ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20100208

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable

Promoting "God's Holy Values and American Freedoms"!



"Daily Motivations"

"The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat." -- Lily Tomlin

"If you take responsibility for yourself you will develop a hunger to accomplish your dreams." -- Les Brown

"We all have two choices: We can make a living or we can design a life." -- Jim Rohn



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Pray for the happiness of those who curse you. Pray for those who hurt you. (Luke 6:27-28)

An attorney came to me with that familiar problem: a business partner he could not tolerate. The two men actually hated each other, criticizing and demeaning one another at every opportunity. Rather than speaking of God's desires for that relationship, each man focused only on the unlovable traits of the other.

I reminded my friend, a new believer, that God's Word commands us to love our enemies. I further suggested that he go to that other man, tell him he loved him, and ask his forgiveness for the way he had treated him. The attorney's eyes grew wide. "I could never love him," he said.

But in the end, he went in faith, confessed his lack of love for his partner, and asked for forgiveness. The partner was astounded. Nobody had ever come to him with such an attitude. He wanted to know how he could experience the kind of life my attorney friend had.

My friend led him to Christ, and they both came to share with me the miracle that God had performed in their lives. As a result, God created a deep and satisfying friendship between the two men. They began to experience God's supernatural love individually and as a true partnership.

We are saved through faith, by God's grace. We live by faith. We serve by faith. And we love by faith. You will be surprised and delighted to see what God will do in you when you choose to love people by an act of faith.

Your View of God Really Matters …

This very moment, think of that person who seems so difficult to love. Ask God to help you see that person as He sees him or her. Then step out in faith and take action, based on the right relationship you have claimed in the name and the truth of God.



"The Patriot Post"

"Posterity — you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it." — John Quincy Adams

"Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong." -- Abraham Lincoln, October 16, 1854

“In the beginning the church was a fellowship of men and women centering on the living Christ. Then the church moved to Greece, where it became a philosophy. Then it moved to Rome, where it became an institution. Next, it moved to Europe, where it became a culture. And, finally, it moved to America, where it became an enterprise.” – Richard Halverson, former Chaplain of the United States Senate

"It is to me a new and consolatory proof that wherever the people are well-informed they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights." --Thomas Jefferson



'The People's Seat'

Hope floats in Boston Harbor"Here's my assessment of not just the mood in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office." So said Barack Obama when asked about Tuesday's special election to fill the Senate seat held for 46 years by the late Ted Kennedy.

Naturally, to Obama, everything is about him; though, in a sense, Brown's shocking victory was about Obama -- but not in the way he thinks. In fact, we're hoping the president campaigns for more Democrats come fall. Voters have responded to his presence on behalf of fellow Democrats with resounding rejections in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races, and now in deepest-blue Massachusetts.

Then again, Obama says, it's Bush's fault. "People are angry and they're frustrated," he explained, "not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

So Scott Brown became the first Republican senator elected in Massachusetts since 1972 because voters are still angry with George W. Bush?

In reality, Brown won for several reasons. First, he was a first-rate candidate. His regular-guy persona resonated with voters and he communicated the right message -- that we need less government, not more. He ran explicitly against ObamaCare, saying, "I can stop it." In his victory speech, he said, "People do not want the trillion dollar health care plan that is being forced on the American people, and this bill is not being debated openly and fairly. It will raise taxes, it will hurt Medicare, it will destroy jobs and run our nation deeper into debt."

Best of all, in a debate with Democrat opponent Martha Coakley, Brown answered a challenge from moderator David Gergen about taking Ted Kennedy's seat only to derail health care: "Well, with all due respect, it's not the Kennedy seat, and it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the people's seat."

That's when the sea change in the polls began.

Second, Martha Coakley was a lousy candidate. Briefly, for example (and there are many), in a state with a large percentage of Catholic voters, Coakley offered the advice that if you object to abortion and are a devout Catholic, then "you probably shouldn't work in the emergency room." She derided Red Sox hero Curt Schilling as a "Yankee fan" and scoffed at greeting people in the cold at Fenway Park, which is precisely what hungry candidates do in sports-crazy Boston. In addition, a member of her staff was caught on video knocking a conservative reporter to the ground. In short, her arrogance and inanity are out of touch.

