OzarkGuru's blog

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: With the presidential election upon us, many people are also focused on the economy. However, we know from history that we will be able to correct our economic problem even if it takes longer than our American tendency to want instant solutions for everything. However, because of the economic crisis, many voters are ignoring the most significant issue that our next president is directly responsible to address. That issue is the very real global threat to America's very survival. Since confronting this threat every day is not part of our personal daily routine and responsibilities (until it is too late), we tend to be myopic and look at the "me things."

If inexperienced or burdened down with domestic and economic cares, voters may not comprehend or may even forget the bigger picture -- surviving the very "real" foreign enemies that literally hate our culture, democracy, traditions, freedoms, religions, materialism, and way of living. In fact, they hate us (i.e., you). In our daily bickering over small things, we tend to ignore the big dangers because we can we do nothing about them individually.

To put "just one" of the threats into perspective, consider an article in the October issue of Imprimis published by Hillsdale College that addresses Iran. The article was adapted from a speech by Michael Ledeen. Michael Ledeen is the Freedom Scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a contributing editor at National Review Online. Previously, he served in the White House as a national security advisor and in the Departments of Defense and State. He is author of more than 20 books, including The Iranian Time Bomb. His articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the American Spectator, International Economy, Commentary, and the Washington Times.

The article is too long to quote here so I encourage you to visit and the read the article online. However, below are Lendeen's closing words which highlight just one of the many countries whose government leaders hate America and who wish our demise as the principle leader of the 'free world":

"The bottom line is that Iran is our principal enemy in the Middle East, and perhaps in the entire world. It is also a terribly vulnerable regime, and it knows that—which is why it makes up stories about airplanes and missiles that it doesn’t have. As for the question of nuclear weapons, it seems hard to imagine that Iran does not already have them. Iranians are not stupid, and they have been at this for a minimum of 20 years in a world where almost every major component needed for a nuclear weapon—not to mention old nuclear weapons—are for sale. A lot of these components are for sale nearby in Pakistan. And if the Iranians do have a weapon, it is impossible to imagine that, at a moment of crisis, they will not use it. The point is, we have an implacable enemy which has no intention of negotiating a settlement with us. They want us dead or dominated, just as our enemies did in the 1930s and ’40s. You can’t make deals with a regime like that.

Our choices with regard to Iran are to challenge them directly and win this war now, to do so only after they kill a lot more of us in some kind of attack, or to surrender. There is no painless way out, and the longer we wait, the greater the pain is going to be."

So, who is best to challenge Iran and other enemies of our Nation - Obama or McCain? The most critical and therefore, important issue is not "change" but survival -- how will America continue to physically exist as a country and a democracy with guaranteed individual freedoms and rights. Who will be the best president to protect us from our foreign enemies (even while we continue our internal domestic bickering over almost everything)?

Do we pick Obama - a younger inexperienced (i.e., non-experienced) smooth talking candidate who is an anti-traditional family values advocate and unfortunately already has a past full of bad choices and savory associations? Following the mantra of "Change" is not the answer because the issue is then "change from what and to what" and importantly, the consequences of the "change." Change can mean a lot of things. We have recently experienced a lot of negative economic change which can be directly associated with Obama's associates in and out of Congress. And how can a person who voted "present" verses "yes or no" on a majority of his votes in the Illinois and US Senates be prepared to address the most important issues of our time? Voting present is not good enough when dealing with threats to America. Obama promises talk and compromise and appears willing to concede ground to our enemies (i.e., using an appeasement approach).

Or, do we pick McCain -- an older but scarred and proven warrior who is the straight talking man who is called a maverick for taking consistent stands and speaking the truth even within his own party? An experienced candidate who understands the threats to our country from outside our borders. A man who served his country in war and understands the pain and suffering. A man who while addressing the enemy understands compassion and forgiveness towards those who even tortured him. McCain is willing and able to clearly detail to our enemies (those who wish us harm and / or even destroy us) the limits of our tolerance and a clear understanding of the consequences for pursuing further aggressive acts, actions that threaten America.

The American people have voiced poll after poll their continued negative opinion of the present Congress lead by Democrats and have given the Democrat leadership the lowest ratings in history. It is from this pool of Democrats that a junior inexperienced member has come forth to be their candidate for president. Not a person who stood on principles against his own failing political party leadership but instead pandered for items he wished and voted absent or present on the other issues. If Obama were to become president, he will be again supporting these same failing "tax and spend" liberal leaders: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. And then who will save us from our enemies?

