Saturday, October 18, 2008

Muslims Discovered America ..."?"

The following video is an integral part of this commentary...please watch and listen to learn how some well known institutions of higher learning have been accepting bribe money to dramatically change the basic concepts upon which this country was founded. ~ Norman E. Hooben
video

I have been a long time critic of the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) and Institutions of higher learning…they are actually a seditious group of educators that want to re-write history. Further, they do this not only to indoctrinate (brainwash) our children but to blindly fill their coffers with dirty money from countries that want to do us harm. The greed for multimillion dollar donations has not been thought through as to the harm that will eventually (and currently) come to America. But just a minute…maybe it has been thought through.

Back in 1932 there was no such thing as the Department of Education. There was, however a number of books published during that time that included one by the head of the Communist Party in America, William Foster. He (Foster) was one of the first to suggest a National (federal government controlled) Department of Education (side note: Foster was born in my home town of Taunton, Massachusetts).
Another writer and Educator, George Counts blatantly suggested that, “…teachers should deliberately reach for power and then make the most of their conquest in order to influence the social attitudes of the coming generations…”
So hold it right there! Have not all these things come to be? A Department of Education, both at the national and state level. Teachers reach for power? You bet! The National Teachers Association (NEA) is one of the most powerful groups in the country! In collusion with the DOE they have succeeded in getting control of the school systems all over America. In doing so they have slowly but intentionally changed the mindsets of our children.
This change has but one intent; to get rid of God and religion in favor of one humanistic approach to our view of the world.
"Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting for an hour once a week, teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?" – John Dewy 1933
Now the Humanists and the Communists both took the long view to change things. That is they knew it would take several generations before their ideology would usurp the Judeo-Christian and capitalistic mindset of the pioneers that shaped America. And that generation has arrived.

It has arrived but it has not been fully empowered. But they’re close. Very close. To complete the takeover will probably take just one more generation and they’re doing that with money. Money donated by enemies of the state to bribe our institutions of higher learning. Blatantly bribe them with unheard amounts of money! Greed. It will do us all in! - Norman E. Hooben

Friday, October 17, 2008

The Judeo-Christion Way To Go - So we pray at different Houses of Worship...Vote like your a Catholic!

It's the Constitutional way...vote your heart and not your party!


We're all in this together...lets keep it that way.



What A Story !!! Has 1984 arrived?

Cross posted from http://caffinequeen.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/obama-will-send-his-thugs-if-you-speak-against-the-one/#comment-734

Obama Will Send His Thugs if You speak Against The One

Here is radio host Roger Hedgecock interviewing Jessica Huges about a simple phone call that prompted a visit from the FBI.

All of America needs to be aware that this type of thing really does happen.

Am I alone in thinking this is completely out of control? The woman speaks her mind and gets a visit from the Secret Service and a bogus claim that she made a death threat? Admonishments for rudeness? From Obama supporters no less. We all know how polite they are! (Eyes rolling, throwing up in my mouth a little!)

Was this an abuse of power and a waste of taxpayer's money sending the Secrte Service to interogate this woman?




Why was I always blaming Bill Clinton? ...from the archives, here's just one answer.

"...a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks."
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities
- Howard Husock

The Community Reinvestment Act funnels billions to left-wing activists, while threatening to destabilize lower-middle-class neighborhoods.
Winter 2000

The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects, most of it funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups, intent, in some cases, on teaching their low-income clients that the financial system is their enemy and, implicitly, that government, rather than their own striving, is the key to their well-being.

The CRA's premise sounds unassailable: helping the poor buy and keep homes will stabilize and rebuild city neighborhoods. As enforced today, though, the law portends just the opposite, threatening to undermine the efforts of the upwardly mobile poor by saddling them with neighbors more than usually likely to depress property values by not maintaining their homes adequately or by losing them to foreclosure. The CRA's logic also helps to ensure that inner-city neighborhoods stay poor by discouraging the kinds of investment that might make them better off.

The Act, which Jimmy Carter signed in 1977, grew out of the complaint that urban banks were "redlining" inner-city neighborhoods, refusing to lend to their residents while using their deposits to finance suburban expansion. CRA decreed that banks have "an affirmative obligation" to meet the credit needs of the communities in which they are chartered, and that federal banking regulators should assess how well they do that when considering their requests to merge or to open branches. Implicit in the bill's rationale was a belief that CRA was needed to counter racial discrimination in lending, an assumption that later seemed to gain support from a widely publicized 1990 Federal Reserve Bank of Boston finding that blacks and Hispanics suffered higher mortgage-denial rates than whites, even at similar income levels.

In addition, the Act's backers claimed, CRA would be profitable for banks. They just needed a push from the law to learn how to identify profitable inner-city lending opportunities. Going one step further, the Treasury Department recently asserted that banks that do figure out ways to reach inner-city borrowers might not be able to stop competitors from using similar methods—and therefore would not undertake such marketing in the first place without a push from Washington.

None of these justifications holds up, however, because of the changes that reshaped America's banking industry in the 1990s. Banking in the 1970s, when CRA was passed, was a highly regulated industry in which small, local savings banks, rather than commercial banks, provided most home mortgages. Regulation prohibited savings banks from branching across state lines and sometimes even limited branching within states, inhibiting competition, the most powerful defense against discrimination. With such regulatory protection, savings banks could make a comfortable profit without doing the hard work of finding out which inner-city neighborhoods and borrowers were good risks and which were not. Savings banks also had reason to worry that if they charged inner-city borrowers a higher rate of interest to balance the additional risk of such lending, they might jeopardize the protection from competition they enjoyed. Thanks to these artificially created conditions, some redlining of creditworthy borrowers doubtless occurred.

The insular world of the savings banks collapsed in the early nineties, however, the moment it was exposed to competition. Banking today is a far more wide-open industry, with banks offering mortgages through the Internet, where they compete hotly with aggressive online mortgage companies. Standardized, computer-based scoring systems now rate the creditworthiness of applicants, and the giant, government-chartered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have helped create huge pools of credit by purchasing mortgage loans and packaging large numbers of them together into securities for sale to bond buyers. With such intense competition for profits and so much money available to lend, it's hard to imagine that banks couldn't instantly figure out how to market to minorities or would resist such efforts for fear of inspiring imitators. Nor has the race discrimination argument for CRA held up. A September 1999 study by Freddie Mac, for instance, confirmed what previous Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation studies had found: that African-Americans have disproportionate levels of credit problems, which explains why they have a harder time qualifying for mortgage money. As Freddie Mac found, blacks with incomes of $65,000 to $75,000 a year have on average worse credit records than whites making under $25,000.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas had it right when it said—in a paper pointedly entitled "Red Lining or Red Herring?"—"the CRA may not be needed in today's financial environment to ensure all segments of our economy enjoy access to credit." True, some households—those with a history of credit problems, for instance, or those buying homes in neighborhoods where re-selling them might be difficult—may not qualify for loans at all, and some may have to pay higher interest rates, in reflection of higher risk. But higher rates in such situations are balanced by lower house prices. This is not a conspiracy against the poor; it's how markets measure risk and work to make credit available.

