOB, NO ASSETS. http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008809070341

NPR, long noted for its liberal bias, referred to “Liar Loans” as, ” where the lender makes no effort to verify the income reported by the person receiving the loan”.   http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8972571

Details of the Feds intervention, which could cost taxpayers billions. Losses on liar & ninja loans could total $900 billion. Lehman Brother’s could lose $150 Billion alone.

Why did the Mortgage Industry recklessly pursue the use of “Liar or Ninja Loans”? The answer to that question is simple – PROFITS.

“The loans were immensely profitable for the mortgage industry because they carried higher fees and interest rates. A broker who signed up a borrower for a liar loan could reap as much as $15,000 in fees for a $300,000 loan. Traditional lending is far less lucrative, netting brokers around $2,000 to $4,000 in fees for a fixed-rate loan”.                                                  http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008809070341

Reckless lending practices have robbed the economy of the capital necessary to fuel economic growth and create jobs.

Liar and Ninja Loans should be prohibited by Congress. Congressional spending needs to be reduced and taxes lowered to foster econmic growth and put America back on track to properity. 

If the Democrats want to effect real change – they need to start telling the real truth. The Freddie/Fannie bailout is directly due to the fact that the institutions embraced reckless lending practices. If the true problem isn’t recognized, it can’t be fixed.

THE BLOOD LETTING CONTINUES

Washington Mutual replaces CEO Kerry Killinger

BY SARA LEPRO, AP Business Writer 2 hours, 58 minutes ago

NEW YORK – Washington Mutual Inc., ravaged by losses from sour mortgages, replaced Kerry Killinger as chief executive of the nation’s largest savings and loan on Monday, adding him to the growing list of banking bosses ousted by their boards. Its shares sank almost 22 percent.

Battered by rising mortgage delinquencies and defaults, and by the sinking value of its mortgage portfolio, WaMu has lost nearly 70 percent of its market value this year.

Killinger, who was stripped of his chairman title in June, became CEO of the Seattle-based thrift in 1990 and built WaMu into one of the country’s largest banks with a heavy focus on the types of mortgages at the heart of the housing bust.

The company expects losses in its residential mortgage portfolio to total $19 milion.               http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080908/ap_on_bi_ge/washington_mutual_ceo

 

Obama Secretly Tried To Stall Troop Withdrawal From Iraq, Reports New York Post

PLAYING POLITICS WITH AMERICAN TROOPS 

New York Post

By Amir Taheri    

September 15, 2008 

While campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops – and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its “state of weakness and political confusion.”

“However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open.” Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is “illegal,” he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the “weakened Bush administration,” Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a “realistic withdrawal date.” They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama’s administration wouldn’t be fully operational before February – and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament – which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm

Obama’s 2007 Interview- ABC’s Charlie Gibson – You can compare

Nearly a year ago, when the inexperienced presidential candidate Barack Obama sat for his first interview with Charles Gibson, the ABC anchor did not try and expose any gaps in Obama’s foreign policy knowledge or press him about his readiness for the job he was seeking. Instead Gibson emphasized Obama’s personal story, about how his parents met, how Obama met his wife, etc.

But just as he did with his Thursday night interview with GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, Gibson did ask Obama about the “hubris” he displayed in seeking the presidency. Here’s the exchange from the November 1, 2007 World News interview: “CHARLES GIBSON: So did you think to yourself, ‘Barack, what kind of hubris is this that I am thinking about being President?”. BARACK OBAMA: Yes. I think if you don’t have enough self-awareness to see the element of megalomania involved in thinking you can be president, then you probably shouldn’t be president. I think there’s a slight madness to thinking that you should be the leader of the free world.

That’s the only similarity to Gibson’s approach to Palin. Gibson sat down with Obama only two months before the Iowa caucuses, when the Illinois Senator was running a strong second to Hillary Clinton in national polls. Yet the questions posed by Gibson at that time stuck to the same positive biographical elements that greeted Obama when he first emerged on the national stage in 2004. ”

Gibson could have been tougher with Obama, who had already inspired ridicule of his foreign policy acumen by suggesting he would meet hostile heads of state without preconditions.

(For details on how the big three broadcast networks showered Obama with good press during the run-up to the Democratic primaries, see the MRC’s Special Report: “Obama’s Margin of Victory: The Media.”)

Here’s the full transcript of the November 1, 2007 segment on ABC’s World News, part of a series of profiles of the leading presidential candidates: CHARLES GIBSON: Next, the presidential race and our attempt to explore the private side of the candidates, to learn about the events and the influences that have shaped them and brought them to this point in their political careers. So today in our “Who Is?” series, a Democrat relatively new to national politics, Senator Barack Obama.

SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: Every man is either trying to live up to his father’s expectations or make up for his father’s mistakes. And, you know, in some ways, I’m probably doing both.

GIBSON: Your mom comes from the Pacific Northwest, migrates to Hawaii, goes to college there, right away, meets a dashing young Kenyan, gets pregnant and the result-

OBAMA: That’s me.

GIBSON: That’s you. (Voiceover) His father got a fellowship to study on the mainland and never came back.

