Much has been made in the news regarding the voter fraud being carried out by the group ACORN. They are the big name in the voter fraud across the country right now, and are at best, making people wary of Obama's connections to them, and at worst, literally stealing the election.

Americans far and near cried foul in both the 2000 and 2004 elections, claiming that George W. Bush somehow stole the election in Florida, or that his campaign was responsible for disenfranchising voters in the 2004 election in Ohio. The folks on the front lines fighting against voter fraud were mysteriously silent in the ACORN case. Perhaps they felt it was karma for Bush winning previously, or maybe it was just a simple disdain towards Republicans and conservatives, blinded into thinking that only the right-wingers could be responsible for voter fraud, not the left-wing groups that support their candidates and causes.

A person I kept in touch with throughout the 2004 campaign and respected, Brad Friedman - although we had differences in political ideology - was at the forefront of voter fraud issues and has been a champion against the electronic voting machines, has unfortunately become a bit overzealous in his partisanship and has dismissed any charges against ACORN as phony.

The truth, however, always finds a way to creep out and rise to the surface. The sheer amount of evidence against ACORN is undeniable and in many cases, unbelievable.

In Missouri, officials are sorting through possibly hundreds of false voter registration forms, coming from ACORN, according to Charlene Davis, co-director of the election board in Jackson county, which encompasses Kansas City:

"I don't even know the entire scope of it because registrations are coming in so heavy," Davis said. "We have identified about 100 duplicates, and probably 280 addresses that don't exist, people who have driver's license numbers that won't verify or Social Security numbers that won't verify. Some have no address at all."

In Ohio, perhaps the worst of all offenses is occurring. Freddie Johnson has filled out 72 voter registration cards in 18 months for ACORN:

"Sometimes, they come up and bribe me with a cigarette, or they'll give me a dollar to sign up," said Freddie Johnson, 19, who filled out 72 separate voter-registration cards over an 18-month period at the behest of the left-leaning Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

"The ACORN people are everywhere, looking to sign people up. I tell them I am already registered. The girl said, 'You are?' I say, 'Yup,' and then they say, 'Can you just sign up again?' " he said.

That's not all. Two other Ohio residents have been subpoenaed by the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections for the ACORN fraud as well. Christopher Barkley and Lateala Goins have both been hounded by ACORN relentlessly to register, even though they have already done so:

Barkley estimated he'd registered to vote "10 to 15" times after canvassers for ACORN, whose political wing has endorsed Barack Obama, relentlessly pursued him and others. "I kept getting approached by folks who asked me to register," Barkley said. "They'd ask me if I was registered. I'd say yes, and they'd ask me to do it [register] again. "Some of them were getting paid to collect names. That was their sob story, and I bought it," he said.

"You can tell them you're registered as many times as you want - they do not care," said Lateala Goins, 21. "They will follow you to the buses, they will follow you home, it does not matter," she told The Post. She added that she never put down an address on any of the registration forms, just her name.

ACORN is even under investigation in Connecticut for allegedly registering a seven-year old to vote! In Nevada, the ACORN office in Las Vegas was even raided in a voter-fraud probe which was the pinnacle of a task force set up to pursue elections fraud in the state nearly two months ago. The problems here were just as disturbing as in Ohio.

"Some of these (forms) were facially fraudulent; we basically had the starting lineup for the Dallas Cowboys," Secretary of State Ross Miller said. "Tony Romo is not registered to vote in Nevada. Anyone trying to pose as Terrell Owens won't be able to cast a ballot."

Back in Ohio, the Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, was found to have broken federal law by not giving county elections boards the chance to determine whether new voter registrations are fraudulent. Brunner however, doesn't seem to care to much, and is appealing the ruling. As there are only a few days left for absentee ballots to be challenged for voter fraud, any time lost is letting more fraudulent votes get into the system.

ACORN has even admitted that they can't stop the voter fraud in Ohio from happening, blaming inefficiency and lack of resources for their problems, even though they had enough "resources" to register over 65,000 new voters in Cuyahoga County alone.

The ACORN scandal is a problem for Obama on a couple fronts. First, while non-partisan, the group's leaders have endorsed Barack Obama for President. Second, during the primary season, the Obama Campaign paid a company - Citizen Service Inc. - $832,598 for various political services. The connection to ACORN is that both groups have the same board of directors.