Nevertheless, until recently, the CRA didn't matter all that much. During the seventies and eighties, CRA enforcement was perfunctory. Regulators asked banks to demonstrate that they were trying to reach their entire "assessment area" by advertising in minority-oriented newspapers or by sending their executives to serve on the boards of local community groups. The Clinton administration changed this state of affairs dramatically. Ignoring the sweeping transformation of the banking industry since the CRA was passed, the Clinton Treasury Department's 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating much harder. The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A's for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count. Where and to whom have home loans been made? Have banks invested in all neighborhoods within their assessment area? Do they operate branches in those neighborhoods?

Crucially, the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. The old CRA evaluation process had allowed advocacy groups a chance to express their views on individual banks, and publicly available data on the lending patterns of individual banks allowed activist groups to target institutions considered vulnerable to protest. But for advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition—a foundation-funded umbrella group for community activist groups that profit from the CRA—issued a clarion call to its members in a leaflet entitled "The New CRA Regulations: How Community Groups Can Get Involved." "Timely comments," the NCRC observed with a certain understatement, "can have a strong influence on a bank's CRA rating."

The Clinton administration's get-tough regulatory regime mattered so crucially because bank deregulation had set off a wave of mega-mergers, including the acquisition of the Bank of America by NationsBank, BankBoston by Fleet Financial, and Bankers Trust by Deutsche Bank. Regulatory approval of such mergers depended, in part, on positive CRA ratings. "To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application," advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, "lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations." By intervening—even just threatening to intervene—in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, "CRA is the backbone of everything we do."

In addition to providing the nonprofits with mortgage money to disburse, CRA allows those organizations to collect a fee from the banks for their services in marketing the loans. The Senate Banking Committee has estimated that, as a result of CRA, $9.5 billion so far has gone to pay for services and salaries of the nonprofit groups involved. To deal with such groups and to produce CRA compliance data for regulators, banks routinely establish separate CRA departments. A CRA consultant industry has sprung up to assist them. New financial-services firms offer to help banks that think they have a CRA problem make quick "investments" in packaged portfolios of CRA loans to get into compliance.

The result of all this activity, argues the CEO of one midsize bank, is that "banks are promising to make loans they would have made anyway, with some extra aggressiveness on risky mortgages thrown in." Many bankers—and even some CRA advocates—share his view. As one Fed economist puts it, the assertion that CRA was needed to force banks to see profitable lending opportunities is "like saying you need the rooster to tell the sun to come up. It was going to happen anyway." And indeed, a survey of the lending policies of Chicago-area mortgage companies by a CRA-connected community group, the Woodstock Institute, found "a tendency to lend in a wide variety of neighborhoods"—even though the CRA doesn't apply to such lenders.

If loans that win banks good CRA ratings were going to be made anyway, and if most of those loans are profitable, should CRA, even if redundant, bother anyone? Yes: because the CRA funnels billions of investment dollars through groups that understand protest and political advocacy but not marketing or finance. This amateur delivery system for investment capital already shows signs that it may be going about its business unwisely. And a quiet change in CRA's mission—so that it no longer directs credit only to specific places, as Congress mandated, but also to low- and moderate-income home buyers, wherever they buy their property—greatly extends the area where these groups can cause damage.

There is no more important player in the CRA-inspired mortgage industry than the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America. Chief executive Bruce Marks has set out to become the Wal-Mart of home mortgages for lower-income households. Using churches and radio advertising to reach borrowers, he has made NACA a brand name nationwide, with offices in 21 states, and he plans to double that number within a year. With "delegated underwriting authority" from the banks, NACA itself—not the banks—determines whether a mortgage applicant is qualified, and it closes sales right in its own offices. It expects to close 5,000 mortgages next year, earning a $2,000 origination fee on each. Its annual budget exceeds $10 million.

Marks, a Scarsdale native, NYU MBA, and former Federal Reserve employee, unabashedly calls himself a "bank terrorist"—his public relations spokesman laughingly refers to him as "the shark, the predator," and the NACA newspaper is named the Avenger. They're not kidding: bankers so fear the tactically brilliant Marks for his ability to disrupt annual meetings and even target bank executives' homes that they often call him to make deals before they announce any plans that will put them in CRA's crosshairs. A $3 billion loan commitment by Nationsbank, for instance, well in advance of its announced merger with Bank of America, "was a preventive strike," says one NACA spokesman.

Marks is unhesitatingly candid about his intent to use NACA to promote an activist, left-wing political agenda. NACA loan applicants must attend a workshop that celebrates—to the accompaniment of gospel music—the protests that have helped the group win its bank lending agreements. If applicants do buy a home through NACA, they must pledge to assist the organization in five "actions" annually—anything from making phone calls to full-scale "mobilizations" against target banks, "mau-mauing" them, as sixties' radicals used to call it. "NACA believes in aggressive grassroots advocacy," says its Homebuyer's Workbook.

The NACA policy agenda embraces the whole universe of financial institutions. It advocates tough federal usury laws, restrictions on the information that banks can provide to credit-rating services, financial sanctions against banks with poor CRA ratings even if they're not about to merge or branch, and the extension of CRA requirements to insurance companies and other financial institutions. But Marks's political agenda reaches far beyond finance. He wants, he says, to do whatever he can to ensure that "working people have good jobs at good wages." The home mortgage business is his tool for political organizing: the Homebuyer's Workbook contains a voter registration application and states that "NACA's mission of neighborhood stabilization is based on participation in the political process. To participate you must register to vote." Marks plans to install a high-capacity phone system that can forward hundreds of calls to congressional offices—"or Phil Gramm's house"—to buttress NACA campaigns. The combination of an army of "volunteers" and a voter registration drive portends (though there is no evidence of this so far) that someday CRA-related funds and Marks's troop of CRA borrowers might end up fueling a host of Democratic candidacies. During the Reagan years, the Right used to talk of cutting off the flow of federal funds to left-liberal groups, a goal called "defunding the Left"; through the CRA, the Clinton administration has found a highly effective way of doing exactly the opposite, funneling millions to NACA or to outfits like ACORN, which advocates a nationalized health-care system, "people before profits at the utilities," and a tax code based "solely on the ability to pay."

Whatever his long-term political goals, Marks may well reshape urban and suburban neighborhoods because of the terms on which NACA qualifies prospective home buyers. While most CRA-supported borrowers would doubtless find loans in today's competitive mortgage industry, a small percentage would not, and NACA welcomes such buyers with open arms. "Our job," says Marks, "is to push the envelope." Accordingly, he gladly lends to people with less than $3,000 in savings, or with checkered credit histories or significant debt. Many of his borrowers are single-parent heads of household. Such borrowers are, Marks believes, fundamentally oppressed and at permanent disadvantage, and therefore society must adjust its rules for them. Hence, NACA's most crucial policy decision: it requires no down payments whatsoever from its borrowers. A down-payment requirement, based on concern as to whether a borrower can make payments, is—when applied to low-income minority buyers—"patronizing and almost racist," Marks says.

This policy—"America's best mortgage program for working people," NACA calls it—is an experiment with extraordinarily high risks. There is no surer way to destabilize a neighborhood than for its new generation of home buyers to lack the means to pay their mortgages—which is likely to be the case for a significant percentage of those granted a no-down-payment mortgage based on their low-income classification rather than their good credit history. Even if such buyers do not lose their homes, they are a group more likely to defer maintenance on their properties, creating the problems that lead to streets going bad and neighborhoods going downhill. Stable or increasing property values grow out of the efforts of many; one unpainted house, one sagging porch, one abandoned property is a threat to the work of dozens, because such signs of neglect discourage prospective buyers.