Bill Smith, Editor: Like most Americans, I identify with Joe the Plumber who wants to work, invest, own and seek the American dream of being successful. But, we are faced with a government that wants to tax our success for working hard to support others who have settled for less - government handouts - and thus live off the labors of "us." I'm not talking about those who can't work or are temporarily down on their luck through no fault of their own. But I am tired of government people, like Sen. Barack Obama, who want to to take my money and then redistribute (give) my money to those who can work to provide for themselves and those under their care. I especially don't like their giving my money to those who made past mistakes, made poor decisions or are just plain are lazy and now want to avoid the consequences of their actions, laziness, mistakes or poor decisions. Also, have you noted that while taxing "us" for working, the government keeps their "operational cut" which tends to grow over time. I join Joe the Plumber is saying Don't tax me for working hard or for having worked hard to save for my family's future!

Bill Smith, Editor, ARRA News: I received these first words from a reader and wondered how I could use them. Well this weekend's news provided the opportunity.

"Something to think about. Just a few points to ponder. Anyone who's gone through the Security Clearance procedures in the Military" (even Gen. Colin Powell), FBI, CIA, Secret Service or other agency requiring securing, processing and handing of classified information and documents "can verify that this is a valid point to ponder: 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 is elected President he would not qualify to be his own body guard!"

Kind of makes you wonder where General / Former Sec. of State Colin Powell's head was at when he endorsed Obama. Powell didn't resign his commission and therefore he is still responsible to his oath of office. Upon what valid basis did he support a person for Commander-in-Chief who may well have been disqualified for military service, etc. A man who used hard drugs which would not be waived for a commission as an officer. A man who has been associated in his past and present life with a former anarchist, shady Chicago back room deals, a black supremacist pastor, a communist mentor, and close family (blood) relatives and foreign leaders in an African country with ties to radicals and terrorists. It is beyond reasonable belief that one of our former popular Generals who served as a Republican leader and was sought by his party to consider running for president would now endorse Obama.

Obama's stated beliefs and principles are so diametrically different from those previously espoused by Powell. Also, Obama's actions and associations would not have been "becoming for a junior officer" under Powell's command. As a retired officer, I am still reeling from the above thoughts. Surely race could not have been a factor in Powell's decision. And yet, Powell related in his public endorsement that 'the prospect of Obama becoming the first African American president would 'electrify the world.'" More disturbing is the fact that Powell "expressed disappointment" of McCain's selection of a woman - Gov. Sarah Palin - to be his vice presidential running mate. In 2000, Powell campaigned for John McCain for President and may very well feel betrayed for not being selected for the VP nomination. One wonders at this late endorsement about Powell's feelings on a woman being selected over either Powell or another a person Powell would have approved of as VP. Powell calls Biden a good choice, when Biden and Powell were seldom on the same page on core issues or values.

Powell became a 4-star General, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, national Security advisor and Secretary of State under Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W, Bush. Now this singular decision made by Powell to publicly influence voters for Obama over McCain, a fellow military man who "really served" his country, is almost too much to take-in. And the alleged reason for Powell's endorsement - McCain selected a woman for VP and Obama as a black president may electrify the world. Powell's decision left many feeling like the people must have felt when their "Knight" lost their "shining armour."

Yes, Powell has the right to vote and support whoever he wishes but now he joins the ranks of people like Wesley Clark, as empty suits seeking another moment of fame. My suggestion to all is "THINK, Before YOU VOTE!" The choice: Obama the young smooth talking inexperienced socialist who is also an anti-traditional family values advocate or McCain the older but scarred proven warrior who is the straight talking man who is a maverick by speaking the truth even within his own party. A maverick who chose a person - yes a woman - outside of Washington politics to help him stand firm for the American people against the onslaught of a Democrat controlled Senate and House led by an inept Harry Reid and the "beyond the pale" Nancy Pelosi. Again, "THINK -- THINK, Before YOU VOTE!"

Ozark Guru - Also read: Commentary: Obama's Abortion Extremism -- Follows is a flashback to a post by Peter J. Smith, LifeSiteNews.com, which addressed Barack Obama position on abortion and Freedom of Choice Act!