ACORN isn't the only problem though. In Houston, over 4000 voters have been found to be deceased, yet still on the rolls and even worse, found to have actually voted, after their death. Purging voters from the rolls could be classified under laziness or inadequate resources, but having the deceased vote cannot.

The case in Indianapolis is perhaps the most puzzling. Marion County, Indiana, where Indianapolis is located has an interesting problem. As of October 7, there were 677,401 voters registered in the county. However, according to the state's census data in 2006, there are only 632,897 eligible voters, which puts the eligible voters at 107% of the actual population. Granted, the population could have changed since 2006, but a net gain of 40,000 voters in two years, with all of them registering seems fishy. If you're wondering how I got the number of eligible voters, simply add up all the population groups from 18-24 and up together and you've got it.

This is one of those, even though I've got all my ducks lined up and the facts seem to back everything up, I hope that I'm wrong, if only to preserve the integrity of our electoral system. However, I highly doubt this to be the case (otherwise I wouldn't have written a lengthy piece) and feel that it will cause a no-win situation for our country no matter who is elected this November. If Obama wins, we'll be talking about voter fraud for his Presidency. Should McCain win, the election will have been stolen because the voter fraud didn't exist, at least according to the bitter Obama supporters. I'm praying that we find the truth, no matter how hard that is to swallow on either side.

Here’s my answer to your question of “what’s coming.”

The economy is going to get worse.  I know that’s hard to believe considering that in the past 15 months Americans have lost over 2 trillion dollars of retirement savings, that Iceland which has a GDP of $14 billion and liabilities in excess of $100 billion held by its banks and is on the brink of bankruptcy and the International Monetary Fund has just warned of a global “major downturn” in 2009.

A Second Great Depression?

Just how bad will things get?  Recently, I had an off-air conversation with one of the titans in the business community.  He has been in the thick of what’s happening on Wall Street, the credit crisis and the economy.  I’ve been speaking with him about these issues for about two years and he has always been an optimist.  Every argument I would make about how bad things were going to be he would counter with an equally optimistic economic prognosis.  For the first time he’s now told me that our economy is in for a very “rough landing, at best” and that if our politicians don’t get the bailout exactly right we could see our GDP (a measurement of the total value of all the goods and services produced every year) falling between 15%-20% in one year.

So what does that really mean?  A 15%-20% reduction of GDP would be like wiping out between $2.1 to $2.8 trillion dollars from our $14 trillion GDP.  To show you how big that number really is, consider that in one year we spend about $583 billion to run the entire Defense Department, $43 billion to fund the entire Department of Homeland Security and have spent less than a trillion dollars fighting in Iraq since that war began.

By way of comparison, in the Great Depression, our national GDP fell 29% over a four year period (1929-1933) and in that period we saw 7000 banks fail, a 25% unemployment rate and a Dow Jones industrial Average suffer an 80%  decline.  And that was when the pain of a shrinking GDP was spread over 4 years!

About three weeks ago I had the opportunity to walk with very successful billionaire who has spent over seven decades doing business in America.  I asked him what it would mean if our economy suffered a 15% reduction in GDP in one year.  He stopped mid-stride, thought for a few minutes before saying, “I can’t begin to imagine how bad things would be if that ever happened.”

CBS's Dean Reynolds has been following Barack Obama over the last year for the campaign. Over the last few days, however, he traveled with the McCain camp. The differences he saw tell an immense deal about the Obama campaign:

After most of the previous 12 months covering Barack Obama's campaign for the presidency, it was interesting, instructive and, well, relaxing to follow John McCain for the last few days. The differences between the two are striking.

Obama is the big time orator, McCain is the guy who struggles with a teleprompter or even note cards strategically placed nearby. Obama's crowds are larger, more enthusiastic. McCain's events are smaller, but to my eye, better choreographed. And now with the addition of Sarah Palin to some of his events, McCain can boast of crowds that match Obama's in energy.

There is an urgency to the McCain campaign now that I don't think was there before. Due to the fact that he is running second, no doubt, but it may also be because McCain has a finishing kick. Whatever the case, he is sharper on the stump than he was before. (Though I would suspect a candidate running behind would want to schedule two or three appearances per day, instead of the one McCain usually does.)

It is true that McCain enjoys taking questions from the audience in town hall-style settings. That doesn't mean he is the master of that kind of forum, it just means he's good at it. He likes to converse with voters. Obama does it well too, but seldom achieves that intangible bond with the people that all politicians crave -- or fake.

