The mortgage crisis was government driven from the start and many years in the making.

The Origins of the Mortgage Crisis

by Kurt Vangsness on Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 9:02pm ·

The mortgage crisis was government driven from the start and many years in the making. FDR helped to create Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) as part of the New Deal and Richard Nixon chartered the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) in 1970. Then the Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 to prevent "redlining" by banks of low income neighborhoods.

The Clinton Administration instructed Fannie and Freddie to increase the number of risky mortgages in their portfolio from poor and minority communities. HUD Secretary Cuomo helped to facilitate a mandate to fund poor families with down payments and low interest mortgages, which amounted to "affirmative action" lending. Also, community activist groups like ACORN harassed banks and bank executives as well as threatened action under the CRA if the banks didn't make more money available to poor neighborhoods.

Then starting in 2000 various members of Congress and other outside groups called for stricter regulations on Fannie and Freddie, but many other members of Congress, predominately Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, etc. said there was no problem and threatened to block any stricter regulation of the two GSE's (Government Sponsored Entities).

See: Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=60838741791

From an interview with Barney Frank, the Boston Globe reported the following (see link below):

"Frank, in his most detailed explanation to date about his actions, said in an interview he missed the warning signs because he was wearing ideological blinders. He said he had worried that Republican lawmakers and the Bush administration were going after Fannie and Freddie for their own ideological reasons and would curtail the lenders’ mission of providing affordable housing."

Fannie and Freddie were exempted from Sarbanes Oxley reporting rules. The Democrats also threatened to filibuster any legislation designed to place stricter regulations on Fannie and Freddie in the Senate. When it was clear executives at Fannie and Freddie were guilty of accounting fraud to the tune of $200 million, no one went to jail. A number of the executives like Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick were former Clinton Administration officials and James Johnson was a Democratic Party Operative, so that had friends in high places who protected them.

Meanwhile, Fannie and Freddie continued to amass large portfolio's of mortgage debt, which were then securitized via Wall Street into CMO's (Collateralized Mortgage Obligations). Per Edward Pinto, a former executive at Fannie, starting in 1993 Fannie often misrepresented mortgages which were subprime in nature, as prime when the mortgages were securitized.

This was due to Congress wanting Fannie to pass its lower cost of funds (due to it's de facto Government backing) on to the consumer, i.e., in the form of lower interest rates on mortgages to borrowers. The problem is that Fannie can't give out a "below market" mortgages and then not expect the market to discount the principal value based on market risk pricing (e.g., a risky loan requires a higher interest rate than a low risk loan). Inherently then Fannie was encouraged to misrepresent the mortgages as prime in order to get full principal.

"There is more to this ugly situation. New research by Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer for Fannie Mae and a housing expert, has found that from the time Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans as early as 1993, they routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime or Alt-A." see WSJ.com: "The Price for Fannie and Freddie Keeps Going Up"

Once these securities were sold as CMO's, Fannie actually bought these CMO's in the secondary market and held up to $1 trillion in CMO's. Essentially, they were making the market for CMO's and gave the market the illusion of liquidity which essentially increases the market price.

In order for Commercial Banks to buy CMO's they needed to be rated by Moody's, Fitch, and S&P due to a 1930's law, which prevents banks from investing in securities not rated by an outside agency. As reported in the WSJ article "Let's Write the Rating Agencies Out of Our Law," 85% of the tranches of CMO's containing subprime mortgages were rated "AAA" and almost all tranches were rated as investment grade. A banks capital requirements (i.e., allowable leverage) is based on the rating of the security and the type of security. Per the article:

"For every dollar of equity that insurance companies are required to hold for bonds rated AAA, $3 is needed for bonds rated BBB, and $11 is needed for bonds rated just below investment grade (BB). For banks, the sensitivity of capital requirements to ratings is generally even more extreme."

The WSJ article, "A Silver Lining to the Financial Crisis: A More Realistic View of Capitalism," further illustrates how Commercial Banks were encouraged to hold CMO's via regulator capital requirements:

"But under the recourse rule, "well-capitalized" American commercial banks were required to spend 80 percent more capital on commercial loans, 80 percent more capital on corporate bonds, and 60 percent more capital on individual mortgages than they had to spend on asset-backed securities, including mortgage-backed bonds, as long as these bonds were rated AA or AAA or were issued by a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), such as Fannie or Freddie.Specifically, $2 in capital was required for every $100 in mortgage-backed bonds, compared to $5 for the same amount in mortgage loans and $10 for the same amount in commercial loans." 

So to recap, Commercial banks bought "AAA" rated Mortgage-backed securities because they were safe and allowed the banks to further extend their capital (i.e., greater leverage). So banks were encouraged by banking regulations to buy Fannie or Freddie mortgage-backed securities because they required less capital than holding individual mortgages and commercial loans in which the bank performs its own credit risk assessment instead of the ratings agencies.

Then when the bottom dropped out of the market, Fannie stopped buying CMO's in the secondary market, which accounted for a large part of the market activity. This caused mortgage-backed securities to become illiquid (huge drop in price, because if you can't sell something it has less value). Mark-to-market accounting then required banks to devalue their holdings (on paper) because market prices dropped and in some cases the market price was based on a few "fire-sales" (kind of like appraising your house based on one foreclosure sale 5 blocks away). Then the ratings agencies, realized they screwed up, downgraded the ratings on existing mortgage backed securities being held by the banks even though nothing may have changed in the mortgage security pool backing the CMO's. This drove many banks to be further under-capitalized.