Barack Obama, the . . pro-abortion nominee of the Democratic Party, has plans to reward the allies that helped him . . . by making total unrestricted abortion in the United States his number one priority as president. "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," Obama said in his July speech to abortion advocates worried about the increase of pro-life legislation at the state level. The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion. The 2007 version of FOCA proposed: "It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman." Obama made his remarks in a question-and-answer session after delivering a speech crystallizing for abortion advocates his deep-seated abortion philosophy and his belief that federal legislation will break pro-life resistance and end the national debate on abortion. (see transcript) "I am absolutely convinced that culture wars are so nineties; their days are growing dark, it is time to turn the page," Obama said in July. "We want a new day here in America. We're tired about arguing about the same ole' stuff. And I am convinced we can win that argument." Besides making abortion on demand a "fundamental right" throughout the United States, FOCA would effectively nullify informed consent laws, waiting periods, health safety regulations for abortion clinics, etc. Furthermore, medical professionals and institutions that refused abortions also would lose legal protections. FOCA would expose individuals, organizations, and governments - including federal, state, and local government agencies - to costly civil actions for purported violations of the act. . . . Obama has won the crucial endorsement of abortion activist Frances Kissling, . . . saying Obama . . . would better use the bully pulpit of the presidency to accomplish their aims and end the culture wars over abortion. See related links: Sen. Barack Obama's July 17, 2007 Speech to Planned Parenthood (transcript) Senate version of FOCA House version of FOCA Editorial: The Hope of a Sophist: The Rhetoric of Barack Obama Obama says Sermon on the Mount Supports Same-Sex Unions

ARRA News Service - Dan Spencer reports that in Ohio, a state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit was against the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The lawsuit alleges ACORN has engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity that amounts to organized crime. It seeks ACORN's dissolution as a legal entity, the revocation of any licenses in Ohio, and an injunction against fraudulent voter registration and other illegal activities. According to the press release, Plaintiffs Jennifer Miller of Mason, Ohio and Kimberly Grant of Loveland, allege that ACORN's actions deprive them of the right to participate in an honest and effective elections process:

They allege fraudulent voter registrations submitted by ACORN dilute the votes of legally registered voters. "The right to cast a vote that is not diluted by fraudulent votes is a fundamental individual right," Buckeye Institute President David Hansen said. "ACORN appears to be recklessly disregarding Ohio laws and adding thousands of fraudulent voters to the state's roles in the process," Maurice Thompson, Director of the Buckeye Institute's 1851 Center for Constitutional Law said. "Such voter fraud erodes the value of legally cast votes," he added. In the complaint, Thompson cites an accumulation of evidence showing numerous instances of admitted fraud by ACORN employees, as well as individuals solicited by ACORN. "In light of its hiring, training and compensation practices, ACORN should have known its conduct would cause fraud," Thompson said. "It also should know that its conduct will cause fraud in the future." In addition, the complaint cites conduct by ACORN in Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

TBlumer reports Obama’s name comes up at least three times in the complaint:

(Page 3) 18. Defendant is engaged in massive voter registration drives and political canvassing throughout the state of Ohio and the United States of America; some of this work is performed on behalf of current United States of America presidential candidate Barack Obama. (Page 3) 19. ACORN’s political wing has endorsed Barack Obama for president, and during the primary season, the Obama camp paid Citizen Service Inc., $832,598 for various political services according to Federal Elections Commission filings. Citizen Services, Inc. and ACORN share the same board of directors. (Page 9) 69. In Texas, where ACORN’s affiliate, Citizens Services Inc., has provided contract work on behalf of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, the Houston Chronicle reported on August 17, 2008 that “About 40 percent of the 27,000 registration cards gathered by ACORN from January through July have been rejected or placed in limbo pending the gathering of more information, according to the county” while “about 6,600 were filled out by people already registered, and many others contained insufficient information.” A full copy of the complaint is available here.

See also: ACORN Registers a 7 Year Old Mickey Mouse Registers to Vote Obama Invites ACORN To Shape Presidency Stop ACORN Now

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Why are the liberal media and Obama supporters promoting racism? If I said whites are voting only white, I would be using race to influence the election and could well be called a racist. The liberal news media and supporters of Obama’s campaign have repeatedly reported that black Americans will be voting for Barack Obama. They continue to say this because Barack Obama is black. This is classic racism!