Behind the scenes, where the public is not allowed, there are other differences.

Obama's campaign schedule is fuller, more hectic and seemingly improvisational. The Obama aides who deal with the national reporters on the campaign plane are often overwhelmed, overworked and un-informed about where, when, why or how the candidate is moving about. Baggage calls are preposterously early with the explanation that it's all for security reasons.

If so, I would love to have someone from Obama's campaign explain why the entire press corps, the Secret Service, and the local police idled for two hours in a Miami hotel parking lot recently because there was nothing to do and nowhere to go. It was not an isolated case.

The national headquarters in Chicago airily dismisses complaints from journalists wondering why a schedule cannot be printed up or at least e-mailed in time to make coverage plans. Nor is there much sympathy for those of us who report for a newscast that airs in the early evening hours. Our shows place a premium on live reporting from the scene of campaign events. But this campaign can often be found in the air and flying around at the time the "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric" is broadcast. I suspect there is a feeling within the Obama campaign that the broadcast networks are less influential in the age of the internet and thus needn't be accomodated as in the days of yore. Even if it's true, they are only hurting themselves by dissing audiences that run in the tens of millions every night.

The McCain folks are more helpful and generally friendly. The schedules are printed on actual books you can hold in your hand, read, and then plan accordingly. The press aides are more knowledgeable and useful to us in the news media. The events are designed with a better eye, and for the simple needs of the press corps. When he is available, John McCain is friendly and loquacious. Obama holds news conferences, but seldom banters with the reporters who've been following him for thousands of miles around the country. Go figure.

The McCain campaign plane is better than Obama's, which is cramped, uncomfortable and smells terrible most of the time. Somehow the McCain folks manage to keep their charter clean, even where the press is seated.

The other day in Albuquerque, N.M., the reporters were given almost no time to file their reports after McCain spoke. It was an important, aggressive speech, lambasting Obama's past associations. When we asked for more time to write up his remarks and prepare our reports, the campaign readily agreed to it. They understood.

Similar requests are often denied or ignored by the Obama campaign aides, apparently terrified that the candidate may have to wait 20 minutes to allow reporters to chronicle what he's just said. It's made all the more maddening when we are rushed to our buses only to sit and wait for 30 minutes or more because nobody seems to know when Obama is actually on the move.

Maybe none of this means much. Maybe a front-running campaign like Obama's that is focused solely on victory doesn't have the time to do the mundane things like print up schedules or attend to the needs of reporters.

But in politics, everything that goes around comes around.

The comments from the Obama sheep will center around media bias and right wing talking points - Nice.

Missouri's Claire McCaskill is one classy B!#@h. Hat tip to Ben Smith at Politico...

McCaskill was stepping out of her chair at the end of an MSNBC interview, and Romney was up next. She and a staffer unplugged her various wires, and she handed Romney the earpiece the guests use to hear the host.

"I spit on this before I put it in," she said to Romney, with a sweet smile.

UPDATE: Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom emails: "You should have seen what she did to the chair."

Nice one Claire! Way to set an example for the people you supposedly represent.

The second debate had the opportunity to be a game changer for either candidate. However, it just didn't have the feel either side was hoping for, although presumably the Obama camp is happy that nothing major happened.

Obama continued to attack George Bush, and then throw John McCain's name in the mix. Obama also made the mistake of using the phrase "Senator McCain is right" although I only heard it once during the night, and that was during the question of who will replace Henry Paulson.

In a somewhat surprising sense, it was Obama who invoked 9/11 during his answer regarding sacrifices, not McCain. I also didn't hear McCain speak about being tortured in Vietnam, which was a nice change. Obama also claimed that he would cut more than his spending would add. I'm waiting to see any economist who agrees with that notion. The only chance Obama has of paying for his promises are to increase taxes.

Both McCain and Obama went over the time limit, although Obama did so more frequently and was called out on it by Tom Brokaw. At times, he sounded like a child, when after being called out by Brokaw, pouted that he was only trying to keep up with McCain. On the other hand, McCain scored major points here for showing some sarcasm during the question regarding Congress reforming Social Security and Medicare and saying that he'll answer the question, after Obama completely avoided.

