| |
|
| | Post New Topic | | US elections: How would Jesus vote? | Views: 291 | | Sep 26, 2008 11:40 pm | | US elections: How would Jesus vote? | # | 
Ron Sam | |
US elections: How would Jesus vote?
New Scientist Magazine
Jim Giles,
San Francisco | 26 September 2008
THE difference
was stark. Asked at what point human rights should be
assigned, John McCain replied with confidence: "At the moment of
conception." When pastor Rick Warren put the same question to Barack
Obama last month, in a live broadcast from Warren's Californian
megachurch, the Democrat presidential hopeful was less concise. "Well,
you know, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological
perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with
specificity, you know, is above my pay grade," Obama said.
It
is easy to sympathise with Obama. Many scientists and religious leaders
say that it is impossible to pinpoint the moment at which a growing
embryo should receive human rights. But Obama's meandering reply did
not impress white evangelical Christians, many of whom believe that
life begins at conception. And if Obama cannot connect with at least
the more moderate members of this group, the implications will not be
limited to philosophical debates about the beginning of life. A failure
on his part to win evangelical votes could have a significant impact on
the way that some science is done and taught in the US.
The
last two elections show why. In 2004 white evangelicals made up almost
a quarter of the electorate and voted over 3 to 1 in favour of George
W. Bush. "The polls were very clear that the evangelical vote put Bush
over the top," says David Neff of Christianity Today International.
"[Bush] has been very careful to keep that constituency happy," he
adds. On issues such as funding restrictions for embryonic stem cell
research, Bush has demonstrated his willingness to clash with
scientists and toe the evangelical line.
Until
recently, it seemed that this election might be different, in part
because evangelical politics has changed since 2004. The rise of a new
generation of moderate evangelicals has broadened the movement's
political agenda. Some prominent pastors now preach the need to address
global warming and help developing countries on moral grounds, issues
on which the Democratic Party has a strong track record.
The
Democrats, in turn, have started trying to pick off previously
Republican Christian voters. Since 2004, the party has recruited
evangelicals to help write speeches and oversee advertising in the
Christian media. In Obama, the Democrats have also found a candidate
who can speak passionately about his faith. McCain, in contrast, has a
history of skirmishes with evangelical leaders. "There is no longer an
assumption that being a churchgoer will tip you in the Republican
direction," says Neff.
It
is not clear whether the Democrats have been making much headway. For
some religious voters, Obama's support for gay marriage and abortion
rights represents an insurmountable barrier. According to recent polls,
two-thirds of white evangelicals favour McCain (black evangelicals have
always tended to vote Democrat). Many of the surveys were conducted
before Sarah Palin joined the Republican ticket as McCain's running
mate. Her strongly conservative views appear to have energised the
religious right, who may now turn out to vote in greater numbers on
election day. If exit polls show that evangelicals helped elect McCain
and Palin, Christian groups may retain much of their current influence
in Washington.
“Two-thirds
of white evangelical voters favour John McCain ”
What
would that mean for science? Researchers might find that current
restrictions limiting the number of embryonic stem cells that can be
used in federally funded research would stay in place. The Republican
party and Palin both oppose changes to the rules. McCain's stance, the
one that matters most, is less clear. In 2006, he voted for a bill,
later vetoed by Bush, that would have ended the restrictions. "He will
now be under pressure to change his position," says Amy Comstock Rick
of the Coalition
for the Advancement of Medical Research in Washington DC.
In his recent reply to a set of 14 science policy
questions
put to both candidates, McCain does not commit to lifting federal
restrictions on stem cell funding, or even mention them. His campaign
declined a request from New Scientist to clarify.
Those
concerned about a McCain presidency under the influence of the
religious right have even more to worry about when it comes to the US
Supreme Court. The court shifted to the right after two recent Bush
appointments, and McCain has pledged to continue this trend, which
would create a favourable climate for overturning abortion laws and
other religiously motivated issues. Lawyers on the religious right are
already preparing for such a situation.
This November,
voters in Colorado will decide on whether to amend the state's constitution
so that a "person" would "include any human being from the moment of
fertilisation". The amendment was drafted by Rob Muise and colleagues
at the Thomas More Law Center,
a conservative religious legal organisation based in Ann Arbor,
Michigan. By assigning rights to the embryo, it would probably make
both abortion and stem cell research illegal. "I would be appalled if
it succeeded," says Comstock Rick. But that is exactly what Muise is
expecting. Pro-choice advocates would challenge the law in court,
creating what Muise calls a legislative "train wreck": a series of
appeals by one or both sides that would eventually take the case to the
Supreme Court, which by then might have a conservative and
anti-abortion majority.