A no-down-payment policy reflects a belief that poor families should qualify for home ownership because they are poor, in contrast to the reality that some poor families are prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to own property, and some are not. Keeping their distance from those unable to save money is a crucial means by which upwardly mobile, self-sacrificing people establish and maintain the value of the homes they buy. If we empower those with bad habits, or those who have made bad decisions, to follow those with good habits to better neighborhoods—thanks to CRA's new emphasis on lending to low-income borrowers no matter where they buy their homes—those neighborhoods will not remain better for long.

Because many of the activists' big-money deals with the banks are so new, no one knows for sure exactly which neighborhoods the community groups are flooding with CRA-related mortgages and what effect they are having on those neighborhoods. But some suggestive early returns are available from Massachusetts, where CRA-related advocacy has flourished for more than a decade. A study for a consortium of banks and community groups found that during the 1990s home purchases financed by nonprofit lenders have overwhelmingly not been in the inner-city areas where redlining had been suspected. Instead, 41 percent of all the loans went to the lower-middle-class neighborhoods of Hyde Park, Roslindale, and Dorchester Center/Codman Square—Boston's equivalent of New York's borough of Queens—and additional loans went to borrowers moving to the suburbs. In other words, CRA lending appears to be helping borrowers move out of inner-city neighborhoods into better-off areas. Similarly, not-yet-published data from the state-funded Massachusetts Housing Partnership show that many new Dorchester Center, Roslindale, and Hyde Park home buyers came from much poorer parts of the city, such as the Roxbury ghetto. Florence Higgins, a home-ownership counsellor for the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, confirms the trend, noting that many buyers she counsels lived in subsidized rental apartments prior to buying their homes.

This CRA-facilitated migration makes the mortgage terms of groups like NACA particularly troubling. In a September 1999 story, the Wall Street Journal reported, based on a review of court documents by Boston real estate analyst John Anderson, that the Fleet Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings against 4 percent of loans made for Fleet by NACA in 1994 and 1995—a rate four times the industry average. Overextended buyers don't always get much help from their nonprofit intermediaries, either: Boston radio station WBUR reported in July that home buyers in danger of losing their homes had trouble getting their phone calls returned by the ACORN Housing group.

NACA frankly admits that it is willing to run these risks. It emphasizes the virtues of the counselling programs it offers (like all CRA groups) to prepare its typical buyer—"a hotel worker with an income of $25K and probably some past credit problems," says a NACA spokesman—and it operates what it calls a "neighborhood stabilization fund" on which buyers who fall behind on payments can draw. But Bruce Marks says that he would consider a low foreclosure rate to be a problem. "If we had a foreclosure rate of 1 percent, that would just prove we were skimming," he says. Accordingly, in mid-1999, 8.2 percent of the mortgages NACA had arranged with the Fleet Bank were delinquent, compared with the national average of 1.9 percent. "Considering our clientele," Marks asserts, "nine out of ten would have to be considered a success."

The no-down-payment policy has sparked so sharp a division within the CRA industry that the National Community Reinvestment Coalition has expelled Bruce Marks and NACA from its ranks over it. The precipitating incident: when James Johnson, then CEO of Fannie Mae, made a speech to NCRC members on the importance of down payments to keep mortgage-backed securities easily salable, NACA troops, in keeping with the group's style of personalizing disputes, distributed pictures of Johnson, captioned: "I make $6 million a year, and I can afford a down payment. Why can't you?" Says Josh Silver, research director of NCRC: "There is no quicker way to undermine CRA than through bad loans." NCRC represents hundreds of smallish community groups, many of which do insist on down payments—and many of which make loans in the same neighborhoods as NACA and understand the risk its philosophy poses. Still, whenever NACA opens a new branch office, it will be difficult for the nonprofits already operating in that area to avoid matching its come-one, come-all terms.

Even without a no-down-payment policy, the pressure on banks to make CRA-related loans may be leading to foreclosures. Though bankers generally cheerlead for CRA out of fear of being branded racists if they do not, the CEO of one midsize bank grumbles that 20 percent of his institution's CRA-related mortgages, which required only $500 down payments, were delinquent in their very first year, and probably 7 percent will end in foreclosure. "The problem with CRA," says an executive with a major national financial-services firm, "is that banks will simply throw money at things because they want that CRA rating." From the banks' point of view, CRA lending is simply a price of doing business—even if some of the mortgages must be written off. The growth in very large banks—ones most likely to sign major CRA agreements—also means that those advancing the funds for CRA loans are less likely to have to worry about the effects of those loans going bad: such loans will be a small portion of their lending portfolios.

Looking into the future gives further cause for concern: "The bulk of these loans," notes a Federal Reserve economist, "have been made during a period in which we have not experienced an economic downturn." The Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America's own success stories make you wonder how much CRA-related carnage will result when the economy cools. The group likes to promote, for instance, the story of Renea Swain-Price, grateful for NACA's negotiating on her behalf with Fleet Bank to prevent foreclosure when she fell behind on a $1,400 monthly mortgage payment on her three-family house in Dorchester. Yet NACA had no qualms about arranging the $137,500 mortgage in the first place, notwithstanding the fact that Swain-Price's husband was in prison, that she'd had previous credit problems, and that the monthly mortgage payment constituted more than half her monthly salary. The fact that NACA has arranged an agreement to forestall foreclosure does not inspire confidence that she will have the resources required to maintain her aging frame house: her new monthly payment, in recognition of previously missed payments, is $1,879.

Even if all the CRA-related loans marketed by nonprofits were to turn out fine, the CRA system is still troubling. Like affirmative action, it robs the creditworthy of the certain knowledge that they have qualified by dint of their own effort for a first home mortgage, a milestone in any family's life. At the same time, it sends the message that this most important milestone has been provided through the beneficence of government, devaluing individual accomplishment. Perhaps the Clinton White House sees this as a costless way to use the banking system to create a new crop of passionate Democratic loyalists, convinced that CRA has delivered them from an uncaring Mammon—when, in all likelihood, banks would have been eager to have most of them as customers, regulation or no.

CRA also serves to enforce misguided views about how cities should develop, or redevelop. Consider the "investment" criterion—the loans to commercial borrowers rather than individual home buyers—that constitutes 25 percent of the record on which banks are judged in their compliance review. The Comptroller of the Currency's office makes clear that it is not interested in just any sort of investment in so-called underserved neighborhoods. Investment in a new apartment building or shopping center might not count, if it would help change a poor neighborhood into a more prosperous one, or if it is not directly aimed at serving those of low income. Regulators want banks to invest in housing developments built through nonprofit community development corporations. Banks not only receive CRA credit for such "investment"—which they can make anywhere in the country, not just in their backyard—but they also receive corporate tax credits for it, through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit. Banks have little incentive to make sure such projects are well managed, since they get their tax credits and CRA credits up front.

This investment policy misunderstands what is good for cities and for the poor. Cities that are alive are cities in flux, with neighborhoods rising and falling, as tastes and economies change. This ceaseless flux is a process, as Jane Jacobs brilliantly described it in The Economy of Cities, that fuels investment, creates jobs, and sparks innovative adaptation of older buildings to new purposes. Those of modest means benefit both from the new jobs and from being able to rent or purchase homes in once-expensive neighborhoods that take on new roles. The idea that it is necessary to flash-freeze certain neighborhoods and set them aside for the poor threatens to disrupt urban vitality and the renewal that comes from the individual plans and efforts of a city's people.