In the United States, we have a problem of labeling of our fellow citizens. The government has aggravated this problem by creating reporting classifications. It is understandable that a person may seek out their genetic cultural ancestry / heritage. Barack Obama may have more right under our present classification system to call himself African American since his father was actually from Africa. But if born in the Unites States, what does this have to do with running for office? Calling someone African American is somewhat confusing in that a native born American descendant of someone from Morocco or South America could rightly be called African American even if white or black.

Years ago while stationed in Belgium, I attended an international church which had members from 22 countries (nations), 11 of which were African countries. One of my American military co-workers was a fellow member in the church. He said that several church members from the African countries had told him to stop calling himself an African American. They told him that he was not African and should feel blessed to be an American. What an eye opener and an opportunity for us to discuss at length the complex labeling system that we have in the United States. What was even more interesting is that these African brothers said if we were going to hyphenate our heritage, we should call ourselves US-Americans. None of the members from African countries called themselves African. Yes, they obviously knew that their countries were on the continent of Africa. Each of them identified themselves with their specific country and often with their local tribal or people group. Regardless of our countries of origin, we found a solid foundation upon which to build friendships and relationships.

Back to the subject of the biased liberal news media which appears to constantly promote racial bias for or against a candidate. Obviously, the media could “not” get away with saying all Iowans are voting for a specific candidate. However, they have no problem stating that almost all blacks are voting for Barack Obama. What they really are presumptuously saying is that blacks will be voting for Obama because he is black! Hogwash!

Some of the most ardent conservatives I know are black. I can assure you they will not be voting or supporting Barack Obama. Does the media believe that Thomas Sowell, Dr. Walter E. Williams, Ken Blackwell, Erik Rush, Larry Elder, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Michael Steele, Gen. Colin Powell, Star Parker, Alveda King, Michael L. Williams, Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, Alan Keyes, the black members of conservative think-tanks and conservative political groups, the elected black Republicans, and a multitude of black evangelical pastors and all the people they reach and influence regardless of skin pigmentation will be voting for Obama? To the liberal media, only their biases matter and they believe blacks should vote for a black. It makes me wonder where the liberal media acquired its Southern plantation mentality. By their actions and statements, the liberal elites appear to be people that would be fine measuring the shapes of people’s heads and claiming that only their criteria results in an acceptable outcome. I believe the world has seen this failed approach before.

The biased liberal media hopes that the voting public doesn’t notice that it should be character, past performance, beliefs and ideals that should be considered. The liberal media uses its position to "bully" people to vote the way that they the liberals wishes for them to vote. The liberal media is not reporting but is actively endorsing and promoting a candidate for the president of the Unites States. Why? Good Question! The programs of socialism being pushed include the redistribution of wealth, limiting free speech, controlling banking, business, employment, housing, medical, retirement, etc. All of these lead to a socialist “womb to tomb” control with no one having the individual right to be oneself and to control one’s own destiny. We all become enslaved to those controlling the socialist structure. Man’s free choice dies and with it the real hope of mankind.

Below are interesting posts written by fellow conservatives and recommended by a fellow conservative Frances Rice, Chair, National Black Republican Association:
Lewis, A Lazy Media, And Their Race Cards by Bob Parks
WSJ - Whitewash - The racist history the Democratic Party wants you to forget by Bruce Bartlett
WSJ - The Democrats' Missing History By Jeffery Lord
Democrats refuse to apologize to blacks By Frances Rice
Will Republicans Wimp Out On Race? By Clarence V. McKee

America is about to be ruled by an illegitimate government founded on fraud and outright criminality. Bill Wilson, Americans for Limited Government: All governments rise or fall on the degree to which the people find them legitimate. When the people no longer believe a government has gained power by legitimate means or that a government operates in an honest and legitimate manner, only force and intimidation maintains it. And as history has shown repeatedly, no amount of force or state-terror against the populous is ever enough to prevail. True, brute thuggish tactics can hold off the will of the people for a long time. It worked for over 70 years in Russia, but only 12 in Nazi Germany. It has been effective in Cuba for nearly 50 years, but fell quickly in Cambodia.

One of the true strengths of the United States has been the accepted process for the peaceful transfer of power from one group of people to another. This process, elections held at regular intervals, has conferred that most precious of all commodities on the United States Government: legitimacy. But in 2008, in a desperate drive for power, that most valuable of gifts from our Founding Fathers is being abused and discarded. Simply put, it is becoming more and more evident every day that the elections this year may not be legitimate, that the “winners” will not be able to claim they assumed office in a fair and open manner. In short, we could be about to be ruled by an illegitimate government founded on fraud and outright criminality.   All across America reports are coming in of obvious voter fraud. . . . [ARRA News -- Full Story on Legitimacy]

Dr. Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Is the doctrine of Posse Comitatus coming to an end? The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878 and has been an important law. Wikipedia reflects:

"The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services ... from exercising nominally state law enforcement police or peace officer powers that maintain 'law and order' on non-federal property. . . . The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. . . . The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement."

Gina Cavallaro at the Army Times announced reports: 3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping ‘people at home’ may become a permanent part of the active Army.

The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys. Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home. Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or man made emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas. But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities. . . .

“Right now, the response force requirement will be an enduring mission. How the [Defense Department] chooses to source that and whether or not they continue to assign them to NorthCom, that could change in the future,” said Army Col. Louis Vogler, chief of NorthCom future operations. “Now, the plan is to assign a force every year.” . . . they’ll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it. They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack. . . .

Obviously, we would appreciate the military's assistance if we had a massive terrorist attack in the United States; especially with the taking out the "bad guys."  But do we want the military doing police actions related to routine national, regional or even local "civil unrest and crowd control"? When did the transfer of authority occur which granted military control within the the borders of the Unites States? Before proceeding, let me note that military officers take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. In the study of military doctrine and history, military officers confront the theory and past applications as to the extent military officers and the people under their command may be or have been called upon to intervene in domestic affairs. However, Posse Comitatus has provided a clear line in the sand.

Presidents have used the military to enforce their will within the United States. For example George Washington, our first president, used his authority as commander-in-chief in 1794 to call out the militia to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion. President Andrew Jackson ignored the 1832 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and forced removal of Native Americans from East of the Mississippi which lead to the infamous Trail of Tears. In 1878, after the bitterness of the Civil War and the quartering of Union troops in the South, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act. However, Presidents continued to use the military and the National Guard to enforce their will on the citizens of the Unites States.

One of the worst examples of the use of the military was in the summer of 1932 against 43,000 fellow military veterans, their families and affiliated groups who had assembled in Washington D.C. in what became known as the famous Bonus March. Skipping the merits of the Bonus Army and moving to the conclusion, we find President Herbert Hoover using the military led by General Douglas MacArthur to suppress and disburse fellow veterans. By the time the events ended, hundreds of veterans were injured and several were killed. In this situation, "The Posse Comitatus Act — forbidding civilian police work by the U.S. military — did not legally because Washington, D.C. is a federal district directly governed by the U.S. Congress (U.S. Constitution, Article I. Section 8. Clause 17)."

In 2005, we saw National Guard assist in the aftermath of Katrina in Louisiana and Mississippi. However, the National Guard and the New Orleans police overstepped their legal authority, per the U.S. District Court, and illegally confiscated the personal firearms of vulnerable civilians after the hurricane's devastation left property and lives subject to looters and other criminals. Have we and our leaders accepted that Constitutional Rights granted by the US constitution are sacrosanct?

Apparently not! Currently, individual rights may be more at risk as we address the potential of terrorist threats against the United States. The effects of the infamous terrorists attacks on 9-11 continue to ripple through our country. For example, in 2006, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 passed and was signed into law. The Act included a section titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies." This section provided that "The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines...." However, in 2008, Congress while passing the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, restored the restrictions of Posse Comitatus. President George Bush signed the Act into law but he also attached an Executive Order identifying that the Executive Branch does not feel bound by the changes enacted by the repeal of the use of armed forces to restore public order in the United States. As previously presidents have done, Bush signaled that he does do not feel bound by Posse Comitatus.

We are now brought full circle to the announcement of the assignment of an Army brigade as well as other service units to enforce the will of the President and or the Department of Defense with regard to homeland security. Even if military units are not used for several years to respond to domestic threats and are not used in any way for several years to restrict the rights of Americans, the result will still be the continued implied transference of authority as troops continue to be assigned to a domestic charter and the leaders of these units develop a comprehensive doctrine designed to cope with domestic situations. Historically, the year 2008 may become identified as the year that the doctrine of Posse Comitatus ceased to have authority.
---------------
William (Bill) Smith, Ph.D. is editor of the ARRA News Service and National Political Director of Let's Get This Right. He is a conservative political activists working for limited government, traditional family values, individual freedom and responsibility. He is a retired Air Force officer who served as Director of the $2 billion European F-16 co-production program. In his career, he also taught military political science and spent a 3 year tour with the U.S. Army. After retiring, he was a graduate professor and held varied administrative and faculty positions. He has authored professional journal articles on varied topics. He also blogs as Ozark Guru.