One of the major differences to be highlighted tonight was on the topic of health care - was it a privilege, right or responsibility. McCain claimed that it was a responsibility, whereas Obama feels it is a right. I'm closer to McCain on this issue, but how the American public responds is all that matters.

Barack Obama made an error during one point, although his sarcasm was witty. He set himself up for a sound byte taken out of context when he said "It's true I don't understand" and then went on to say it was he didn't understand how we could invade a country not responsible for 9/11. His foreign policy inexperience was highlighted when discussing how we should try to help countries and prevent genocides in situations like the Holocaust and Rwanda. However, when highlighting genocide, he seemed completely oblivious to the point that genocide was exactly what Saddam Hussein had accomplished in Iraq when he used gas on the Kurds.

Finally, and perhaps the biggest gaffe by Obama that can be used in a television commercial, when discussing McCain's healthcare plan for allowing state choice, he said that companies would all go to one state that benefits the insurance companies, similar to how the banks all set up in Delaware because of the loopholes. You know, Delaware, the state where his running mate is from and has been a Senator in for over thirty years. Ouch.

Overall, as I said, neither candidate won big here. McCain did better, but he needed to be nearly flawless and hope Obama made some obvious gaffes. This didn't happen, so McCain, while the winner of the debate, is still the loser so far.

Full audio to come shortly...Also, the comments system bug should be fixed.

Update: Audio is here...

I think all of your questions fall  into three areas:  (1) how did we get here; (2) what's coming; and (3) what can I do to prepare myself and my family.

Consider this email as my answer to your first question, "how did we get here?". I'll be sending you 2 more emails answering your other two questions.  Since there's a lot of misinformation out there I will document each of the facts in my emails so you know where I pulled the information from and where you can go to read and learn more.

What you shouldn't do is panic. We'll get through this--don't pull all of your money out of the bank but have enough cash on-hand to meet any possible emergencies.

First, you've got to get the stock market's ups-and-downs out of your mind. The recent drops and upticks are short-term. Our economic problems are much bigger and deeper. Too many people believe that if the stock market goes up our problems are behind us and that's simply not true.

Last week the market had big drops and big upswings. In the end, the market ended down more than 800 points and lots of 'experts' were shouting it was a time to buy. I don't see it that way.

Did you know that just two days after the stock market crashed in October 1929 the market actually gained ground the next two days? The New York Times reported that "the market quickly regained its poise and stability...." Today, Wall Street 'pros' are telling us it's a good time to invest because Warren Buffet is investing. A lot of people were probably using the same argument when the Rockefeller family was buying stocks right after the 1929 crash, what they didn't know was that it would take Wall Street ten more years to see those prices again.

Our current economic crisis was caused by politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, who perverted the American Dream by treating home ownership as an undeniable right rather than what it really is, a privilege. President Bush aggressively promoted the benefits of home ownership through various policy positions, including a reckless zero down-payment initiative for some homebuyers and praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac even after concerns about their accounting standards began to surface.

Home ownership has always been part of the American Dream. It allows individuals and families to build wealth by having them pay themselves instead of a landlord or rental company and vests people in their communities by grounding them in local schools, stores and government.

The concept that owning a home was a privilege and not a right began to change in 1992 following a flawed Boston Federal Reserve Board study which allegedly found subtle discrimination in loan and mortgage lending by banks and mortgage lenders.

Politicians didn't care that the study was full of errors. The study found discrimination took place when five minority applicants were rejected for special low-income loans even though the applicants were rejected because they made too much money to qualify for a low-income loan, not because of their race. The report also classified as 'rejected' the applications of eight minority borrowers even though these borrowers voluntarily withdrew their mortgage applications. The study's sloppiness also went the other way.

The study reported that a white applicant was approved for a $3,115,000 loan in order to purchase a home valued at $445,000. It was later demonstrated that the actual loan was approved for $311,500, far less than $3 million reported and more importantly, less than the home's purchase price. When these and other errors were corrected no evidence of discrimination existed.

But politicians didn't care. They used this report as the basis to fix a problem which didn't exist. Leading the charge for change was President Clinton who immediately set-out to rework the Community Reinvestment Act to give federal officials the power to pressure banks to make loans they otherwise considered too risky or uneconomical.

Traditional lending requirements were labeled 'outdated' and discriminatory. What 'traditional lending requirements' were viewed as 'outdated' and 'discriminatory'? (1) banks were told that a "lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor" and that "past credit problems" should be viewed and considered in light of any "extenuating circumstances" so loans could be extended when they otherwise would have been denied; (2) banks were encouraged to let borrowers without enough money for a down-payment make-up any deficiency with "gifts, grants, or loans from relatives, nonprofit organizations, or municipal agencies" even though banks considered this risky as the home buyer would have little or no equity in the house; (3) banks were also instructed that borrowers who received child support, welfare payments or unemployment benefits could count that as 'income' for borrowing purposes.

Call me crazy but if you need to count child support money that's intended for your child, or are in such bad economic shape that you're relying on welfare payments to make ends meet or are unemployed, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't be buying a house. Too bad our politicians and the 'best and brightest' on Wall Street couldn't figure that out!

Community groups like ACORN, threatened to cry racism if banks didn't increase their loans to subprime borrowers. Banks typically avoided subprime loans as they carried a greater risk of default, but with law on its side, ACORN and other groups intimidated lending institutions into making such loans.

Banks soon learned, however, that making subprime loans actually could increase their profits without increasing their risk. Once the banks extended a loan to a subprime borrower that loan could then be sold by the bank to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, two government sponsored entities charged with making home ownership affordable to all Americans.

Banks, Wall Street, and mortgage lenders were soon eager to extend mortgages to subprime borrowers because they could make lots of money without carrying any risk. Fannie and Freddie carried all the risk once the original lending agency sold the loan to them. And once Fannie and Freddie bought the loan this freed up the banks to make even more subprime loans.

So everyone was a winner. The subprime borrower got the money to buy a house. The banks generated mortgages and made a nice profit and Fannie and Freddie executives made tens-of-millions of dollars in salaries and bonuses by hitting their annual goals.

The problem was that in order to keep all of this going lending standards were continually lowered to help the next level of subprime borrowers qualify for mortgages and no one had an incentive to make sure that the new subprime borrowers would actually be capable of making regular mortgage payments. The banks which extended the loans really didn't care because they were just going to sell the loan off to Fannie or Freddie. Fannie and Freddie weren't too concerned because it wasn't their money-they knew that they were insured by the 'full faith and credit' of the federal government (that's government lingo for "you and me").

So when federal regulators began to warn the executives at Fannie and Freddie about the increasing risks of non-payment by subprime borrowers the companies did nothing and when the regulators took their concerns to congress their warnings were met with scorn and contempt. The politicians who received the most political contributions from Fannie and Freddie, by pure coincidence, just happened to be their biggest defenders: Chris Dodd (D-$133,900), John Kerry (D-$111,000) and Barack Obama (D-$105,189).

Representative Barney Frank, who has been a fierce defender of Fannie and Freddie, actually said, while arguing against more regulation, "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.... " It's nice to know that he doesn't mind gambling with our money. Senator Chris Dodd, in praising Fannie and Freddie said, "I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this is one of the great success stories of all time.
"While Senator Charles Schumer said, "And my worry is that we're using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission."

Barack Obama has received more money from Fannie and Freddie than any other senator, with the exception of Senator Dodd, in the last four years. Before entering the senate, Obama filed a class-action lawsuit against Citibank, alleging that the bank was red-lining, or not doing enough lending in certain areas. That lawsuit was eventually settled. Arguably, Barack Obama helped cause the problem he now wants to fix.

The Federal Reserve Board was doing its part by throwing huge piles of cash at would-be home buyers by keeping interest rates too low. With low interest rates speculators began to look at houses as business opportunities, while others began to look at their homes as a giant piggy bank rather than a place where you actually lived and raised a family. Alan Greenspan encouraged this type of behavior and proudly said, "American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgages..." President Bush, responding to September 11th unwisely encouraged us to "go shopping" rather than hunker down financially and contribute to the War on Terror in other ways (can you say home equity loans?).

The SEC also shares in the blame. It failed to do its job (failed to adequately regulate mortgage brokers, the credit rating companies, and naked short-sellers), acted only after the markets froze-up (finally addressed mark-to-market rules) and refused to examine how the credit-default-swap market could grow from $919 billion in 2001 to over $54 trillion by 2008 (which allowed companies to make wild financial bets with the false confidence that 'insurance' would be there if the deal went south).

So what happened? Home-ownership rates which had been relatively constant for 25 years began a 10 year upward climb beginning in 1995, around the same time that government began its push and pressure for banks to make more subprime loans. The politicians, banks, lenders and Wall Streeters were thrilled because they were all making gobs of money.

Today we are all paying the price for the decisions made long ago. I have spoken to people involved at the highest levels and they now are all saying the same thing, "it is worse than anyone knows" and "worse than I even thought." Political and business leaders who I respect have told me that the economy is on the edge of an abyss.

The bailout is an outrage and is designed only to buy time for the politicians. It will delay the real hard times from hitting until after the November elections. Not one politician has said that this bailout legislation will put us on a better financial footing or that our economic problems will be put behind us. In fact, we'll be worse off because our politicians, even in this crisis, can't stop themselves from spending. This bill includes an extension of the rum tax benefits for Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands ($192 million), tax benefits for companies which manufacture wooden arrows for kids ($6 million), car racing tracks ($128 million), a provision which forces insurance companies to treat mental health problems like physical problems ($3.8 billion) and many, many more.

International markets don't offer any better alternative. Germany, England, the Netherlands, and Russia have all come out with their own government backed bailout plans. There are now calls for more international regulation (presumably led by the United Nations) and China has taken this opportunity to call for "a diversified currency and financial system and fair and just financial order that is not dependent on the United States." Meanwhile, there is increasing international indications that the dollar will lose its place as the reserve currency of the world.

The politicians from both political parties continue to lie to us. They promise us better healthcare and more government programs. The only thing either party will be able to deliver is higher, much higher, taxes as the debt swells and government revenues fall. The same politicians remain silent, while capitalism, which brought us the highest standard of living in the world, is increasingly attacked and discredited by its enemies.

But it's not capitalism which has been discredited by our current crisis, it's greed that has been shown to be at the root of our present economic uncertainty, and greed is unfortunately a universal human trait and has demonstrated its reach in socialism, fascism, communism and capitalism. The greed of Wall Street is nothing compared to the greed of our politicians who have continued to expand their power and influence at the expense of their country.

Our children and grandchildren will ultimately pay the price for their failure to act prudently and in the best interest of our country because they will be the ones saddled with mountains of debt and diminished standard of living.

I hope that this summary gives you a better idea of how the people who caused this fire are the same ones who are now telling us that they know best how to put it out and a reason not to believe their current promises.

We have faced tough times before. We fought the Nazis in World War II, defeated communism in the Cold War and Americans fought each other to keep our country together in our own Civil War. These tough times require us to educate ourselves and help others understand what has brought us to this point and the grave consequences of what will happen if we let this continue-that is our fight.

In my next email letter I will answer the other question you asked, "what's coming?"

Sis, I know you will always consider me your crazy brother but please pass this message on to all of your friends.  There are too many rumors circulating and I want to put the facts out there. This isn't about slamming the Democrats or Republicans--this is about getting the truth out to as many people as possible.  The more people we can wake-up the more people we will have restoring the hope, promise and opportunity of our great country.  Please pass this on.
 
Glenn

Associated Press writer Douglass K. Daniel recently came out attacking Sarah Palin for having a racially tinged subtext by claiming that Barack Obama was "palling around with terrorists."

Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?

In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.

Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as "not like us" is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.

Here's where the problem lies though - Racism is not implied in any way - Judgment is. William Ayers is white, not "dark-skinned" even if that is the typical terrorist today. Terrorism is defined as the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. By implying that connecting Obama to a "home-grown" terrorist like Ayers is racist, he is in fact the racist one by thinking that people can only equate terrorism with "dark-skinned" people.

This isn't the first case of Daniel's extremist opinions being purported as news. When Joe Biden claimed that paying higher taxes was patriotic, Daniel cited a left leaning tax group as cover for Biden's statement, claiming they were independent. This wasn't the worst atrocity though - Daniel took cheap shots at journalist Tony Snow after he passed away - The AP has since removed the story but a copy can be seen here.

Douglass K. Daniel's articles have as much of a right to be in the news as do that of Sean Hannity. They would be better served with credibility if the pieces were in the opinion section.

Economist Thomas Sowell had an excellent column on Friday, bringing some clarity and logic to the recent woes of the economy:

Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."

Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election day, just a few weeks from now.

Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being fooled a whole lot of the time.

The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain-- which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.

It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?

Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.

It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis.

Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.

Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration "right-wing ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter?

We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't.

Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter?

Then there is the question of being against the "greed" of CEOs and for "the people." Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of Fannie Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis.

Who in Congress defended Franklin Raines? Liberal Democrats, including Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus, at least one of whom referred to the "lynching" of Raines, as if it was racist to hold him to the same standard as white CEOs.

Even after he was deposed as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was consulted this year by the Obama campaign for his advice on housing!

The Washington Post criticized the McCain campaign for calling Raines an adviser to Obama, even though that fact was reported in the Washington Post itself on July 16th. The technicality and the spin here is that Raines is not officially listed as an adviser. But someone who advises is an adviser, whether or not his name appears on a letterhead.

The tie between Barack Obama and Franklin Raines is not all one-way. Obama has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's financial contributions, right after Senator Christopher Dodd.

But ties between Obama and Raines? Not if you read the mainstream media.

Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported.

The media alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public. Republicans, for reasons unknown, don't seem to know what it is to counter-attack. They deserve to lose.

But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.

 

If this sort of brainwashing doesn't open your eyes to the socialism that is Obama, nothing will.


This video was taken at a charter school in the heartland of America - The Urban Community Leadership Academy. The school address is as follows:

Urban Community Leadership Academy
1524 Paseo Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64108

They can be reached at the following number: 816-483-8035

A fellow blogger did some research and contacted the school. He spoke to the assistant dean at the school, Bernard, and voiced concerns regarding the video. The school was very cordial and did not know the video was online (they most certainly do now.) The school mentioned that this has been put to a stop and was done last year when Obama first announced his campaign. This however wasn't the case, as during the video, there was a reference to "Obama's Speech on Race to America."  The problem with what the school says is that the speech was not given last year when Obama announced his campaign, but rather this year - March 18th specifically. On top of all this, the school's reaction was to have the video pulled from YouTube. Doing this has just added fuel to the fire and it has even made the Drudge Report.

Obama inspiring youth in itself is not bad, but this type of devotion and brainwashing of our youth borders on the fanatical. The arguments against this from the Obama sheep are the standard one - Racism - which is just the typical way of avoiding the issues at hand. Remember, many of those who will defend these actions will also defend schools who deny access to the real military.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden are quick to point out that they'll cut taxes for 95% of Americans. This talking point sounds nice, but isn't even close to being accurate. For instance, to get a tax cut, one would have to pay taxes in the first place, right? Not according to Obama's plan. Let's say that taxes are cut by $500. If you pay $2000 in taxes currently, you'll see a tax cut and pay a net $1500. Easy math right?

Well, what happens if you only pay $400 in taxes? You'll receive the same $500 check, therefore getting a $400 tax cut, and then a $100 handout from the government.

And those who don't pay taxes? They'll just get another handout from the government - not a tax cut, but a budget increase. IPI sums it up very well:

Obama’s tax plan would increase marginal tax rates for just about every major federal tax. So how is it he claims to be a tax-cutter?

Obama combines these comprehensive tax increases with a slew of refundable tax credits primarily for low- and moderate-income workers, which he calls middle-class tax cuts.

“Refundable” means that if the worker doesn’t have enough tax liability to take advantage of the credit, the government sends the worker a check to cover the full amount of the credit. So if the tax credit is $1,000, but the taxpayer would otherwise only pay $200 in income taxes, the credit covers the $200 tax bill and the government sends the taxpayer a check for the remaining $800.

If the taxpayer pays nothing in federal income taxes, the government would send him a check for the whole $1,000.

Under Obama’s tax plan, these refundable tax credits are targeted to those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes. The latest CBO data shows the bottom 40 percent of income earners already pay no federal income taxes. Indeed, they receive a net payment from the federal income tax system (i.e., taxpayers) equal to 3.8 percent of all federal income taxes, because of already-existing refundable tax credits.

Such “tax credits” are really government spending programs. Call it the New Tax Welfare. Obama’s refundable tax credits would involve government checks for child care, education, housing, retirement, health care, welfare and just outright giveaways.

When Obama says he will cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, he is talking about his proposal for a $500 refundable income tax credit for all but the top 5 percent of income earners. For the bottom 40 percent, and more, this will be another check from the federal government, not a reduction in tax liability. Another increase in government spending rather than a tax cut.

The Obama tax plan is the opposite of tax reform, which involves lowering tax rates and closing loopholes. This plan doesn’t cut taxes, it increases welfare.