But keeping these neighborhoods forever poor is the CRA vision. CRA will help virtually any lower-income family that can come close to affording a mortgage payment to purchase a home, often in a non-poor neighborhood. Thanks to CRA-driven bank investment, poor neighborhoods would then fill up with subsidized rental complexes, presumably for those poor families who can't earn enough even to get a subsidized, easy credit mortgage. The effects of all this could be to undermine lower-middle-class neighborhoods by introducing families not prepared for home ownership into them and to leave behind poor neighborhoods in which low-income apartments, filled with the worst-off and least competent, stand alone—hardly a recipe for renewal.

It will take a Republican president to change or abolish CRA, so firmly wedded to it is the Clinton administration and so powerfully does it serve Democratic Party interests. When Senator Gramm attacked the CRA for its role in funding advocacy groups and for the burden it imposes on banks, the Clinton administration fought back furiously, willing to let the crucial Financial Services Modernization Act, to which Gramm had attached his CRA changes, die, unless Gramm dropped demands that, for instance, CRA reviews become less frequent. In the end, Gramm, despite his key position as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs (even the committee's name reflects a CRA consciousness) and his willingness to hold repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act hostage to CRA reform, could only manage to require community groups to make public their agreements with banks, disclosing the size of their loan commitments and fees.

A new president should push for outright abolition of the CRA. Failing that, he could simply instruct the Treasury to roll back the compliance criteria to their more relaxed, pre-Clintonian level. But to make the case for repeal—and ensure that some future Democratic president couldn't simply reimpose Clinton's rules—he might test the basic premise of the Community Reinvestment Act: that the banking industry serves the rich, not the poor. He could carry out a controlled experiment requiring no CRA lending in six Federal Reserve districts, while CRA remains in force in six others. A comparison of lending records would show whether there is any real case for CRA. In addition, CRA regulators should require nonprofit groups with large CRA-related loan commitments to track and report foreclosure and delinquency rates. For it is these that will reflect the true threat that CRA poses, a threat to the health of cities.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

When you deny their lie you become the lier...Wake up and get rid of your Party before it's called the Communist Party...whoops! It already is!

Aah, that would be the Democrat Party!

...and I tried to tell you so many, many, many times. And you failed to heed your friend. Instead you believed the lies of our enemy...The Democratic Party...the Traitors from within...

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies in the heart of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear. The traitor is the plague..." Marcus Tullius Cicero, speech to the Roman Senate.

"We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world. All the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands..."

.. the teachers should deliberately reach for power and then make the most of their conquest" in order to "influence the social attitudes, ideals and behavior of the coming generation...

"Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting for an hour once a week, teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?"

New World Order "The manifest necessity for some collective world control to eliminate warfare and the less generally admitted necessity for a collective control of the economic and biological life of mankind, are aspects of one and the same process." He proposes that this be accomplished through "universal law" and propaganda (or education)."
"World government is the ultimate aim... It must be recognized that the law of nations takes precedence over national law... The process will have to be assisted by the deletion of the nationalistic material employed in educational textbooks and its replacement by material explaining the benefits of wiser association."

No, you don't have to become a Republican...just swear off Democrats!

"There is nothing written in the Constitution that we shall have only two political parties...but through deceit and collusion they have written and enacted the FEC laws to prevent competition and honest people from attaining their patriotic political aspirations. And they have exempted themselves from the very laws imposed upon the citizenry. They have become the politic elite working for their New World Order without the consent of the people, by the people, and for the people." - Norman E. Hooben

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Where's The Outrage

Really. I can tell you where the outrage is. The outrage is here, in this middle-aged, well-educated, upper-middle class woman. The outrage is here, but I have no representation, no voice. The outrage is here, but no one is listening for who am I?

I am not a billionaire like George Soros that can fund an entire political movement.

I am not a celebrity like Barbra Streisand that can garner the attention of the press to promote political candidates.

I am not a film maker like Michael Moore or Al Gore that can deliver misleading movies to the public.

The outrage is here, but unlike those with money or power, I don't know how to reach those who feel similarly in order to effect change.

Why am I outraged? I am outraged that my country, the United States of America , is in a state of moral and ethical decline. There is no right or wrong anymore, just what's fair.

Is it fair that millions of Americans who overreached and borrowed more than they could afford are now being bailed out by the government and lending institutions to stave off foreclosure? Why shouldn't these people be made to pay the consequences for their poor judgment?

When my husband and I purchased our home, we were careful to purchase only what we could afford. Believe me, there are much larger, much nicer homes that I would have loved to have purchased. But, taking responsibility for my behavior and my life, I went with the house that we could afford, not the house that we could not afford. The notion of personal responsibility has all but died in our country.

I am outraged, that the country that welcomed my mother as an immigrant from Hitler's Nazi Germany and required that she and her family learn English now allows itself to be overrun with illegal immigrants and worse, caters to those illegal immigrants.

I am outraged that my hard-earned taxes help support those here illegally. That the Los Angeles Public School District is in such disarray that I felt itincumbent to send my child to private school, that every time I go to the ATM, I see 'do you want to continue in English or Spanish?', that every time I call the bank, the phone company , or similar business, I hear 'press 1 for English or press 2 for Spanish'. WHY? This is America , our common language is English and attempts to promote a bi- or multi-lingual society are sure to fail and to marginalize those who cannot communicate in English.

I am outraged at our country's weakness in the face of new threats on American traditions from Muslims. Just this week, Tyson's Food negotiated with its union to permit Muslims to have Eid-al-Fitr as a holiday instead of Labor Day. What am I missing? Yes, there is a large Somali Muslim population working at the Tyson's plant in Tennessee . Tennessee , last I checked, is still part of the United States . If Muslims want to live and work here they should be required to live and work by our American Laws and not impose their will on our long history.

In the same week, Random House announced that they had indefinitely delayed the publication of The Jewel of Medina, by Sherry Jones, a book about the life of Mohammed's wife, Aisha due to fear of retribution and violence by Muslims. When did we become a nation ruled by fear of what other immigrant groups want? It makes me so sad to see large corporations cave rather than stand proudly on the principles that built this country.

I am outraged because appeasement has never worked as a political policy, yet appeasing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is exactly what we are trying to do. An excellent article, also published recently in the Wall Street Journal, went through over 20 years of history and why talking with Iran has been and wi ll continue to be ineffective. Yet talk, with a madman no less, we continue to do. Have we so lost our moral compass and its ability to detect evil that we will not go in and destroy Iran 's nuclear program? Would we rather wait for another Holocaust for the Jews - one which they would be unlikely to survive? When does it end?

As if the battle for good and evil isn't enough, now come the Environmentalists who are so afraid of global warming that they want to put a Bag tax on grocery bags in California; to eliminate Mylar balloons; to establish something as insidious as the recycle police in San Francisco. I do my share for the environment: I recycle, I use water wisely, I installed an energy efficient air conditioning unit.
But when and where does the lunacy stop?Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map, the California economy is being overrun by illegal immigrants, and the United States of America no longer knows right from wrong, good from evil. So what does California do? Tax grocery bags.