OBAMA: He became sort of a mythic figure. One, one of the great gifts that my mother gave to me was a positive impression of my father despite the fact that he didn’t always behave very well towards her or to his family. And so he was gone by the time I was two.

GIBSON: Obama’s mother would remarry and take her son to Indonesia for five years. Only once again did he ever see his father, that, when Obama was 10. (to Obama) He didn’t care enough to stay.

GIBSON: Obama’s mother would remarry and take her son to Indonesia for five years. Only once again did he ever see his father, that, when Obama was 10. (to Obama) He didn’t care enough to stay.

GIBSON: Obama’s mother would remarry and take her son to Indonesia for five years. Only once again did he ever see his father, that, when Obama was 10. (to Obama) He didn’t care enough to stay.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: How did you internalize that?

OBAMA: My conclusion is that some of my drive comes from wanting to prove that he should have stuck around, that, that I was worthy of his attentions. There’s no doubt that his absence had an impact on me. I engaged in a bunch of self-destructive behavior. I drank. I, you know, tried drugs. I didn’t take my schoolwork seriously.

GIBSON: It all changed for Obama in his final college years. (to Obama) What flipped?

OBAMA: I like to think that, that at some point, the, the better angels of my nature took control and that I had some sense deep inside me that, you know, I could, I could make a contribution.

GIBSON: For five years out of college, he worked to pay off student loans and was a community organizer in Chicago, which led him back to school, Harvard Law School, and on a summer job, met this young woman. (to Obama) Did you know right away?

OBAMA: I knew I liked her right away. Michelle has this wonderful sense of humor. And I knew that right away, she would get the joke. She knew how I looked at the world and appreciated it.

GIBSON: They have two daughters, Malia and Sasha. At first, Obama was intimidated by the Harvard law students.

OBAMA: You got a sense, these folks are running on nuclear energy and I’m running on, on steam.

GIBSON: But he found he could more than hold his own, finishing first in his class and being editor of the ‘Harvard Law Review.” He’s candid: it was at Harvard he first thought of running for President.

OBAMA: I thought these will be the people who will be leading at some point. And, you know, I feel comfortable within this group, being able to lead.

GIBSON: So did you think to yourself, ‘Barack, what kind of hubris is this that I am thinking about being President?”

OBAMA: Yes. I think if you don’t have enough self-awareness to see the element of megalomania involved in thinking you can be president, then you probably shouldn’t be president. I think there’s a slight madness to thinking that you should be the leader of the free world.

GIBSON: You have written, “I learned to slip back and forth between my black and my white worlds.” The simple question I guess is in which world do you really belong?

OBAMA: I think it’s both. What’s interesting is, is how deeply American I feel, considering this exotic background, that, somehow, all this, this amalgam is part of who I am. And that’s part of the reason I love this country so much.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/09/12/2007-interview-abc-s-gibson-greeted-obama-softballs

THESE ARE THE HARD HITTING QUESTIONS GIBSON ASKED OF OBAMA. FOREIGN POLICY? NATO? MISSLE SHIELDS?

WHEN THE YOU HEAR THE PRESS CLAIM THAT OBAMA HAS BEEN FULLY VETTED JUST REMEBER THIS TOUGH INTERVIEW!

Sara Palin’s Unedited Answers to ABC’s Charlie Gibson – ABC’s Mischaracterization of Palin

ABC News Edited Out Key Parts Of Sarah Palin’s Answers

A transcript of the unedited interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson clearly shows that ABC News edited out crucial portions of the interview that showed Palin as knowledgeable or presented her answers out of context. This unedited transcript of the first of the Gibson interviews with Palin is available on radio host Mark Levin’s website. The sections edited out by ABC News are in bold. The first edit shows Palin responding about meeting with foreign leaders but this was actually in response to a question Gibson asked several questions earlier:

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.
 

Next we see that Palin was not nearly as hostile towards Russia as was presented in the edited interview:

GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.

PALIN: Sure.

GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.

The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

 

We also see from Palin’s following remark, which was also edited out, that she is far from some sort of latter day Cold Warrior which the edited interview made her seem to be:

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

 

Palin’s extended remarks about defending our NATO allies were edited out to make it seem that she was ready to go to war with Russia. 

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

 

That answer presented Palin as a bit too knowledgeable for the purposes of ABC News and was, of course, edited out. Palin’s answers about a nuclear Iran were carefully edited to the point where she was even edited out in mid-sentence to make it seem that Palin favored unilateral action against that country:

GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.

GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right?

PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.

GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program.

PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.

 

Laughably, a remark by Gibson that indicated he agreed with Palin was edited out:

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.

But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.

That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.

Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”

 

Gibson took her point about Lincoln’s words but we wouldn’t know that by watching the interview since it was left on the cutting room floor. I urge everybody to see just how the unedited version of the first interview compared to what we saw on television  by checking out the full transcript. It is a fascinating look into media manipulation via skillful editing.

Compare this interview with Gibson’s 2007 Obama Interview Here: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/obamas-2007-interview-abcs-charlie-gibson-you-can-compare/ 
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview