Candidate for FBI post has history in scandals ~ By Jerome Corsi

Role in not preventing 9/11

Also, from 1994 to 1997, while serving in the Department of Justice as a deputy attorney general, Gorelick wrote a 1995 memo creating what in time became known as the "Gorelick Wall."

Basically, the Gorelick memo set in stone the Clinton-era doctrine that terrorism was to be regarded as a criminal justice problem. That meant information developed by intelligence agencies was not to be shared with criminal investigative units, including the Department of Justice, largely because the regulations under which intelligence agencies operate did not necessarily protect the civil rights of criminal suspects under U.S. law.

Gorelick's role in writing the memo was not generally known until she was appointed by then-Senate Democratic Party minority leader Tom Daschle to serve as a commissioner on the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, commonly known as the 9/11 Commission.

Her participation as commissioner became controversial when then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission declassified and brought to light the 1995 Department of Justice memorandum authored by Gorelick.

Appearing before the 9/11 Commission, Ashcroft testified, "Although you understand the debilitating impact of the wall, I cannot imagine that the commission knew about this memorandum, so I have declassified it for you and the public to review. Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this commission."

I think that once you read this article by Jerome Corsi, you will understand why the choice of Jamie Gorelick to head up the FBI would be an extremely bad decision by the Obama administration.

After you read Jerome's column, be sure to also read the two stories linked below under RELATED STORIES. First, Ellis Washington will help you understand more about "Gorelick's Wall" and how it helped to undermine our anti-terror efforts. But, it will be the second story that goes way beyond what even Jerome Corsi mentioned in this column. Jack Cashill discusses how Jamie Gorelick hijacked the 1996 Pan Am 800 crash investigation, and possibly assisted in a cover-up of what may have been an act of terrorism.

In all that I've read about Jamie Gorelick, in these stories and many more, I need to tell you that as the Director of the FBI, she would be a severe detriment to this country's national security. With Gorelick, along with Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, and Attorney General Eric Holder, our safety, national security, and freedom would all be in grave danger.

I believe that if Gorelick is Obama's choice for the Director of the FBI job, she would have to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. I think this would be a good time to write your Senators so that we can prevent this possible appointment from ever happening. If you have a twitter account and/or Facebook page, please link to this column, we need to get the word out. It's time to begin informing others. Now!

When I found this article by Jerome Corsi just a few days ago, I almost fell out of my chair, knowing what I did from Jack Cashill's columns and other reading. I doubt any other name that could have been considered for FBI Director would have stunned me any more. And what we should really be concerned about is how it will effect the morale of the current agents! My bet is that most of them are very aware of who Jamie Gorelick is, and what she is about. We are still in a war on terror, and I do not think this is a good time to neuter one more line of our defense. I'm just sayin'...

RELATED STORIES:
Mr. Obama, tear down this Gorelick Wall! ~ By Ellis Washington
The last great coverup ~ By Jack Cashill


Candidate for FBI post has history in scandals

Gorelick's resume includes undermining anti-terror effort, aiding mortgage meltdown

JEROME CORSI

By Jerome Corsi

March 24, 2011 ~ 9:35 pm Eastern

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

JAMIE GORELICK

There are reports that President Obama is considering former Clinton administration official Jamie Gorelick as a possible candidate to be the next chief of the FBI, and critics are erupting with horror at the idea of a person in that position who, as one alleged, "helped to bring us 9/11 and the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

The Wall Street Journal and Fox Nation have reported that Gorelick is on the short list of candidates to take over the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

But if the White House seriously is considering such an appointment, surely discussed as part of the vetting process will be her controversial role as a deputy attorney general under Clinton in not preventing the 9/11 tragedy as well as her role under Clinton as a vice chair at Fannie Mae when the mortgage giant developed catastrophic problems.

Lucrative history at Fannie Mae

In the aftermath of the U.S. government takeover of Fannie and Freddie, attention focused on three prominent Democrats who served as Fannie Mae executives: Franklin D. Raines, former Clinton administration budget director; James Johnson, former aide to Democratic vice president Walter Mondale; and Gorelick.

All three earned millions in compensation while serving as top Fannie Mae executives.

• Raines earned $90 million in his five years as Fannie Mae CEO, from 1999 to 2004;

• Johnson earned $21 million in just his last year serving as Fannie Mae CEO from 1991 to 1998; and

• Gorelick earned an estimated $26 million serving as vice chair of Fannie Mae from May 1997 to May 2003, according to a May 2006 Special Examination of Fannie Mae conducted by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.