So, America , although I can tell you where the outrage is, this one middle-aged, well-educated, upper middle class woman is powerless to do anything about it. I don't even feel like my vote counts because I am so outnumbered by those who disagree with me.

Alisa Wilson, Ph.D.
Beverly Hills , California

Listen to who's voting. Do you hear RASCISM? or UNEDUCATED?

Just more proof that we need change? Change in the education system! Actually this man-on-the-street interview is sad and pretty pathetic. No wonder the country is going down hill... What more can I say?


For un-cut version go here (Howard Stern Interviews Obama Supporters) :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqAiarOhC2U&eurl=http://ibenunot.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-supporters-in-harlem.html Careful now. Howard Stearn uses something less than language used around the dinner table!"

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

How often have I said this? "The Financial meltdown is deliberate!" Too often! Can you hear me now!

Generally no one listens to some unknown little guy parked somewhere down in the middle of the country. If you have been paying attention for the last four or five years to my numerous e-mails and some stuff that you can find right here on this blog site you'll note that ole Norm has had this thing figured out for a long time.
Now we have well known radio and television personalities finally figuring it out. What took them so long? Can you hear me know? - Norman E. Hooben
To answer the question below, "Yes we are being led into one world financial system!" The guys will get together once the United Nations takes over the U. S. of A.
ps: How many times and how many people, including U.S. Senators, have I said, "This financial meltdown is INTENTIONAL ? So Gleen Beck uses the word, "manufactured". What's the difference?


Glenn Beck Highlights Threat Of Martial Law Following Economic Crisis

Poses question "are we being purposefully led into a one world financial system?"





Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesd
ay, Oct 14, 2008


Like him or loathe him, last night CNN's Glenn Beck became the only mainstream media source thus far to address on national TV the reality of the situation Americans are facing with the manufactured financial implosion - the direct threat of domestic martial law and a global financial dictatorship.

Beck's guest, Peter Schiff, respected author of "Crash Proof" and president of the brokerage firm Euro Pacific Capital, joined him in outlining that martial law, the use of armed troops on the streets to quell dissent, is a real possibility should the economic crisis not improve or worsen to the point where civil unrest is fomented.

The following exchange between Beck and Schiff, who was also economic adviser to Ron Paul during his presidential campaign, is from the CNN transcript of last night's show:

SCHIFF: You know, what`s going to happen, of course, is as inflation starts running out of control and prices start going through the roof, the government again is going to focus on the symptoms and not the disease.

And they`re going to impose price controls on energy, on food, on a lot of other things that are vital, which means shortages, which means long lines, black markets, civil unrest. All this stuff is coming if we don`t stop. [...]

BECK: Peter, let`s talk a little bit about martial law. Why would that even be a consideration?

SCHIFF: Well, I don`t think it was a threat if they had rejected the bailout Bill, but I think it is a possibility a few years down the line. We just spoke a little bit about price controls and the effect that they`re going to have.

If we have shortages of food, if we have rolling blackouts. And people are upset, and they`re hungry, and they`re cold, there could be civil unrest. There could be looting, rioting, and that might be the impetus for the government to declare martial law.

BECK: You know, I don`t think you`re a couple of years away from something like that. I mean, honestly, Peter, I mean, look at what`s happening. In a half hour, I`ve got a congressman on about -- about the racism cries. I mean, there are people that are right now so disenfranchised, and I think being encouraged to be disenfranchised on both sides, that at any time this damn thing could break apart.

SCHIFF: Yes. And we`re giving the government so much power. And you know, you give up a lot more civil liberties. When you have martial law and you`ve got the military policing our streets, when you`ve got suspension of habeas corpus, you`ve got curfews, you can`t be out of your house after dark, and they can just pick you up and put you in prison and keep you there indefinitely without charges, and there`s nothing you can do about it?

I mean, we`re giving up one liberty after another, all to protect ourselves from this economic crisis, which needs to happen anyway, but it doesn`t need to be nearly this bad.

BECK: Peter, this is -- I mean, we`re in Crazytown, USA. But my gut tells me that, two years down the road -- let`s just use that number -- this country is not going to look anything like it does today. Our world has changed; it just hasn`t caught up.

During the ten minute segment, Beck and Schiff also pointed out that America is headed for Weimar Republic style hyperinflation at the hands of global bankers, stated that the financial implosion has been manufactured by design, warned that the Treasury has been given dictatorial powers and raised the question of whether the end game is a one world currency and one world financial governance.

Beck also played the now infamous clip of Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman from October 2nd stating that several members of Congress were threatened before the bailout vote that martial law would be instigated in America if the legislation was not passed.

Watch the entire segment below:

Though Beck was unable to bring Rep. Sherman on to his show, the Congressman did appear exclusively on the Alex Jones show on October 3rd to discuss the threat of martial law. Peter Schiff also appeared on the Alex Jones show recently to discuss this important issue.

*********************

Related Reading:

FEMA sources confirm coming martial law

U.S. Troops In Homeland “Crowd Control” Patrols From October 1st

Economic Collapse As Precursor To Open Plan For Martial Law?

Bush's Martial Law Plan Is So Shocking, Even Congress Can't See it

Friends of The saviour...Friends of the devil...SAME DIFFERNCE

That's a small 's' in saviour!

Cross posted from:

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/terrorists-and-tyrants-of-the-world-root-for-obama/#comment-15317

Read it all, View it all (videos). If you don't want to believe it, it doesn't mean it isn't. So don't have a pre-Columbian mentality. Facts are facts. You cannot change facts even if you believe otherwise. Pre Columbus days many people believed it as 'fact' that the world was flat even though the 'fact' was the world is round. Do we need another Columbus to prove you wrong or are you going to remain a flat-head? ...brain dead to those who don't understand? - Norman E. Hooben

Radicals, Terrorists And Tyrants Of The World Root For Obama

The latest terror group to weigh in was of course:

Hamas:

Cameron’s Corner, Fox News reports:

During an interview on WABC radio Sunday, top Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef said the terrorist group supports Obama’s foreign policy vision.

“We don’t mind–actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,” Yousef said in response to a question about the group’s willingness to meet with either of the Democratic presidential candidates.

Cameron wonders if this endorsement will be a problem for Obama. It probably wouldn’t be if it were just one example, all by itself. But let’s pause, and take a look at all the endorsements he’s gotten so far from the world’s radicals, terrorists, tyrants, and their supporters. They’re starting to stack up:

(Editor’s Note): Hamas has since withdrawn it’s support of Obama, following his pandering speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

“Obama’s comments have confirmed that there will be no change in the U.S. administration’s foreign policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict,” Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters in Gaza.

I think they’re leaping to conclusions, myself.

Hatem El-Hady:

Central Ohioans Against Terrorism is all over this one:

Two years ago, Hatem El-Hady was the chairman of the Toledo, Ohio-based Islamic charity, Kindhearts, which was closed by the US government in February 2006 for terrorist fundraising and all its assets frozen. Today, El-Hady has redirected his fundraising efforts for his newest cause - Barack Obama for President.

El-Hady has his own dedicated page on Barack Obama’s official website, chronicling his fundraising on behalf of the Democratic Party presidential candidate (his Obama profile established on February 19, 2008 - two years to the day after Kindhearts was raided by the feds). Not only that, but he has none other than Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle Obama, listed as one of his friends, one of her 224 listed friends.

Screenshot!:

But his leadership of Kindhearts is not the only thing that has brought him scrutiny by federal law enforcement officials. Last summer, El-Hady was questioned by the FBI concerning his knowledge of possible conspirators in a UK-based terror plot.

Much more at Central Ohioans Against Terrorism.

The New Black Panthers:

The racist NBPP is led by notorious extremist, Malik Zulu Shabazz, and (was) a registered team member and blogger on Obama’s campaign website. His page has been scrubbed twice at last count.

Screenshot!:

In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Shabazz defended Osama bin Laden and blamed President Bush for the horrors of that day.

He has this to say about Obama:

“I have nothing but respect for Obama and for his pastor,” said Shabazz, referring to Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor of nearly 20 years.

Shabazz referred to Obama as a man with a “Muslim background, a man of color.”

William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn:

This association got some attention, tonight because George Stephanopoulos had the temerity to ask Obama about him at the Democrat debate. Bill Ayers and fellow Weatherman, Bernadine Dohrn have been supporters of Obama’s Senatorial campaigns in Chicago. In 2001, Ayers gave $200 to Obama’s state Senate reelection campaign.

In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

Dr. Young and another guest, Maria Warren, described it similarly: as an introduction to Hyde Park liberals of the handpicked successor to Palmer, a well-regarded figure on the left.

“When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn,” Warren wrote on her blog in 2005. “They were launching him — introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.”

Obama characterized his relationship with Ayers as the same thing as being friendly with fellow Senator, Tom Coburn who favors *GASP* the death penalty for abortionists who perform abortions (except in rare cases to save the life of the mother). An extreme position to be sure, but does it make him a terrorist? Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn were terrorists, no if, ands, or buts. Does Tom Coburn support Obama? Donate to his campaigns?

(Added April 23): There are some new revelations concerning more recent activities of Ayers and Dohrn at Powerline.

Still more at Michelle Malkin’s.

(Added July 27):

A good discussion about Obama’s association with these known terrorists on H&C:

Added (Oct. 5):

Here’s the final report on the Obama/Ayers partnership as investigated and reported by Stanley Kurtz. It’s important to understand that Obama’s relationship with Ayers went beyond bumping into him a couple of times, and living in the same neighborhood as him, as the Obama campaign, and his willing accomplices in the media have been spinning it.

FARC:

From the two lap top computers obtained during an ambush back in early March:

According to information obtained, FARC Terrorists were hoping and expecting that Barack Obama would win the US elections in November because he was most aligned with the Colombian Marxist group.

The gringos will ask for an appointment with the minister to solicit him to communicate to us his interest in discussing these topics. They say that the new president of their country will be Obama and that they are interested in your compatriots. Obama will not support “Plan Colombia” nor will he sign the TLC (Colombian Free Trade agreement).

‘Nuff said.

Fidel Castro:

He likes Hillary too. Last summer he was urging Clinton and Obama to team up:

“The word today is that an apparently unbeatable ticket could be Hillary for president and Obama as her running mate,” he wrote in an editorial column on U.S. presidents published on Tuesday by Cuba’s Communist Party newspaper, Granma.

Daniel Ortega:

From A Columbo-Americana’s Perspective:

“Estamos frente a un fenómeno revolucionario”, aseguró el mandatario después de recibir el Doctorado Honoris Causa de la Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería (UNI). Muestra de ese “fenómeno revolucionario” del que habla el gobernante, es la “fuerza que ha tomado en la juventud anglosajona la batalla a favor de Obama”. ["We are facing a revolutionary phenomenon," assured the president after receiving an honorary Doctorate from the National Engineering University. The showing of this "revolutionary phenomenon" of which Ortega speaks is the "strength that has been taken up among the English-speaking youth in favor of Obama."]

Según Ortega, con la ayuda de Dios algún día habrá una revolución en Estados Unidos y sus gobernantes lograrán “actuar diferente, con sentido de respeto, paz, justicia y equidad”. El cambio, a juicio del Presidente, también dependerá de la juventud, esa “juventud que ha trascendido la discriminación racial”.
[According to Ortega, with the help of God, there will one day be a revolution in the United States, and its leaders will "act differently, with a sense of respect, peace, justice, and equality." The change, according to Ortega, will also depend on the youth, "who have transcended racial discrimination."]

Hugo Chavez:

Chavez has been coy. He stopped short of endorsing a particular (Democrat) candidate, but did say recently that McCain seemed “warlike”:

“Sometimes one says, ‘worse than Bush is impossible,’ but we don’t know,” Chavez told foreign correspondents. “McCain also seems to be a man of war.”

One assumes Chavez would be happy with either Hillary of Obama, although Obama has said he would meet with Chavez, something no other candidate has said.

Jodie Evans:

The head of a radical group that funds and supports Islamic terrorists as well as an America-bashing South American socialist leader has bundled more than $50,000 for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

Jodie Evans, co-founder of the anti-war group Code Pink, is a huge Obama supporter who has personally given his campaign the federal limit ($2,300) and continues to collect big bucks—$50,000 and counting—from friends and associates in an effort to help the Illinois senator, a favorite among Latin American socialist leaders, move into the White House.

Code Pink also gave $600,000 to the families of Iraqi terrorists in Fallujah, whom they claimed were fighting for their homes.

And who can forget our Che Guevara fan:

Maria Isabel:

The (Obama) campaign volunteer who hung the Che poster is named Maria Isabel (second photo above) and according to the Lone Star Times, she hung similar banners from her balcony at home. Apparently she’s no “low-level” volunteer either. She serves as a campaign ‘precinct captain” and the co-chair of the Houston Obama Leadership Team.

She’s still is an active member of the team.

This is no doubt only a partial list.

Is it unfair to ask why so many of our country’s sworn enemies, and their supporters endorse a man who’s running for the President of the United States?

Hello Ace, DPUD, and Cold Fury Readers! Welcome. If anyone can think of any more embarrassing endorsements to add to the list, please let me know. (John f’in’ Kerry and Teddy Kennedy don’t count).

UPDATE:

Conservative Belle reminded me of Hanoi Jane. Yep, she fits right in here.

And I forgot about this guy, who I just spotted at Infidels are Cool:

Ali Abunimah:

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama is currently hiding his anti-Israel views in order to get elected, according to a well-known anti-Israel activist. The activist, Ali Abunimah, claimed to know Obama well and to have met him on numerous occasions at pro-Palestinian events in Chicago.

“The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.

“As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, ‘Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race.

I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.’ He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy [and said:] ‘Keep up the good work!’”

UPDATE:

OH for crying out loud!!!! How did I miss this one? Why didn’t somebody remind me?!

Louis Farrakhan:

Speaking to thousands of members of the Nation of Islam at their annual convention Sunday in Chicago, Minister Louis Farrakhan praised presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama as the only hope for healing the nation’s racial divisions.

Of course.

UPDATE: (April 22):

I guess we can add the Iranians to the litany of shame.

Oooh!

A second wave of links! Welcome Michelle Malkin, Stop The ACLU, and Stingray readers.

UPDATE: (April 23):

We’re still waiting for Charles Manson to weigh in, but we have our suspicions.

Van Helsing of Moonbattery thinks he has the signature “Obama Nation” stare.

UPDATE: (April 29):

ACORN:

The “largest radical group in America”, ACORN has also endorsed Obama, for obvious reasons.

Okay…this guy is not a terrorist or anything, but heyyy.

This one here not only endorses Obama, he’s the webmaster for Progressives For Obama:

Carl Davidson:

He didn’t bomb the Capitol or rob banks like his contemporaries in the Weather Underground.

But Carl Davidson, a former vice president of the Students for a Democratic Society who traveled to Cuba to meet with Fidel Castro and still praises the dictator today, is another proud radical for Barack Obama, serving faithfully as webmaster for “Progressives for Obama.”

Discover the Networks on The SDS:

Forming the core of the 1960s counter-cultural movement known collectively as the New Left, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was a radical organization that aspired to overthrow America’s democratic institutions, remake its government in a Marxist image, and help America’s enemies defeat her sons on the battlefield in Vietnam. The group developed from the Student League for Industrial Democracy, the youth branch of the socialist League for Industrial Democracy.

Sam Graham-Felsen

Obama’s official blogger, and contributor to The Socialist Viewpoint.

The American Thinker had this to say about Graham-Felsen:

Sam Graham-Felsen, hired to run Obama’s blog, writes about Noam Chomsky in a Marxist publication that openly calls for revolution against the American government. This is a Presidential candidate’s choice to run the on-line portion of his campaign. That speaks volumes of his character and worldview. Contradicting what he says in public, Obama is surrounding himself with poeple who never seem to learn that their absurd ideologies end in misery and ruin.

UPDATE May 27:

It looks like Fidel Castro has gotten closer to a full fledged endorsement of Obama.

As Allahpundit says:

Why wouldn’t any rogue regime prefer a guy who’s willing to meet with them? The left’s “strength through weakness” foreign policy holds that bad actors actually love hawkish presidents because they make the Great Satan that much easier to demagogue; as such, only by smothering them in hugs can we defuse the anti-American sentiment the Castros of the world use to hold onto power.

UPDATE (May 30):

Father Michael Pfleger (or Pfather Pfreaky, as I like to call him):

This goofball’s been mentioned for a while now, by many, as another one of Obama’s radical clerical associates, but who knew he was this crazy?!:

UPDATE June 2:

Arab American Action Network, (or AAAN):

A group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a “catastrophe” and supports the terrorist activities of the Palestinians.

In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for which Khalidi’s wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002.

Obama was a director of the Woods Fund board from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, according to the Fund’s website. According to tax filings, Obama received compensation of $6,000 per year for his service in 1999 and 2000.

UPDATE (June 8):

Rashid Khalidi.

Hot Air reports:

Khalidi, a Yasser Arafat toady, got $75,000 through Obama and Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers from the Woods Foundation, and later Khalidi returned the favor by hosting a fundraiser for Obama. Obama “lavished praise” on Khalidi in 2003 when the former PLO functionary took a job at Columbia University, according to an LA Times article last year. It’s hardly ancient history, and Khalidi is hardly an acquaintance.

Here’a a segmant of Hannity’s American on Obama’s association with Rashid Khalidi:

UPDATE (June 18):

Moammar Qaddafi

See Dubya at Michelle Malkin reports:

“This will be a tragedy,” Gadhafi said. “We tell him to be proud of himself as a black and feel that all Africa is behind him because if he sticks to this inferiority complex he will have a worse foreign policy than the whites had in the past.”

Yes, incredibly, Gadhafi is under the impression that the “Messiah” has low self esteem!

UPDATE (June 22):

Oh my stars….this is the one we’ve been waiting for:

Kim Jong Il!!!

The Chosun Sinbo, the mouthpiece of North Korea’s Japanese front organization Chongryon and often for the North Korean regime itself, has announced its preference for Obama over McCain:

We will see a better relationship between the U.S. and the Korean Peninsula with Obama, who sternly criticizes Bush and who would meet the leader of Chosun without pre-conditions, than with the “Bush clone” and scarecrow of the neocons McCain.

Via See Dubya at Michelle Malkin, and LGF

Hat tip to Rhymes With Right.

Way to go, Obama, you’ve got ‘em all!

UPDATE (June 25):

Mike Klonsky

Here’s what Gateway Pundit found on the guy:

Klonsky belonged to the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and was best friends with friends William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who later became famous for their acts of terrorism.
Today he posts a blog on the Obama website.

Screenshot at Gateway Pundit’s. Website, here.

Between 1979 and 1981, Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) (CPML) chairman and Obama supporter Mike Klonsky was repeatedly feted with state-dinner-level visits to Beijing.

UPDATE (June 26):

Well that didn’t take long. Obama has already effectively thrown Klonsky under the bus.

For a working list of undesirables Klonsky has joined there, as well as those still clinging to the bumper, see Confederate Yankee. This list is certain to grow.

UPDATE: (Sept. 12):

Dr. Khalid al-Mansour

Via IBD:

A principle advisor to Saudi royals like Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, al-Mansour pulled some strings to help Obama get into Harvard:

Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, born Donald Warden, is another interesting fellow from Obama’s past. He himself is a graduate of Harvard and has been a guest lecturer there. His writings and statements reveal him to be an ideological clone of the Rev. Wright, who married Barack and Michelle and baptized their children.

In his 1995 book, “The Lost Books of Africa Rediscovered,” al-Monsour alleged that America was plotting genocide against black Americans. The first “genocide against the black man began 300 years ago,” he said at a book-signing in Harlem, while a second “genocide” was on the way “to remove 15 million black people, considered disposable, of no relevance, value or benefit to the American society.”

Al-Mansour told an audience in South Africa that “the Palestinians are treated like savages,” something our worst ex-president, Jimmy Carter, as well as Wright might agree with. He has accused Israeli Jews of “stealing the land the same way the Christians stole the land from the Indians in America.”

When he was known as Donald Warden, according to the Social Activism Project at the University of California at Berkeley, al-Monsour was the mentor of Black Panther Party founder Huey Newton and his associate, Bobby Seale.

UPDATE (Sept. 13):

Just found two more, thanks to Atlas Shrugs:

Marilyn Katz

Like several of the other radicals who populate Obama’s sphere, she once advocated guerilla tactics against police officers and participated in violent riots. Unlike some of her more infamous counterparts like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn—who are in self-imposed exile until November 5—Katz is deeply, and officially, involved in Obama’s presidential campaign.

Dr. Jamal al Barzinji

Jamal M. Barzinji Gave Obama $1,000, a gift that records show has not been returned.

… a noted American businessman and political operative, most recently associated with the International Institute of Islamic Thought, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth and the SAAR Foundation.

Barzinji is a long-term business associate of Muslim Brotherhood activist and al Taqwa Bank chairman Youssef Nada.[1] Barzinji also serves as a trustee and officer of the Amana Mutual Funds Trust, a growth and income mutual fund headquartered in Bellingham, Washington, along with SAAR co-executive Yaqub Mirza and Talat M. Othman.

According to Discover The Networks:

Member of board of directors for the Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy

Vice-president of the International Institute for Islamic Thought

Associated with seven organizations connected to terrorist financing

85 Responses to “Radicals, Terrorists And Tyrants Of The World Root For Obama”

  1. Moron Pundit Says:

    What a damning list! Awesome work!

  2. nicedeb Says:

    Thanks. I was up until 2:00 working on this.

  3. Nicki Says:

    Wow, impressive!!