Finally, health care became an albatross for Coakley, and the Leftmedia didn't help, continuing to refer to the seat as "Kennedy's seat" in order to play up that debate. Kennedy spent a lifetime fighting for socialized health care, and, when he died, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) even suggested naming the health care bill after him. The irony is that the senator from Massachusetts was supposed to steer socialized medicine to passage; now it looks like the senator from Massachusetts could be the one to sink it. As PBS's Judy Woodruff sobbed, it would be "a tragedy of Greek proportions if Ted Kennedy's successor ... is the one who was responsible for the death of health care."

Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.

Americans who want to see the current health care bills die owe a debt of gratitude to Republican Mitt Romney. As Massachusetts governor, he signed universal health care into law in 2006 (as a state legislator, we should note, Brown voted for it). The law is similar to the one being debated in Washington in that Massachusetts residents are required to buy health insurance. The program is currently 20 percent more expensive than projected, and premiums are rising at least 7 percent per year. The reason Bay State voters don't want to pay for socialized medicine is that they're already paying for it. They believe that Washington's bill is redundant, and they have serious questions about the affordability and sustainability of their own state's health care plan. That's federalism at its best.

Nancy Pelosi doesn't think so, however. "Massachusetts has health care and so the rest of the country would like to have that too," she defiantly lectured. "So we don't [think] a state that already has health care should determine whether the rest of the country should."

Brown's win Tuesday may well end up being a victory for liberty. Many Democrats (finally) appear cautious about proceeding on health care. Even Pelosi admits she doesn't have the votes to pass the Senate version in the House. Some, including Obama, are talking about a much smaller bill.

We won't hold our breath, but those metaphorical crates of tea floating in Boston harbor this week may just be a promising sign.



"The Web"

Cross Placed at Air Force Pagan Circle Prompts Probe

By Joshua Rhett Miller

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584886,00.html

Military Religious Freedom Foundation

This large cross was discovered Jan. 17 at a new pagan worship center at the Air Force Academy in Colorado, prompting a complaint.

This large cross was discovered Jan. 17 at a new pagan worship center at the Air Force Academy in Colorado,
prompting a complaint.

A large wooden cross was placed at an Air Force Academy worship area for pagans and other Earth-centered religions, prompting an investigation by academy officials, though some caution that it's hardly "destructive behavior."

Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said an Air Force Academy staffer spotted the cross — erected with railroad ties — lying against a rock at a worship area for pagan groups at the academy in Colorado Springs, Colo., on Jan. 17.

Tech. Sgt. Brandon Longcrier, a self-described pagan who sponsors the group that worships there, said the incident was similar to someone leaving a pentagram or a pagan symbol at the academy's chapel altar and claimed he and others are victim of a hate crime. In an e-mail to Weinstein's group, Longcrier said his group had been "thrown under the bus by the system we trusted" and that the "hate crime" has been ignored.

David Cannon, director of communications at the Air Force Academy, said the incident remains under investigation. He declined to indicate whether it could be classified as a hate crime pending completion of the probe.

Cannon said that if a cadet were behind the incident, the Air Force would have the power to prosecute. If a civilian did it, the case could be taken up by local authorities.
"Until (the investigation) is over, we can't classify it as anything," Cannon told FoxNews.com, adding that it remains unclear whether cadets were involved.

In a statement issued Wednesday, Lt. Gen. Mike Gould, the Air Force Academy's superintendent, said the school will take "appropriate action" if a cadet was indeed responsible.

"Our message is simple: we are taking this incident very seriously and conducting an inquiry," Gould's statement read. "We absolutely do not stand for any type of destructive behavior or disrespect for human dignity."

Regardless of who left the cross, some critics say Gould's characterization of its placement as "destructive behavior" is inaccurate.

"What I think people are saying here is, 'We reject the idea of paganism and we are expressing another religious symbol,'" said Herb London, president of the Hudson Institute, a Washington-based think tank. "I'm not sure I would characterize that as a destructive act. A symbol put next to another symbol does not represent destructive behavior. It's somewhat exaggerated — you have your symbol, we have our symbol.'"

London said the incident is akin to placing a Hanukkah decoration in close proximity to a nativity scene.

"It'd be one thing if there was a harmful act, but to have competing symbols, I'm not sure I would put that in the category of destructive behavior," London continued. "What is being expressed here is the view of the Judeo-Christian as opposed to the pagan tradition."

Weinstein, whose New Mexico-based group represents more than 16,000 active duty and retired servicemembers, said the incident was "clearly" a hate crime and characterized any denial of that assertion to be preposterous.

"We don't think, we know it was a hate crime," said Weinstein, who compared the incident to spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue.

"It has the same impact, the same hurt, the same marginalization," he said Thursday. "That circle is their mosque, their church, their synagogue."