The train-wreck
strategy could also reshape the teaching of evolution. McCain has said
that intelligent
design
(ID), the idea that a divine force guided evolution, should "probably
not" be taught in science classes. When running for governor of Alaska
in 2006, Palin talked about the need to teach both creationism and
evolution, but she later said that she would not push school boards to
add the former to their curricula. School curricula are set by the
committees in charge of the country's 17,000 local school districts, so
the next president will not have a direct say on the issue, but Muise
and colleagues have worked on ID cases before and say they would also
be keen to take this issue to the Supreme Court.
A
decision on ID would probably revolve around whether teaching the
subject violated the separation between church and state. Mark Frankel,
an expert on science and the law at the American
Association for the Advancement of Science
in Washington DC, says that the court might decide that it did not. He
adds, though, that the justices would be well aware that ID was not
science and so could qualify their ruling by declaring that the subject
should not be taught in science lessons.
Just
the possibility of a conservative Supreme Court is enough to make the
legal approach attractive to the religious right. Any state ruling
could trigger the train wreck Muise is hoping for. And if McCain is
president when that happens, the consequences for science could be
profound.
Private Reply to Ron Sam | | Sep 27, 2008 10:13 am | | US elections: How would Jesus vote? | # | 
Mike Fesler | | 14 bishops and counting correct Sen. Biden
- OneNewsNow - 9/16/2008 10:00:00 AM
WASHINGTON - Catholic bishops across the nation have rebuked Senator Joe Biden for claiming, during a September 7 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, that his support for abortion is in keeping with his Catholic faith.
To date at least 14 bishops have responded to Biden's erroneous statement about Catholic teaching and abortion. Responding to a question from Meet the Press Moderator Tom Brokaw, Biden stated that he agreed with the Catholic Church that life begins at conception. He then continued, "I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society."
Biden also later appeared to contradict himself, saying throughout Catholic Church history there has been "debate" on when life begins, implying that life may not begin at conception after all.
However, as many bishops have pointed out already - especially in light of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's similar misstatement of church teaching on the same television show several weeks prior - paragraph 2270-71 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly states that the Roman Catholic Church has always taught that life must be respected from conception and that abortion at any stage is a grave evil. Furthermore, the church has also repeatedly said that the state must protect life from conception to natural death in its laws.
Responding to Biden's statement that it would not be right to "impose" his views about when life begins on others, Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa said, "It is plainly false to assert that the answer to the question of when human life begins is limited to the realm of personal and private faith and that therefore there is no basis for preferring one position over another."
Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver also addressed this remark. "Resistance to abortion is a matter of human rights, not religious opinion," he said. "And the senator knows very well as a lawmaker that all law involves the imposition of some people's convictions on everyone else. That is the nature of the law. American Catholics have allowed themselves to be bullied into accepting the destruction of more than a million developing unborn children a year. Other people have imposed their 'pro-choice' beliefs on American society without any remorse for decades."
Here is American Papist's updated list of bishops who have responded to Sen. Joe Biden (in somewhat chronological order):
1. Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton
2. Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, CO
3. Bishop James Conley, his auxiliary
4. Bishop Robeert Morlino of Madison
5. Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, DC
6. Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa, OK
7. Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, PA
8. Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, CT
9. Bishop Fran Malooly of Wilmington, DL
10. Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo, ND
11. Bishop Gregory Aymond of Austin, TX
12. Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City, IA
13. Bishop Paul Coakley of Salina, KS
14. Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston, MA
All Original Content Copyright 2006-2008 American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved.
"OneNewsNow", "OneNewsNow.com", and the "OneNewsNow World" logo, are Trademarks of the American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved
Please see;
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=252702
M.
Private Reply to Mike Fesler | | Sep 27, 2008 12:28 pm | | re: US elections: How would Jesus vote? | # | 
Claire Solt | | I don't see a future for politics of death. Ironically, it contradicts the fundamental basis of evolutionary theory that explains organisms behavior as working to procreate. Politization of science concers me. I think it could adversely affect progress. The very worst example was the judge who presumed to define science.
Private Reply to Claire Solt | | Sep 27, 2008 1:33 pm | | US elections: How would Jesus vote? | # |
Mike Fesler | | As far as Intelligent Design.
We have had opinions from some of the greatest minds in the world. . . and yet we choose to ignore these great minds as to ID.