  4. Litany of shame — to some Cold Fury Says:

    [...] I wasn’t just talking about the Right Execrable Rev Wright. For one, there’s the coveted (by Dems) Hamas endorsement: Cameron wonders if this endorsement will be a problem for Obama. It probably wouldn’t be if it [...]

  5. Conservative Belle Says:

    Great job, Deb. I’m linking ya.

  6. Radicals, Terrorists And Tyrants Of The World Root For Obama Infidels Are Cool Says:

    [...] Excellent post today by NiceDeb putting together a list (and details) of all the terrorists, tyrants and radicals around the world including Hamas, FARC, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, New Black Panther party, Will Ayers and others that are rooting for Obama. Is it unfair to ask why so many of our country’s sworn enemies, and their supporters endorse a man who’s running for the President of the United States? [...]

  7. nicedeb Says:

    Thanks, Belle!

  8. John Says:

    Great post, Deb. deserves some linkage…

  9. nicedeb Says:

    Thank you!

  10. ATNorth Says:

    Ace sent me.

    This would be worthy of a Pullitzer, if they still gave those out for actual journalism.

    Congratulations!

  11. Sparky Says:

    Don’t forget about the wolfman, frankenstien, dracula, chainsaw massacre, and even chuckie loves Obama. Hell, I imagine they’ll drag out old Lucifer next week.

  12. Team Obama Flattered By Hamas’ Remarks : The American Pundit Says:

    [...] the way, NiceDeb looks into the disturbing trend of terrorist and dictator endorsements of the Messiah. It includes everyone [...]

  13. Obama’s Moral Equivocation FAILURE « Nice Deb Says:

    [...] touched on this briefly in my Radicals, Terrorists and Tyrants thread: Obama characterized his relationship with Ayers as the same thing as being friendly with fellow [...]

  14. Admin Says:

    Deb, great job on the list. The more I learn about Obama, the better I like cuddling up with a rattlesnake!

  15. Admin Says:

    By the way, this is HoosierArmyMom, I don’t know why I am commenting under admin, except I clicked your link on Cao’s Blog to see the list/blog post.

  16. nicedeb Says:

    Sorry about that….WordPress!

  17. ChenZhen Says:

    Historians for Obama.

    Big deal?

    No?

    How about the Air Travelers Association? Now I know that’s a big deal, ’cause when you have those terrorists collaborating with air travelers, another 9/11 is right around the corner.

    And if that wasn’t bad enough, the friggin pirates (Pirates! arrr) have endorsed him too. This, my friends, is a recipe for disaster.

    Oh, and speaking of recipes, Obama also got the endorsement from the Culinary Workers Union. Better not eat out come ‘09, lest you want some anthrax in your lobster.

    Oh what the heck. The whole world wants Obama!

  18. Althor Says:

    Every time I hear a gullible young person, or what is worse, a Viet Cong flag wielding old fart, defend their Marxist “demi-god” El Ché it makes me want to puke!

    Having had the “blessing” of experiencing first-hand as a child, in Cuba, Castro’s and El Ché’s “communist paradise.” Having seen the horrific images with my own eyes, and having had the benefit of the impartiality of being a child with no “preconceived,” “indoctrinated, “ or “politically correct socially implanted views,” I can only call Ché a mass murderer. He stood people suspected to be against the “Revolution” in front of walls and shot them in cold blood in front of firing squads, or “PAREDON” (the Spanish word for big wall) without any of the “legal niceties” and “human rights” such as hand-wringing, Ché-hugging, would-be commies as Maria Isabel, and her beloved Obama, would grant avowed fanatical Muslim terrorists that will blow themselves without the least hesitation, if given a chance, to kill innocent school children on a bus…as they have so often done in Israel, and will eventually do here in the US if we leave our guard down! I still remember the day my grandmother had taken me shopping to Monte, we heard a barrage of gun shots, and as we came into the plaza, we witnessed the clean-up crews picking up the bodies, to be buried in unnamed graves like so much garbage, and the still liquid blood flowing down the gutter. Later we learned what had happened is that “El Ché” had arbitrarily chosen to carry out some of his “Revolutionary PAREDON Justice” on some who were suspected of counter-revolution on the spot, with no “human rights,” “due process,” courts, or worm-tongue slimy lawyers like the ones afforded the terrorists in Guantanamo.

    I wish I was a cartoonist who could make this cartoon of Obama I see in my minds eye for all the world to see:
    I see an Obama “Inauguration,” as president, with Obama swearing in over a “Koran” held by Rev Wright, to the cheer, applaud, and the raised fists of the communists, the Black Panthers, The Weather Underground, and Rev. Farrakhan, and there by him, Karl Marx, Lenin, Fidel, Hugo Chávez, Daniel Ortega, Ahmadinejad, Yaser Arafat, and every “hate-America” SOB that has ever seen the light of day, and of course, his uncouth negress wife, Michelle (old Spanish Proverb: “La mona, aunque se vista de seda, mona se queda” - “The female monkey, though dressed in silks, monkey remains” - how appropriate, forget Yale and Harvard!), who is the true soul of Obama, and who in her demeanor, mannerisms, and barely concealed contempt of America, resembles more Hugo Chávez - just as hateful, un-American, and uncouth, but only wearing a wig - than the First Lady she wishes to con us to elect!

    So, Maria Isabel, next time you hug that accursed murderer, El Ché’s image, you may as well hug the dust and bones, all that is left in unmarked graves, of the countless thousands he killed! Next time your demi-god Obama tells you about “Change” tell yourself that the people of Cuba have been awaiting in torture and depredation for “Change” and FREEDOM, from El Ché’s totalitarian “communist paradise” for almost 50 years.

    Cuba was a multi-ethnic country where whites, of Spanish descent, lived side by side with mulattoes, and blacks, and even foreigners like the Jews from Poland who emigrated fleeing the Nazis, or the Chinese who emigrated in the 30s and 40s fleeing the war and the communist take-over of Mao.

    Yes, there was poverty in Cuba, even as there is today even in America, but Cuba was cosmopolitan, affluent, and prosperous, the “Pearl of the Antilles,” but most whites of European descent fled Castro’s Cuba, and have turned the once sleepy winter town of Miami into a World-Class destination It was your beloved “Ché” and Fidel who have turned Cuba into an impoverished, “Third World” country, of illiterate, indigent, starving, blacks and half-breed malcontents - as Obama - more resembling that bastion of “Black Nationalism,” Haiti, than the Cuba I once knew. I suppose that was the “Browning of Cuba.” Is this the “Browning of America” that Obama portends???

    Althor

  19. Nice Deb Liiiikes « Nice Deb Says:

    [...] Per Obama’s connections to unsavory characters: [...]

  20. Terrorists Prefer Obama The Ethan Show Says:

    [...] seriously — they do; I have proof (from Nice Deb): During an interview on WABC radio Sunday, top Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef said the [...]

  21. Michelle Malkin » Which terrorists support which Democratic presidential candidate? Says:

    [...] I had to leave off a lot of good stuff and juicy nuance. But a good place to go for some of that is Nice Deb’s deeper, linky roundup of thugs, tyrants, and terrorists boosting Obama. And then you might go look at Perfunction, where [...]

  22. Which Terrorists Support Which Democrat : Stop The ACLU Says:

    [...] Related stuff at Nice Deb’s [...]