ARRA News Service - by Alan Gottlieb, AmeriPac: FBI Investigates U.S. Financial Crisis - Where Did $1 Trillion Go? - The high-risk subprime mortgage social engineering community service experiment by left-wing ACORN and Obama has created the largest financial crisis since The Great Depression. The full reach of the corruption and scandal may never be known but those who created it must not be rewarded. The architects, primarily left-wing Democrats, created laws, took donations, looked the other way and instead were too busy overse eing donations to their own presidential campaigns and robbing main street blind. Now these same left-wing Democrats blame everyone else and get up on their high horses and say, “we are here to save you” from the crises they created.

Yes, Mr. Obama knows a great deal about the mess. He is a central figure in the left-wing ACORN exploitation of financial institutions and pressuring them to make high risk loans. The very same left-wing ACORN was guilty of voter fraud in the last presidential election. Now these same Democrats want to do another high risk “community service,” social engineering experiment. They want to elect a high-risk, low experience, socialist one of the same community organizers that created the mess to be our next president. We cannot experiment with the office of president and learn as we go. Barack Obama is not qualified and has no history of success as a leader in government or business.

The FBI investigation - An FBI investigation is under way at Lehman Brothers and three other contributors to America’s financial crisis to determine whether they put pressure on ratings agencies to award top ratings to securities they issued. Concerns that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG or Lehman may have sought to encourage agencies to inflate their ratings — by offering higher fees or the promise of more work — form part of a broad inquiry by the bureau.

The agencies are widely regarded as having failed debt holders by attributing the top ratings to many securities that turned out to be extremely risky and have lost investors hundreds of billions of dollars. The FBI, which is also investigating whether any of the four institutions deliberately misled investors about the true health of their assets, is expected to demand that they “hold all papers and e-mails under lock and key” as it sifts through the evidence, a source said.

How did we get here? - FOLLOW THE MONEY AND CORRUPTION! A Lending Policy created by democrats for democrats run by democrats monitored by democrats enforced by community organizer democrats and profited from by democrats. Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster. ONE key pioneer of ACORN's subprime-loan shakedown racket was Madeline Talbott - an activist with extensive ties to Barack Obama. She was also in on the ground floor of the disastrous turn in Fannie Mae's mortgage policies.

Obama Trains ACORN Staff in Shakedown Tactics - It would be tough to find an "on the ground" community organizer more closely tied to the subprime-mortgage fiasco than Madeline Talbott. And no one has been more supportive of Madeline Talbott than Barack Obama. When Obama was just a budding community organizer in Chicago, Talbott was so impressed that she asked him to train her personal staff. He returned to Chicago in the early '90s, just as Talbott was starting her pressure campaign on local banks. In those years, he also conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN's up-and-coming organizers. That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott's drive against Chicago's banks.

Obama Funds ACORN - More than that, Obama was funding them. As he rose to a leadership role at Chicago's Woods Fund, he became the most powerful voice on the foundation's board for supporting ACORN and other community organizers. In 1995, the Woods Fund substantially expanded its funding of community organizers - and Obama chaired the committee that urged and managed the shift.

That committee's report on strategies for funding groups like ACORN features all the key names in Obama's organizer network. The report quotes Talbott more than any other figure; Sandra Maxwell, Talbott's ACORN ally in the bank battle, was also among the organizers consulted. More, the Obama-supervised Woods Fund report acknowledges the problem of getting donors and foundations to contribute to radical groups like ACORN - whose confrontational tactics often scare off even liberal donors and foundations.

Indeed, the report brags about pulling the wool over the public's eye. The Woods Fund's claim to be "nonideological," it says, has "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government 'establishments' without undue risk of being criticized for partisanship."

Obama Aware of Intimidation Tactics - The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN's Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts.

And, as the leader of another charity, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama channeled more funding Talbott's way - ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORN's overall efforts. In return, Talbott proudly announced her support of Obama's first campaign for state Senate, saying, "We accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer." In short, to understand the roots of the subprime mortgage crisis, look to ACORN's Madeline Talbott. And to see how Talbott was able to work her mischief, look to Barack Obama.