While the incident is "clearly insensitive and inappropriate," Todd Gaziano, director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, also cautioned against applying that "destructive" label.

"This is a serious affront, it's insensitive, it's unacceptable — without saying it's vandalism, without saying it's a crime," Gaziano said. "And that's the way I think both sides should treat this. Some people can go too far in saying it's destructive or vandalism. It's serious notwithstanding, but it's not vandalism and it's not destructive of the property."

Gould, meanwhile, said the Earth-centered spirituality group that meets at the worship area falls within the definition of religion as defined in the United States Air Force Instruction 36-2706: "a personal set or institutional system of attitudes, moral or ethical beliefs and practices held with the strength of traditional religious views, characterized by ardor and faith and generally evidenced through specific religious observances."

Gould said the addition of the Earth-centered worship circle was done in response to requests of both cadets and active duty personnel.

"Therefore, it our obligation, my obligation, to accommodate the group's religious requirements in a manner that is fair and consistent with other religious groups who are accommodated at the Academy," Gould's statement continued.

Gould said the worship area — a stone circle atop a hill overlooking the academy's visitor center — is the latest addition to other sacred spaces for Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists.

"Cadets learn that to succeed as an Air Force officer we must be able to support and respect the people who we lead, serve with and fight alongside even if they do not share our personal beliefs," Gould said. "Cadets learn that every servicemember is charged with defending freedom for all Americans and that includes the freedom to practice a religion of their choice or to not practice any religion at all."



Alito objected to Obama's history claim

Mark Sherman - Associated Press Writer

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Headlines/Default.aspx?id=886626

WASHINGTON - Still wonder exactly why Justice Samuel Alito shook his head and mouthed the words "not true" during President Barack Obama's State of the Union address? He objected to the president's saying the ruling reversed a century of law.

The president touched off a controversy when he broke with tradition - and decorum, his critics said - by criticizing the court's recent campaign finance decision in his speech with six justices in attendance and bound by their own tradition of not reacting to what is said. (Justice Antonin Scalia once said he no longer goes to the annual speech because the justices "sit there like bumps on a log" in an otherwise highly partisan atmosphere.)

"With all due deference to the separation of powers," Obama said, "the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests _ including foreign corporations _ to spend without limit in our elections."

It seems clear from Alito's questioning when the court heard argument in the case that he was taking issue with the president's assertion that the court reversed 100 years of law, rather than with Obama's reference to foreign influence, which also has generated some legal debate.

At the September argument, Alito suggested to attorney Seth Waxman that 20 years was the appropriate time frame, encompassing two high court decisions that upheld limits on corporate spending in campaigns.

"Mr. Waxman, all of this talk about 100 years and 50 years is perplexing," Alito said then. "It sounds like the sort of sound bites that you hear on TV. The fact of the matter is that the only cases that are being, that may possibly be reconsidered, are McConnell and Austin. And they don't go back 50 years, and they don't go back 100 years."

In the end, the court left untouched a 1907 law that bans contributions by corporations to candidates. But in overruling those two decisions, the court did strike down limits on corporations in a law that had been in place since 1947.

News organizations attempting to convey the sweep of the ruling without ignoring these distinctions said the court's opinion represented a sharp turn away from the a century-long trend toward greater regulation of corporate contributions.



Justice Defends Ruling on Finance

By ADAM LIPTAK

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/us/politics/04scotus.html?hp

WASHINGTON — In expansive remarks at a law school in Florida, Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday vigorously defended the Supreme Court’s recent campaign finance decision.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Justice Clarence Thomas said he had stopped attending State of the Union speeches.

The latest on President Obama, his administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.

And Justice Thomas explained that he did not attend State of the Union addresses — he missed the dust-up when President Obama used the occasion last week to criticize the court’s decision — because the gatherings had turned so partisan.

Justice Thomas responded to several questions from students at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Fla., concerning the campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. By a 5-to-4 vote, with Justice Thomas in the majority, the court ruled last month that corporations had a First Amendment right to spend money to support or oppose political candidates.

“I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,” Justice Thomas said. “These are corporations.”

The part of the McCain-Feingold law struck down in Citizens United contained an exemption for news reports, commentaries and editorials. But Justice Thomas said that reflected a legislative choice rather than a constitutional principle.

He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.

“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”

It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”

Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.

“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”

“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.

Asked about his attitude toward the two decisions overruled in Citizens United, he said, “If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.”

Justice Thomas would not directly address the controversy over Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Citizens United ruling or Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s mouthed “not true” in response. But he did say he had stopped attending the addresses.

