While the FEC ponders the source of over $22 million in "unidentified" donations to his campaign fund, Obama is relying on his friends on Wall Street to keep focus on his (other) economic plan(s).

We've talked about those plans in a previous post.

The Over the Hill Oracles talk about them (Obama Owns Wall Street) as they relate to the financial crisis on Wall Street.

Who owns the problem?   If you mean by "own," who will pay the bill (or part of it), it's going to be taxpayers.   If you mean by "own,"  who created this scenario, several names come to mind ….
 
Let's look at the foundations beneath the crisis: 

1) the corruption behind the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — those federally-funded low income housing authorities – includes a "who's who" list of former and present legislators, Presidents, CEO's who operated the system for personal and political gain, rather than low-income opportunities, and Congressional regulations that precipitated the calamity.

2) the role ACORN played — beyond a) it's push to register the youth, the homeless, the sheltered elderly or the ineligible voter class, b) it's voter intimidate tactics, and, c) it's history of voter fraud — in promoting "class warfare" and home ownership for poverty-level citizens (including the undocumented "residents" who recently glutted low-income mortgages and credit card markets).  

How does this relate to Barack Obama?  Why is he called the most radical politician to ever get close to the White House?  Read on .....

Comparing 19 years with 143 days presents a more revealing reality about Obama's Wall Street "ownership" and raises even more questions about his financial backers --

Recently, Barack Obama has joined in the chorus of fraudulent statements regarding Wall Street. Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac have contributed $126,349 to Barack Obama, which ranks him second on the list of Washington lawmakers to receive such contributions.

To compare Obama's contributions with McCain's is like comparing apples and oranges.

... in over 19 years [for McCain] and in 143 working days [for] Obama .... Obama has received over 35 million in campaign contributions from Wall street. That's over 5x the amount John McCain has received.

Hard not to confuse who represents whom.

Let's also look more closely at Obama's history of financial support from Wall Street in the context of his supposed "continguency plans":  Barack Obama has a socialist "menu" of projects he wants to do if elected president: quasi-nationalize healthcare, institute a cap-and-trade climate change plan, invest hundreds of billions in energy and infrastructure and education and global initiates (poverty, climate control, innovations, technology, etc.) which he will relegate to the United Nations to manage.

 What he does not want to do, I would imagine, is deal with an ongoing credit crisis on Wall Street. An adviser to the campaign told me that Obama has "contingency plans" to deal with the problem if it does not seem to be improving in 2009. (Already, he seems to be backing off his tax increases.)

.... As if to do so might detract from his trillion dollar-plus financial plan he intends to implement during his assumed presidency ....

But back to campaign finances....

Currently, the Obama campaign refuses to reveal his complete list of "bundlers" or their employers and funding-sources:

his campaign has ignored repeated requests from the Center for Responsive Politics and other watchdog groups to disclose his bundlers' employers and occupations, these figures are probably undercounts. The securities and investment industry is Obama's second-largest source of bundlers, after lawyers, and at least 56 individuals have raised at least $8.9 million for his campaign. The larger finance, insurance and real estate sector has produced $13.4 million for Obama, making it his most generous sector.

I don't know about the rest of you, but anyone who hides monies and the sources of monies ain't someone I want monitoring the federal budget.

James Lewis has it right:  To win this election, John McCain must let Sarah Palin unfurl the flag of REFORM in her debate vs Joe Biden on Friday night. 

Mr. Lewis is correct:

This crisis is not financial -- it is political.  It's not a market failure. It's a decades-long robbery by the Left, finally exposed for what it is.

 

The Democrats deserve the wrath of the voters this time.

BUYER  BEWARE:

This vehicle has been engineered by the DC Chop Shop.   Depreciation will far exceed voter expectations:

Can't wait until they detail their Wall Street pick-up .... too bad we can't fire (the) birds -- rather, Americans might as well pony up and enjoy desotas while being impala'd, probe'd and ram'd by pintos (see Spanish meaning) who want tercel us a front-end load of merde ...

Meanwhile, back on the Range(r) --

democrat land-rovers continue their charade .... those larking stingers and cheetahs -- hosting fiestas to accord a prelude to scoupe-ing our democracy ....

Daim     
(ler).

(photo from Bob Parks' blog)

UPDATE: Not only is ACORN on the "bailout list," but so is La Raza (illegal immigration group) ....  Clarice Feldman has the details --

Even more troubling is how the Democrat Party/Obama plan would siphon away untold millions or billions of public tax dollars into the Soros empire without taxpayer recourse. Obama promises "accountability" measures to ensure the money is spent wisely. But who would assess effectiveness of the spending? Why, experts in the social entrepreneurship community, of course. Fox, meet henhouse.

Soros has donated some $5 billion of his fortune to left-wing non-profit groups through the Open Society Institute — which is committed to Soros's militant ideology of toppling the "fascist" tyranny of the United States, which he says must undergo "de-Nazification" in favor of "justice." The mob at Obama-endorsing MoveOn, purveyors of the "General Betray Us" smear against Commanding General, MNF-I, David Petraeus, is the most notorious Soros-backed political arm. But scores of other activist non-profits have received Soros funding under the guise of doing non-partisan "community" or "social justice" work — and it is exactly such leftist activist groups that would be first in line for the Democrat Party/Obama's "social investment" seed money.

Point in case: ACORN. As I've reported before, Obama's old friends at the Chicago-based non-profit now take in 40 percent of its revenues from American taxpayers. They have raked in tens of millions in federal anti-poverty grants while their operatives preside over massive voter fraud, corporate shakedowns, and mortgage scams across the country. Soros has donated at least $150,000 to the group, according to Investor's Business Daily, and "heads a secretive rich-man's club called 'Democracy Alliance' that has doled out $20 million to activist groups like ACORN."

more updates pending ....

There are several individuals in Obama's background he refuses to acknowledge or discuss ....

Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, [a staff spokeswoman said.  In the face of resistance from Bush, the Democrat has long said that any such agreement must be reviewed by the US Congress as it would tie a future administration's hands on Iraq.  Source

In a Chicago speech after 9/11, he described the terrorists as "lacking empathy ... who came from a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair" .... Obama wqs wrong in this assessment: the terrorists came from wealthy, educated backgrounds -- similar to that of his American terrorist friend Bill Ayers.  

Another Obama associate, el Hadi (sp?), was stopped by the Federal Government from collecting and sending donations to the terrorist group Hamas ... he is currently raising money for Obama and lists Michelle Obama as a supporter.

 

BREAKING:  Does the Wall Street bailout include ACORN funding? 

MR. GINGRICH:  Well, the last time we were promised they were going to save us, it was $300 billion; it was a housing bill.  And what liberal Democrats in Congress did, for example, was add $500 million a year for a left-wing activist group called Acorn.  Now, I can’t imagine why we’d want the taxpayer to give $500 million a year to a left-wing activist group, but it’s in the bill which the Bush administration signed and that was only back in July and that was going to solve everything.  That was $300 billion ago.

Now we have a brand-new, liberal Democrats, many of whom, for example, Chris Dodd, was the largest single recipient of money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and he is the chairman of the Banking Committee.  So the guy who got the most money is now going to write a bill to give taxpayers money to the people who gave him money.  Somehow, I am not reassured.

WALL STREET (Continued):

"... it's embarrassing to have a candidate for President (A) not understand a problem, (B) gloat over its arrival, and (C) not know how to fix it."  source

"...Obama's ads and stump speeches attack McCain and Republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain, Senator Obama, was at the head of the line when the piggies lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks. Senator Barack Obama, number two on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the Senate. Next time you see that ad, you might notice he fails to mention that part of the Fannie and Freddie problem."

"[T]he bill's intention was to mandate sex education, especially concerning contraception and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases, for children before the sixth grade and as early as kindergarten. Obama's defenders may howl, but the bill is what it is."

"The bottom line is this. If you've got a rifle, you've got a shotgun, you've got a gun in your house, I'm not taking it away. Alright? So they can keep on talking about it but this is just not true. And by the way, here's another thing you've got to understand. Even if I wanted to take it away, I couldn't get it done. I don't have the votes in Congress."

The idea that Second Amendment rights depend on Congressional inaction due to a lack of votes is the give-away here.  First Amendment rights cannot be curtailed by Congressional Action.  Fourth Amendment rights are not subject to majority vote.  Gun owners and and originalists wonder why Obama is conceding that majorities in House and Senate can take guns away.

Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, [a staff spokeswoman said.  In the face of resistance from Bush, the Democrat has long said that any such agreement must be reviewed by the US Congress as it would tie a future administration's hands on Iraq.  Source

In a Chicago speech after 9/11, he described the terrorists as "lacking empathy ... who came from a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair" .... Obama wqs wrong in this assessment: the terrorists came from wealthy, educated backgrounds -- similar to that of his American terrorist friend Bill Ayers.  

Another Obama associate, el Hadi (sp?), was stopped by the Federal Government from collecting and sending donations to the terrorist group Hamas ... he is currently raising money for Obama and lists Michelle Obama as a supporter.

Questionable Associates

There are several individuals in Obama's background he refuses to acknowledge or discuss ....

A summary:

1)    Obama promises that he will free us from “foreign oil” many times in the document.  When it comes to the national origin of energy, Obama is soundly xenophobic.  Yet Obama’s plan allows no new development of American oil, which is the opposite of “foreign oil,” I believe.  In fact, Obama proposes massively increasing taxes on domestic oil producers to pay for all the mandates and government spending included in his plan.  This will give a huge advantage to foreign oil producers and make us far more dependent on foreign oil.  

Face it:  no matter how fast we pursue every form of alternative energy known, our economy will remain largely oil-based for decades. That oil can be American, or it can be “foreign.”  That’s our choice. Yet the 11 pages of Obama’s plan does not mention the word “drill” a single time.  Obama, like most Democrats, claims that “we can’t drill our way out of this.” But wait a minute -- didn’t some bunch of foreigners drill our way into it?  We’re dependent on their foreign oil because they drilled and we didn’t.  If Obama is elected, we will need to thank God for foreign oil.  It’ll be the only oil we have.

2)    Obama proposes to create “millions” of new jobs by making America the technology leader in alternative energy.  This is a response to the logical objection that his plan for billions and billions of dollars in new taxes, mandates, subsidies, and “investments” will harm the economy.  According to Obama, all the wise investment that government will dictate will pay off big when those foreigners that currently sell us “foreign oil” have to buy our cool new solar powered gizmos.  The idea that sending the economy scurrying to meet mandates is a form net growth is highly questionable.  

But this taxes-equal-wealth formula is made even more suspicious in this case, since another point of Obama’s energy plan is that the United States should give away new alternative energy technology in order to help the rest of the world fight Global Warming.  Well, which is it?  Are we going to get rich selling expensive technology to foreigners (who have a lot of oil), or are we going to get less carbon dioxide by giving away that same expensive technology to foreigners (who have a lot a oil)?

3)    Obama proposes to “combat deforestation” in the third world to stop Global Warming.  Yet a major theme of his energy plan is to mandate increased use of biofuels, which cause deforestation.  Even that noted conservative mouthpiece, Oxfam, is now on record as believing that biofuels production in the west forces poor countries to clear more of their own wild land to grow food (the alternative is to die of starvation, you see).  The result is that the lost forest and inefficient agriculture practiced in poor countries cause an increase the amount of carbon dioxide emitted.  You can have biofuels, or you can fight deforestation.  You can’t do both.  Land is the only thing they aren’t making more of -- and just because we have decided to turn 25% of our corn crop into a poor motor fuel, does not mean that the people that used to eat that corn are going to get 25% less hungry.

4)    Obama proposes, repeatedly, that he will use “market-based” solutions to re-engineer America’s energy economy. These so-called market-based changes will include the federal government:

a.    Mandating what fuels we use.
b.    Mandating who will make these fuels (it requires locally owned ethanol plants, which I believe were very popular in the South just a generation or two ago).
c.    Mandating what socioeconomic stratum the fuel makers should be selected from (“Barack Obama also believes the transition to a clean energy economy holds special promise for low-income communities and families, which are poised to shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden of global climate change.  To combat this problem, Obama will create an energy-focused youth jobs program to invest in disconnected and disadvantaged youth.”)
d.    Mandating what price these fuels must be subsidized at,
e.    Mandating the designs of the cars that will use these fuels
f.    Mandating that businesses buy a license to exhale,
g.    Mandating building designs, light bulb selection, electricity sources, and about 3400 other things.