Please see a past writing that I did some time ago.
I look to greater minds than mine for answers to the beginning.
Carl Sagan once said "All there is, ever was, or ever will be is the cosmos." He was wrong, but it couldn't be confirmed until 1992 when one of most important discoveries of all time took place. In 1927, Edwin Hubble had established that all stars and galaxies were speeding away from us and each other at great velocities. Much like a fireworks aerial bomb burst, it appeared that all the galaxies came from a single place in the universe where their journey began.
In 1992 NASA's COBE satellite pointed its cameras to the projected beginning point, looking for the back ground radiation that would exist at this starting point if everything had exploded out of nothing. The satellite provided the evidence to support the theory that the whole universe exploded out of a single point in space, what became known as "the big bang theory".
Scientists were faced with the reality that the universe is not eternal but was created. They overwhelmingly agree that this was a creation event. There is a law of physics that states, "To every effect, there is a cause". Isaac Newton's first law of motion also states, "A body at rest remains at rest unless acted on by an outside force.
Since it was an outside force, it could not have been part of the universe. What caused this creation event which is so enormous that we can't even comprehend the powerful force behind it?
The Bible was the first book and the only ancient, religious book that describes the universe as having been created by the eternal, all powerful, God.
This is what some of the astrophysicists say about the universe:
"We can't understand the universe in any clear way without the supernatural."
Allan Sandage, astronomer
"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. His reli¬gious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
Albert Einstein, theoretical physicist
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamen¬tal numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
Stephen Hawking, theoretical physicist
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this con¬clusion almost beyond question."
Sir Fred Hoyle, astrophysicist
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Robert Jastrow, astronomer
Many non-believers can't be blamed for not learning these critical facts in school, because someone before them had them removed, under the guise of removing religion from our schools. But many of them are continuing to perpetuate the problem, by insisting on doing the same thing, and as a result, we are indoctrinating our children to believe a lie.
I suggest reading Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell, and The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel, two atheists who set out to disprove the bible and Christianity.
By the time they were through, they had written two of most powerful defenses of the Christian faith.
Also, read Show Me God written by Fred Heeren, known for years as the world's only cosmic reporter, who actually interviewed astrophysicists about the big bang theory and intelligent design.
Blessings,
Mike
Private Reply to Mike Fesler | | Sep 27, 2008 1:39 pm | | re: US elections: How would Jesus vote? | # | 
George Mathai | | I am amazed that so many intelligent people are caught up in this farce.
Peace.
Private Reply to George Mathai | | Sep 27, 2008 2:43 pm | | re: US elections: How would Jesus vote? | # |
George Mathai | | Wow... so now Jesus comes into the picture as well!
Considering that he had a glad eye for Mary Magdalene, it's my guess he'd vote for Sarah Palin.
Goodbye America. It was nice knowing you.
But, I must say at the end of the day, I do feel rather let down...
Peace.
Private Reply to George Mathai | | Sep 28, 2008 12:02 am | | US elections: How would Jesus vote? | # |
Mike Fesler | | George,
As an American. . .
I think that we may stick around just a bit longer thanks.
As an American who has their religious roots firmly entrenched in the Judeo-Christian beliefs? It would be difficult in going too far into any direction without a quick check on our orientation. If nothing else to keep us in line with our intended direction.
A country as deeply entrenched in the religious rich history such as India. . . I think that you of most all people would understand, that reaching for that moral and ethical compass on a daily basis if not minute by minute, is a normal part of life if you follow your beliefs.
As with any road map, there are multiple ways or choices to reach a desired destination.
Asking. . . even with less than serious resulted expectations, can have a way to stay focused or to refocus on the better path to follow.
Can you honestly say that religions have not played a part in India’s rise to stature and power in the world today?
As to you feeling let down?
You are placing to much faith in the man or woman who is leading. They are human with many weaknesses and faults.
Put your faith in the man or woman’s spiritual leader / guidance.
That is the core belief, which is the true fabric from hence they came.
Blessings,
M.
Private Reply to Mike Fesler | | Sep 28, 2008 11:26 am | | re: US elections: How would Jesus vote? | # | 
Peter Boaz Jones | | Hey, dude, George – hello, goodbye, hello...
I thought the title “US elections: How would Jesus vote?” is a rather an all assuming phrase, since Jesus is the “LORD of Lords”, the “King of Kings”, and would not vote for anyone in any case.