“I don’t go because it has become so partisan and it’s very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there,” he said, adding that “there’s a lot that you don’t hear on TV — the catcalls, the whooping and hollering and under-the-breath comments.”

“One of the consequences,” he added in an apparent reference to last week’s address, “is now the court becomes part of the conversation, if you want to call it that, in the speeches. It’s just an example of why I don’t go.”



Sarah Palin has President Obama in her sights, telling FoxNews.com she "would be willing" to challenge him in the 2012 presidential race.

FOXNews.com

By Judson Berger

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/07/palin-willing-obama/

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin at the National Tea Party Convention ("Fox News Sunday").
Sarah Palin has President Obama in her sights, telling FoxNews.com she "would be willing" to challenge him in the 2012 presidential race.

The former Alaska governor, in an interview Saturday on the sidelines of the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, said President Obama's "lack of experience" has held him back his first year in office and that she would put her credentials up against his any day.

"I would be willing to if I believe that it's right for the country," Palin said when asked if she would run for president in 2012.

She qualified the statement, adding that she sees "many" other potential candidates who are "in as strong or stronger position than I am to take on the White House and if they're in a better position than I in three years, I'll support them."

But the former GOP vice presidential nominee told "Fox News Sunday": "I won't close the door that perhaps could be open for me in the future."

Feb. 6: Sarah Palin speaks at the first National Tea Party Convention.

Palin is doing more than simply dipping her toe in the water with tentative talk of presidential aspirations. Since unexpectedly leaving the Alaska Governor's Mansion last year, she's formed a political action committee, she's started endorsing and supporting candidates in the Republican primaries, she's published a book and she's been agitating the administration on a regular basis.

She delivered the keynote address Saturday at the tea party convention, using it to hammer Obama as soft on terrorism. When convention organizer Judson Phillips mentioned the idea of "President Palin" in a question-and-answer session afterward, audience members leapt to their feet and burst into a chant of "Run, Sarah, Run."

In the near-term, Palin said she is going to focus her energy on the upcoming GOP primaries, and that she may support "hundreds" of candidates in the months ahead.

"I do want competition to allow the cream of the crop to rise (in the GOP contests)," Palin said, adding that her support would translate into everything from donations to campaign rallies. "There are hundreds of candidates on local, state and on the national level that hopefully we'll be able to help."

Palin recently endorsed Rand Paul, the son of Texas Rep. Ron Paul, in the GOP primary for U.S. Senate in Kentucky. She said she was attracted to his limited government platform and that she's already donated to the campaign.

Asked which other races she's focusing on, Palin, who's a Fox News analyst, said she'll "do whatever I can to help" the Republican nominee, whoever he or she is, against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada.

"If the election were today, Reid ... would go down," Palin said.

However, she said she doesn't have any favorites in the Republican primary -- and dismissed the idea that she fancies herself a political kingmaker.

"That's going too far because I do not have that power nor desire," she said.

During her Saturday keynote address and in her interview with FoxNews.com, Palin pointed to the tea party movement as the surging political force that will make waves in the upcoming elections.

She said tea party support will "absolutely" be critical for candidates in some districts and that the GOP should not be scared of the movement.

"It absolutely helps (the Republican Party) and those who are fearful about it and those who are trying to stir up controversy about it -- they obviously are apprehensive in terms of the message getting out there, and those people are gonna get thumped because this is a good message," she said. "Who can argue this movement?"

As Palin aligns herself more closely with the evolving tea party movement, some surveys suggest she could have the support to eventually mount a competitive presidential run -- despite tough questions raised during the 2008 campaign about her experience and qualifications. A poll last week had her leading, by a few points, the pack of potential GOP candidates. The Research 2000 poll also showed Republican voters viewing her as more qualified to be president than Obama by a 4-1 margin.

Asked whether she believes she's more qualified than Obama, Palin showed little hesitation.

"In the campaign, we tried to bring attention to the fact that Obama had really not a lot of experience. And I do say that my executive experience, as an administrator, as a team manager if you will was, and so was John McCain's as a matter of fact, was stronger and we had more experience than Barack Obama did in terms of managing huge multi-billion dollar budgets and thousands of employees ...¦ and that hasn't changed," Palin said.

"I think that President Obama with all due respect, his lack of experience is really made manifest in the way that decisions are made in the White House today," she added.

Palin slammed Obama in her Nashville speech for his foreign and national security policies. And with health care reform on the ropes, she told FoxNews.com it's time to pull the plug.