All three subsequently were involved in mortgage-related financial scandals concerning their stewardship at Fannie Mae.

In 1998, as Fannie Mae vice chairman, Gorelick received a bonus of $779,625, despite her alleged involvement in a scandal in which Fannie Mae employees falsified signatures on accounting transactions in order to manipulate Fannie Mae books to meet 1998 earning targets. The manipulations allegedly triggered multi-million dollar bonuses for top executives, including Gorelick.

The 1998 bonus reported for then-Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO James Johnson was $1.932 million and for then-chairman designate Franklin Raines was $1.11 million.

In 2001, Gorelick bragged to Business Wire that Fannie Mae had passed in the second quarter of 2001, a year-and-a-half ahead of schedule, its acquisition target to purchase $10 billion of sub-prime mortgage loans under the terms of the Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977 during Jimmy Carter's administration.

"Our approach to lenders is 'CRA Your Way,'" Gorelick explained to Business Wire. "Fannie Mae will buy CRA loans from lenders' portfolios; we'll package them into securities; we'll purchase CRA mortgages at the point of origination; and we'll create customized CRA-targeted securities."

Business Wire noted that through its "American Dream Commitment," Fannie Mae under Gorelick's management pledged to transact before 2010 more than $20 billion in specially targeted CRA business and to finance over $500 billion in CRA business altogether.

Over the course of the past decade, an estimated one-third of loans financed by Fannie Mae were specified to meet Fannie Mae's CRA business goal.

In remarks to the American Bankers Association's National Community and Economic Development Conference in Chicago on Oct. 30, 2000, Gorelick said, "We will take CRA loans off your hands – we will buy them from your portfolios, or package them into securities – so you have fresh cash to make more CRA loans."

The Wall Street Journal reported Sept. 25, 2008, that Gorelick, while yet an executive at Fannie Mae, received from Countrywide Financial Corp. a favor from Countrywide's then-CEO Angelo Mozilo, a "friend of Angelo" refinancing. The favor, in 2003, reportedly was favorable interest for a 10-year, 5 percent fixed-rate deal on a $960,149 mortgage owned by Gorelick.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Gorelick said she had no knowledge of receiving special treatment.

Still, the Wall Street Journal reported Gorelick's mortgage was handled through the Countrywide's VIP lending department in California, and the staff there was aware of her position as a senior Fannie Mae executive, according to statements Robert Feinberg, a former Countrywide employee, made to the newspaper.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Obama: Transforming America ~ By Henry Lamb

The War Powers Act says:

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities … are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces"

As a candidate in 2007, Obama knew better. He told the Boston Globe:

The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As president, he doesn't seem to care what the Constitution or the War Powers Act say. He considers the Constitution to be a "flawed" document he alone has the wisdom to correct.

Obama's foreign policy is transforming America.

Here is the thing: Politicians always promise things that they know the voters want, and they rarely deliver. But here's the other thing: Obama told America what he wanted to do to transform America during the 2008 campaign, and he still managed to be elected. And shockingly, he has delivered on way too much of the agenda he promised. And then, there are the promises that John Stossel says Obama did not deliver on:

Video provided by HTX900s on Jan 20, 2010

It took me an extra day to get this great column by Henry Lamb posted. I wanted to make sure that I would be able to add further value to what he had to say. Well, as it turned out, there wasn't much more I could write that would fill in any blanks. Henry had it covered. But, at least I found the above video that illustrates much of what is covered in Henry's first paragraph.

And here is one last thing... When those of us on the Right have something to point out about Obama and the Left, it isn't "nasty, smarmy things." No, we're just letting people know what it was that Obama promised, and it is in his own words. It isn't just about which parts of the Obama agenda that have succeeded or failed that really matters. It is the fact that he made his agenda known: Transform America. And I think the results of that transformation will not be pretty. The very scary part is that it really seems to be intentional. Very scary, especially for the fact that Obama has announced that he is running in 2012. I'm just sayin'....



Obama: Transforming America

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

April 02, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

He said he was going to do it. He explained why he was going to do it. He even said how he was going to do it. He has been doing it since the day he took office.

To be fair, he did take office at a time when the economy was on the brink of disaster. Of course, he and others of his philosophical ilk caused both the housing bubble and its collapse – no matter how hard they deny it. Organizations such as ACORN, where Obama cut his teeth as a community organizer, demanded that banks fund mortgages for people who had no hope of repaying them. Democrats in Congress made it easy for banks by guaranteeing the loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Two months before the 2008 election, the U.S. government had to bail out the two failed financial institutions to the tune of $15 billion.

During eight years under the Bush administration, the national debt increased by $4 trillion ($500 billion per year.) These years included the attack on the World Trade Centers, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Hurricane Katrina, as well as the explosion of the housing bubble. Obama added $4 trillion to the national debt in 421 days. And his "spreading the wealth around" has created a debt that will burden future generations for years to come.

Obama's economic policy is transforming America.

Despite the absence of constitutional authority, or a single Republican vote, Obama's health-care plan not only deepens the public debt, but also forces previously free citizens to purchase a product designated by the government. Never before has the federal government presumed to dictate what its citizens must buy. Moreover, Obama and his Democratic majority in Congress used bizarre procedures to force "Obamacare" into law. By so doing, Obama has demonstrated that he believes his ideas on governance to be superior to the founders', and that achieving his goals is far more important than any rules or procedural restraints.

Obama chooses not to enforce federal drug laws relating to marijuana, or to allow his Department of Justice to prosecute Black Panthers who stood – with billy club in hand – in front of polling places to intimidate white voters. But he quickly sues a school district for not allowing a Muslim teacher to take three weeks off to go to Mecca.

Obama's social policy is transforming America.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

2010: Don't forget, and do tell! ~ By Herman Cain

In his column today, Herman Cain wants to remind everyone not to forget all the things that Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress have done in the past two years. Herman says that the important thing to do is to make sure to tell people that are willing to listen. Don't let people forget!

2010: Don't forget, and do tell!

HERMAN CAIN

By Herman Cain

December 27, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Don't forget what President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress did in 2010 – and tell everybody who will listen! And if they do not get outraged, then they are sleeping under a rock, and they can't get out.

Pure politicians have for years depended on voters to forget their misdeeds leading up to the next election. But things are different! Voters are not as stupid and uninformed as they used to be. People are more informed and aware of the arrogance of the current administration and Congress than ever before.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said they needed to pass the health-care deform bill first, so they can then tell us what's in the bill. They passed it, and we now know what's in the bill: an assault on our liberties, increased taxes through fines and an unprecedented expansion of government bureaucracy in our lives. Don't forget!

The president's insistence on passing the health-care deform bill against the will of the majority of the American people was a historic presidential slap in the face of the people. Poll after poll had confirmed that the people did not like this government takeover of our health-care system, but the president and the Democrat-controlled Congress did it anyway. Don't forget!

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

When will this insanity end? ~ By David Limbaugh

There are still plenty of Obama worshippers that don't believe that he is a Socialist, or for that matter, a Marxist or Communist. However, as David Limbaugh shows here in this column, Obama certainly is!

In hot pursuit of his latest federal power grab (a complete financial overhaul), what Obama doesn't tell us is that it wasn't an unregulated market that primarily caused the financial crisis – the crisis that facilitated his ecstatic quest to completely transform America into a socialist state. It was largely an unbridled, out-of-control, do-gooder leftist Congress that substituted its values for the wisdom of the market and incentivized and forced financial firms to make loans to people who couldn't possibly repay them, among other things. These wonderful leftist congressmen, who hold themselves out as impartial regulators, resisted Republican efforts to rein in their friends at Fannie and Freddie.

By David Limbaugh

Posted: April 23, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

I wonder why any president of the United States would feel compelled to protest, repeatedly, "I believe in the power of the free market." Has any other president said it – at least in the context Obama keeps saying it? That's rhetorical.

Sure, Ronald Reagan talked about the glories of capitalism frequently, but never in terms of trying to convince skeptics that he really believed what he was saying.

But Obama said it again in that very context, in his Wall Street speech in New York yesterday. "As I said two years ago on this stage, I believe in the power of the free market." Believe me; he didn't go on to elaborate on the wonders of entrepreneurship, capital formation, liberty or the robust economic growth that free markets produce and which cannot be replicated, with any faint degree of consistency, in command-control economies.

Indeed, just one sentence later, Obama added one of his ubiquitous free-market qualifiers. He said, "But a free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get however you can get it."

Excuse me? Please tell me one capitalist who believes that a free market is synonymous with a license to steal. None does. They all understand that our capitalist system operates under the rule of law. We already have laws preventing stealing, fraud and the like. So why does he have to frame the issue in such distorted extremes? Also rhetorical.

But let me ask you something: could Obama make the same statements about the federal government, as in, "I believe in the power of the federal government, but the federal government was never supposed to have a license to take whatever it can get however it can get it"?

Sure he could make the statement, but would he mean it? Rhetorical. Surely we can all agree that he has far more confidence in the federal government than in the invisible hand of the free market. In fact, Obama leftists these days are coming out of the woodwork to condemn conservatives and other free-market advocates for believing that capitalism can possibly work without the constant heavy hand of government regulation pressing down on evil entrepreneurs for their excess profiteering.

Raised and mentored at the feet of capitalist-hating leftists, Obama repeatedly reveals a visceral distaste for profits. And I don't mean so-called "excess" or "ill-gotten" profits only, but just plain old profits. Obama thinks, like a Marxist, that profits are "surplus value" stolen by capitalists from laborers who produce the wealth.

He is obviously so deeply steeped in Marxist indoctrination that he believes that prices are only high because of profits. In his static view, only a government-controlled system can cut out those evil profits and maintain reasonable prices. He apparently has no concept of – or any appreciable real-world experience validating – the ability of the market, through competition, to produce higher-quality goods at lower prices.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!

Whose 'irresponsibility,' Mr. President? ~ By Jack Cashill

By Jack Cashill © 2009 "We've just emerged from an era marked by irresponsibility," President Obama told those students in Strasbourg, France, not at the moment burning down hotels and border posts. Left unsaid, of course, was just whose "irresponsibility" caused the financial crisis to which the president was alluding. Based on his bumbling dissection of the presumed cause – a "mismatch between the regulatory regimes that were in place and, er, the highly integrated, er, global capital markets that have emerged" – I am not sure Obama knows. It would help if he did. A September 1999 New York Times article offers a useful, if unlikely, place for our president to jumpstart his education. The article blithely cheers on the work of the Fannie Mae Corporation, then in the process of prodding banks to provide mortgages to those whose credit was "not good enough to qualify for conventional loans." The article leaves the oddball impression that the lenders begged to be prodded. Banks, the Times tells us, were "pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called sub-prime borrowers." Only as seen through the looking glass of the diversity movement does this account make any sense at all. In the world before diversity, banks were in business to make money. They and other lenders shied from lending to sub-prime borrowers of any race, creed, color, gender, or orientation. For the record, "sub-prime" refers not to a kind of loan, but to a kind of borrower, those who cannot afford to cover either the traditional 20 percent down payment, a monthly nut less than 28 percent of their income, or, most likely, both. So why did lenders now want to get into the sub-prime business? The Times alludes to the answer. Fannie Mae, it seems, had been "under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people." The lenders faced the same pressure. Clinton's primary extortion tool was the Community Reinvestment Act. Signed into law by Jimmy Carter in 1977, the Clinton administration loaded up the previously benign CRA with real firepower in 1995. [Continue reading]

digg story

End of the American Dream? - By Star Parker

According to our president, because "big banks traded in risky mortgages… lenders took advantage of homebuyers… homebuyers knowingly borrowed too much …" we have today's housing crisis. But it's all so untrue. What has failed in our country is not capitalism. It is the intentional undermining of it. The Obama team is bringing capitalism to an end. Star writes:

As our new political leadership leads us into the fiscal twilight zone, is it too much to ask for a little honesty as they do it? The day after President Obama unveiled his plan to bail out distressed mortgage holders, Treasury Secretary Geithner and Housing Secretary Donovan wrote an op-ed in USA Today explaining it. "Ordinarily, American homeowners don't need government help. … But these are no ordinary times," they say. But practically every American homeowner does get government help by being able to deduct mortgage interest from their taxes. And, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the taxpayer backed quasi-government mortgage behemoths, own or insure around 50 percent of all outstanding mortgages in the country. [Continue reading]

digg story

SNL skit on stimulus (porkulus) package pulled

NBC is furiously erasing its tracks. Any attempts to upload the forbidden SNL bailout skit skewering George Soros and his left-wing subprime schemer friends Herbert and Marion Sandler will likely be squashed. Transcripts/screen shots included. See it here: The Banned SNL Skit read more | digg story, submitted by shnizep