You'll hear him talk about businesses, companies, and corporations. You'll hear him talk about how business must work smarter, and must reduce their emissions. What you won't hear him say is that the largest part of US greenhouse gas emissions come from you and me driving to and from work, and keeping our homes cool. Because if he said that, the whole 83% reduction thing would begin to strike too closely to home.

So he distracts us from it. He says he will take money from the corporations, then use some of it (15 billion) to advance energy policy ( more about that soon) and give the rest to us. The problem with that plan is twofold. First, any money he pulls from corporations will be replaced by money they pull from us. If you make it more expensive for a company to manufacture and provide a product, they will charge more for it. That's simple math. The second problem is that he wants to basically bribe us with our own money. It goes from us, through the corporations, to the Federal government through the emissions auction and back to us.

updates pending.

During his Tuesday morning speech, I found it amusing that Obama called McCain to task for "using the oldest trick in the political book" in calling for a 'Commission' to examine the current economic crisis. No less than five minutes later Obama then called for an "Advisory Group" to meet with the president regarding the current economic scenario.

You say tomato, I say tomahto.

For those who do not know, "billionaire business mogul" Penny Pritzker was named in January 2007 as Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)'s national finance chairman. She was also on the finance committee for Obama's 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate. In August 2001, Penny, Thomas, and Nicholas Pritzker were described as "struggling with a complicated legacy"—"a vast real estate and Hyatt hotel empire"—left to them by its founder, Jay Pritzker, the New York Times reported. In 2005, Forbes counted Penny Pritzer among The 100 Most Powerful Women, as well as a member of the Forbes 400.

The New York Times reported December 11, 2001, that the Pritzkers had agreed to pay a "record $460 million" spread out over 15 years to the federal government to avoid being punished" for Superior Bank's failure. It was "the largest settlement ever in the failure of a banking institution. The failure itself is one of the largest in the last decade, one that some estimate could cost the government up to $1 billion."

"Regulators said Superior had collapsed because of poor lending practices and sloppy bookkeeping," Time wrote. "The bank specialized in loans to people with poor credit histories, a practice called subprime lending."

Time also reported that the Pritzkers, who "have a long and troubled history in the S.& L. business" and "once battled the Internal Revenue Service over estate taxes, … also agreed to cede 90 percent of any money they might recover in separate litigation with the government."

If Mr. Obama is beholden to taxpayer-funded, government-designed highway and energy pork projects, he has gone hog wild over "refundable tax credits," which is the polite description of taxpayer-financed cash payments to people who pay no income taxes. Mr. Obama promises a $4,000 refundable tax credit to finance college tuition for students who spend 100 hours performing community service. There will be a refundable 10 percent mortgage-interest tax credit for married couples who take the $10,900 standard deduction because their itemizable deductions (including mortgage interest) fall below that level. Couples will also receive a refundable $1,000 tax credit to offset payroll taxes even if their refundable earned-income tax credit (EITC) has already eliminated their payroll-tax burden. Taxpayers will also finance a $500 refundable tax credit to augment a $1,000 savings-account deposit made by families earning up to $75,000.


Mr. Obama also promises to "triple the [EITC] benefit for minimum-wage workers." Let's do the math. For a married couple with two children working full-time and earning the minimum wage ($5.85 per hour, $24,336 per year), their refundable EITC would rise from $3,225 to $9,675. They already qualify for refundable child tax credits totaling about $1,850. Mr. Obama would increase their refundable child-care tax credit to $3,000. Don't forget his refundable $1,000 tax credit to partly offset their $1,500 Social Security taxes, which had already been more than offset by their nearly $10,000 refundable EITC. If they put that $1,000 in the bank, they would get another refundable tax credit of $500.

 

Oink Oink:  On the spending side of the ledger, Mr. Obama proposed a 10-year, $60 billion "National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank," which is a highfalutin name for a scheme to fund dubious pork-barrel projects that can't pass muster in our pork-addicted Congress. The $60 billion is just a down payment; it will be used to leverage "almost half a trillion of additional infrastructure spending." Guess who's going to pay for all that. Not to worry because the whole scheme will "generate nearly 2 million new jobs." Mr. Obama has also proposed a 10-year, $150 billion program "to establish a green energy sector that will create up to 5 million new jobs." His nearly universal health care plan, which he implausibly asserts will reduce the average family's insurance premium by $2,500 per year, is projected to cost between $50 billion and $65 billion per year.

updates pending ....