As far as Jesus being prejudiced just to Mary Magdalene: “many women” had a glad eye (Matthew 27:55; Mark 15:41;-).
Don’t feel let down, as the shares in the global economic environment have gone up again. It’s like a roller coaster. Be ready for the next wave – goodbye. Hello!
Pete :-) Moderator of: Exploring Belief Systems, God, & Spirituality
http://beliefsystemsgodspirituality-network.ryze.com
Author of The Gospel of the Four
http://www.new-millennium.co.uk
Private Reply to Peter Boaz Jones | | Sep 29, 2008 1:07 pm | | re: re: US elections: How would Jesus vote? | # |
Ron Sam | | ....as the shares in the global economic environment have gone up again. It’s like a roller coaster. Be ready for the next wave .....
I'm wondering if we are witnessing the preview to a merging of countries as in the NAU?
http://www.stopspp.org/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5581854975245721437
Private Reply to Ron Sam | | Sep 30, 2008 5:59 am | | re: US elections: How would Jesus vote? | # |
Peter Boaz Jones | | The problem at the moment is the lack of confidence in government and banking institutions. Neither one party nor banks trusts each other.
I think the most important issue at this very moment is for the Democrats and the Republicans to work together and forget political point scoring, so they can agree on President Bush’s original financial proposal and hopefully get it legislated on Thursday or the North American Union and borders idea will make no difference at all. In any case President Bush will be leaving his presidential duties very shortly.
Merging more stable business and governmental strategies across borders is paramount at this time like no other point in history.
Pete :-) Moderator of: Exploring Belief Systems, God, & Spirituality
http://beliefsystemsgodspirituality-network.ryze.com
Author of The Gospel of the Four
http://www.new-millennium.co.uk
Private Reply to Peter Boaz Jones | | Sep 30, 2008 5:43 pm | | re: re: US elections: How would Jesus vote? | # |
Ron Sam | | So soon that we forgot that Bill Clinton passed law to allow securities brokers to deal in mortgages. Prior to that securities brokers could not make deals in the mortgage arena. That was in 1995 with the CRA or Community Redevelopment Act. Btw, the Clinton's got very rich off of this.
GW Bush in his years of presidency did not make any changes to the CRA 1995 and knew full well of its accountability and risks, so he takes responsibility as well.
More regulations and transparency will be the case in future years. This effort will cost us more $$.
Ron
Private Reply to Ron Sam | | Sep 30, 2008 7:07 pm | | re: re: re: US elections: How would Jesus vote? | # | 
William J | | This is so silly. How would Jesus vote. I heard that arguement used in the Paltalk chatrooms by people on both sides of the coin. Dude. You need to review the text about the second coming.
William
Private Reply to William J | | Sep 30, 2008 7:11 pm | | US elections: How would Jesus vote? | # |
Mike Fesler | | Don't blame GWB
Blame goes to the congress and the entities that were being paid to watch out for us.
As usual they didn't.
Here is the record:
For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."
2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)
September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.
September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.
November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
2005
April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
2007
July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)
September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.
September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)
2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.
January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.
February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
* "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
* "[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
* Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
(White House Press Release)
---------------------------------------------
And yes it was a problem before President Bush was involved.
for those History revisionists out there please remember. .
Please see:
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807
Thank you Bill.
M.
Private Reply to Mike Fesler | | Oct 01, 2008 2:01 am | | re: US elections: How would Jesus vote? | # |
Ron Sam | | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa0agm7lIPQ
Private Reply to Ron Sam | | Oct 02, 2008 11:45 am | | re: re: US elections: How would Jesus vote? | # |
Mike Fesler | | While walking down the street one day a US senator is tragically hit by a truck and dies.
His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."
"No problem, just let me in," says the senator.
"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."
"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the senator.
"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."
St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.
Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises ..
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.
"Now it's time to visit heaven."
So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
"Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity."
The senator reflects for a minute, then answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell."
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.
Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.
He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above...
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. "I don't understand," stammers the senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?"
The devil looks at him, smiles and says "Yesterday we were campaigning. Today you voted."
M.
Private Reply to Mike Fesler | | Oct 02, 2008 7:20 pm | | re: re: re: US elections: How would Jesus vote? | # |
Ron Sam | |
This relates to the video I
posted earlier.
Be sure to read the "where they are now".
Here is a quick look into 3
former Fannie Mae executives who have brought down Wall
Street.
Franklin Raines
was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae.
Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae
when auditing discovered severe irregulaties in Fannie Mae's accounting
activities. At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted,
" Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting
evidence that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday
conceding that "mistakes were made" and saying he would assume
responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the
company was under growing pressure from regulators to shake up its
management in the wake of findings that the company's books ran afoul
of generally accepted accounting principles for four years."
Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion.
Raines left with a
"golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The
Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting
scandal became clear.
http://housingdoom.com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/
. The Government noted, "The 101 charges reveal how the individuals
improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while
knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls,
misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the
regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six
years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate
capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and
unsound manner." These charges were made in 2006.
The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in
bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits.
Tim Howard
- Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was
a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would
ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. In everyday English -
he was cooking the books. The Government Investigation
determined that, "Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to
provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions
within Fannie Mae,"
On June 16, 2006, Rep.
Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to
investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied
to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the
mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay
bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board
of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998
earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines
and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004.
Howard's Golden
Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!
Jim Johnson
- A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was
later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. A
look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006
report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae, and you'll
see some interesting things about Johnson. Investigators found that
Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998
compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million
and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million."
Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from
Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae.
Johnson's Golden
Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.
WHERE
ARE THEY NOW?
FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic
Advisor
TIM HOWARD? Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama
JIM JOHNSON? Johnson hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor
and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee
IF OBAMA PLANS ON CLEANING UP THE MESS - HIS ADVISORS HAVE THE
EXPERTISE - THEY MADE THE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Would you trust these men? |
 |
Private Reply to Ron Sam | | Oct 04, 2008 2:05 pm | | re: re: re: re: US elections: How would Jesus vote? | # |
Claire Solt | | Put Robert Rubin in the mix. After serving as Clinton Treasury secretary he became CEO of Citibank. They fired him when the bank failures started, and now he is advising Obama.
Private Reply to Claire Solt | | Oct 05, 2008 10:02 am | | re: US elections: How would Jesus vote? | # |
Peter Boaz Jones | | Thanks Mike, Ron, and Claire for posting these. Mike’s
post reveals President Bush’s forewarnings over his
whole period in office. Especially thought the joke was
an axiom of warning, too.
Looks like we are all in this together. At least
Congress decided to finally work on this collectively.
Pete :-) Moderator of: Exploring Belief Systems, God, & Spirituality
http://beliefsystemsgodspirituality-network.ryze.com
Author of The Gospel of the Four
http://www.new-millennium.co.uk
Private Reply to Peter Boaz Jones | | Oct 05, 2008 6:31 pm | | re: re: US elections: How would Jesus vote? | # | 
Ed and Yvonne Servis | | Pete
It wasn't all the members of Congress. The vote to regulate these went 100% along party lines. The Dems voted it down. Thank goodness Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd are going to hold investigations to find out who is responsible and get to the bottom of it. Perhaps they should start by looking in the mirror. Barney has one on his ceiling so it should be rather easy. Personally I wish the Republicans would call for an independent investigation. Democrats love investigations but I have a feeling that attitude will change on this issue. Yet they blame Bush and the press goes right along with it. It took the Dems 12 years to quit blaming Regan for all the worlds ills. Now it is Bush's turn but that one may go on forever.
I have heard hundreds if not thousands of times how smart the American electorate is. The truth is half of them are idiots and will vote for the same people that screw their lives up. That is just the way it is in the USSA (formally USA)
Ed
Private Reply to Ed and Yvonne Servis | | Oct 06, 2008 11:16 am | | re: US elections: How would Jesus vote? | # |
Peter Boaz Jones | | Hi Ed
Yes, I understood that but in the end it is the majority vote, which swung the issue that had been going on for over a week. The thing is we have to cater for idiots, too.
I though these two quotes by Franklin P. Adams typified the dilemma of delay:
“When the political columnists say ‘Every thinking man’ they mean themselves, and when candidates appeal to ‘Every intelligent voter’ they mean everybody who is going to vote for them.”
“Elections are won by men and women chiefly because most people vote against somebody rather than for somebody.”
Pete :-) Moderator of: Exploring Belief Systems, God, & Spirituality
http://beliefsystemsgodspirituality-network.ryze.com
Author of The Gospel of the Four
http://www.new-millennium.co.uk
Private Reply to Peter Boaz Jones | | Oct 06, 2008 4:18 pm | | re: re: US elections: How would Jesus vote? | # |
Ed and Yvonne Servis | | Peter
I agree and think that pretty well sums it up
Ed
Private Reply to Ed and Yvonne Servis |  | |
| |
|