"I sure wish that the present tool being used to reform health care would die, but I don't trust as far as I can throw them some of the people who are saying ok, we'll slow down," she said. "What they're working on today there in Congress and the White House, it needs to die."



AFL-CIO’s Stewart Acuff: NLRB appointees can “change the rules”

Posted by: Townhall.com Staff at 9:50 AM Guest post from the Center for Union Facts

http://townhall.com/blog/g/6a0ae516-f5ed-40d8-a8cc-4a31115c3d05

As the Director of Organizing at the AFL-CIO, Stewart Acuff draws a smaller crowd than the SEIU’s Andy Stern or his boss at the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka. But that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have something laughable to say.

In his poorly timed Huffington Post piece yesterday, Acuff took that opportunity to sing the praises of the Employee Free Forced Choice Act and bemoan it stalling on the Hill. Acuff decided it would be a great idea to show big labor’s cards on the day before the Craig Becker vote. He wrote that if the Senate “no longer” has EFCA’s 60 votes, then labor will be able to simply create new regulation through nominees to the NLRB.

Um, that’s exactly what the opposition to Craig Becker is claiming will occur, and they have Acuff to thank for confirming that publicly. From his own post:

“We are very close to the 60 votes we need. It we aren’t able to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, we will work with President Obama and Vice President Biden and their appointees to the National Labor Relations Board to change the rules governing forming a union through administrative action to once again allow workers in America access to one of the most basic freedoms in a democracy–the freedom of speech and assembly and association so that workers can build the collective power to challenge the Financial Elite and Get America Back to Work.”

Acuff may have gotten some much needed attention from his post. But if the Senate doesn’t confirm Becker now, Acuff might get some attention and credit for that too.



Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

By STEVEN A. HOLMES

Published: Thursday, September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies.

During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants



Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659

philjberg@obamacrimes.com

Berg Announces “Birth Certificate March on Washington” to Demand Obama Resign as Obama is not “Constitutionally qualified” to be President

http://obamacrimes.com/

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 02/03/10) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States announces “Birth Certificate March on Washington” demanding Obama resign as President as he is “Constitutionally ineligible” to be President.

Berg is requesting all citizens of the United States to email, fax or mail a “copy” of their Birth Certificate that will be presented to Obama demanding that Obama resign because he has failed to produce his long form [vault] Birth Certificate to show he is “Constitutionally eligible” to be President.

Berg related an email he received. A woman from Texas told me she registered her thirteen [13] year old nephew for school. When registration was finished, her nephew asked the Principal, “Can I ask you a question?” The Principal said, “Yes.” Her nephew said, “How come I had to show my Birth Certificate to register for school, but Obama did not have to show his to be President ?”

Berg said, “That email motivated me to continue to expose Obama for the fraud he is !”

Berg continued, “Since the Courts are taking their time to get to the point of allowing ‘Discovery,’ it is time to motivate the citizens of the United States for a ‘Peaceful Revolution’ to expose the ‘HOAX’ of Obama, the biggest ‘HOAX’ in the history of our country, in over 230 years !”

Berg wants people to email, fax or mail a copy of Their Birth Certificate to:

Email = philjberg@obamacrimes.com

Fax = (610) 834-7659

Mail = Obamacrimes
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Berg said, “Then, we will be preparing them to deliver to Obama demanding that he resign from the Office of President as he has not proven that he is “Constitutionally eligible” to be President and that Obama has not produced legal documents to show he legally changed his name from his ‘adopted’ name of ‘Barry Soetoro’ from Indonesia.

I am proceeding for the 305 + million people in ‘our’ U.S.A., for ‘our’ forefathers and for the 3.2 million men and women that have died and/or been maimed defending our Constitution with our ‘Peaceful Revolution’ to prove that Obama is not Constitutionally qualified/eligible to be President.”

Berg continued, “I still have cases pending in the Federal Courts. Go to obamacrimes.com to see the status of each case.”



"The e-mail Bag"

PSALM "2010"

Obama is the shepherd I did not want.
He leadeth me beside the still factories.
He restoreth my faith in the Republican party.
He guideth me in the path of unemployment for his party's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the bread line,
I shall fear no hunger, for his bailouts are with me.
He has anointed my income with taxes,
My expenses runneth over.
Surely, poverty and hard living will follow me all the days of my life,
And I will live in a mortgaged home forever.
I am glad I am American,
I am glad that I am free.
But I wish I was a dog .....
And Obama was a tree.