With mortgage-backed security prices in a free fall due to rating down grades and lack of liquidity, Credit Default Swaps based on these CMOs, required capital calls, i.e., more money being paid out (AIG). This was all due to the "perceived market value", i.e., regardless of actual value and actual mortgage defaults. When an investment is as opaque (less available information) as mortgage backed securities and market confidence drops, investors discount the value heavily to account for the unknown (unknown = greater risk = lower price relative to the yield).

This was manufactured and triggered by the government, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and banking regulators. But of course the government points to the Wall Street Investment Banks and mortgage originators as causing the problem. It like blaming the tail for wagging the dog.

REFERENCES:
=======

Boston Globe: Stance on Fannie and Freddie dogs Frank
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2010/10/14/frank_haunted_by_stance_on_fannie_freddie/
=======
"Frank, in his most detailed explanation to date about his actions, said in an interview he missed the warning signs because he was wearing ideological blinders. He said he had worried that Republican lawmakers and the Bush administration were going after Fannie and Freddie for their own ideological reasons and would curtail the lenders’ mission of providing affordable housing."
=======
WSJ.com: The Future of Housing Finance
We'll never get a rational mortgage system until the government's affordable housing mandates are ended.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425231311880538.html
=======
WSJ.com: Moving Beyond Fannie and Freddie
The experiences of other countries show there's no need for a government role in housing finance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704353504575596872063967914.html
"    Research by Edward Pinto, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who was chief credit officer of Fannie Mae in the 1980s, has shown that by 2008 half of all mortgages in the U.S.—27 million—were subprime and other high-risk loans, often with little or no down payments by borrowers. Because of their affordable- housing requirements, the GSEs bore the risk of default on 12 million of these mortgages. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and other government agencies insured or held an additional five million. And banks under the Community Reinvestment Act, and other mortgage providers under a Department of Housing and Urban Development program, made another 2.2 million.
    Thus, more than 19 million subprime loans were the responsibility of taxpayers, courtesy of the federal government's housing policies. The balance, slightly less than eight million loans, were securitized by Countrywide and other private issuers."

=======
WSJ.com: Fan and Fred and the Problem of Narrative
The GSEs don't fit the left's story about how greedy bankers caused the financial crisis. That's why they haven't been reformed.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703467304575383451809694546.html
=======
WSJ.com: The Lesson of Basel's Bean Counters
Decades of obsession with accounting standards couldn't overcome the perverse incentives created by 'too big to fail.'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704508904575192534100550538.html
=======
WSJ.com: Angels Out of America
How the Dodd bill harms start-ups.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704671904575194483171910348.html

"Mr. Dodd's bill would change all this for the worse. Most preposterously, it would require that start-ups seeking angel investments file with the Securities and Exchange Commission and endure a 120-day review. Rare is the new company that doesn't need immediate access to the capital it raises, and a four-month delay is the kind of rule popular in banana republics that create few new businesses."
=======
WSJ.com: An Economy of Liars
When government and business collude, it's called crony capitalism. Expect more of this from the financial reforms contemplated in Washington.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704508904575192430373566758.html

"The idea that multiplying rules and statutes can protect consumers and investors is surely one of the great intellectual failures of the 20th century. Any static rule will be circumvented or manipulated to evade its application. Better than multiplying rules, financial accounting should be governed by the traditional principle that one has an affirmative duty to present the true condition fairly and accurately not withstanding what any rule might otherwise allow. And financial institutions should have a duty of care to their customers. Lawyers tell me that would get us closer to the common law approach to fraud and bad dealing."
=======
WSJ.com: Staffer One Day, Opponent the Next
The revolving door can turn swiftly at the Securities and Exchange Commission.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052702303450704575160043010579272.html
=======
WSJ.com: Fannie and Freddie Amnesia
Taxpayers are on the hook for about $400 billion, partly because Sen. Obama helped to block reform.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704671904575193910683111250.html

"The date of the Senate Banking Committee's action is important. It was in 2005 that the GSEs which had been acquiring increasing numbers of subprime and Alt-A loans for many years in order to meet their HUD-imposed affordable housing requirements accelerated the purchases that led to their 2008 insolvency. If legislation along the lines of the Senate committee's bill had been enacted in that year, many if not all the losses that Fannie and Freddie have suffered, and will suffer in the future, might have been avoided.

Why was there no action in the full Senate? As most Americans know today, it takes 60 votes to cut off debate in the Senate, and the Republicans had only 55. To close debate and proceed to the enactment of the committee-passed bill, the Republicans needed five Democrats to vote with them. But in a 45 member Democratic caucus that included Barack Obama and the current Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), these votes could not be found."
=======
WSJ.com: The Dodd Bill and U.S. Competitiveness
Its new taxes and regulations will make the U.S. an unattractive jurisdiction for financial companies.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704117304575137980120672008.html
=======
WSJ.com: If You Liked Fannie and Freddie...
... You'll love Chris Dodd's latest reform proposal. It would make many more companies too big to fail and lead to far greater financial consolidation.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704743404575127541719271252.html

"If passed in its current form, the bill would give the government control over the financial system in roughly the same way, and to the same extent, that ObamaCare would take over the nation's health care. There isn't a public option, exactly, but the private firms involved would be so heavily regulated that they would be effectively controlled by the government."
=======
WSJ.com: Most Pundits Are Wrong About the Bubble
The repeal of Glass-Steagall has helped us weather the storm.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122428270641246049.html

"As for the evils of deregulation, exactly which measures are they referring to? Financial deregulation for the past three decades consisted of the removal of deposit interest-rate ceilings, the relaxation of branching powers, and allowing commercial banks to enter underwriting and insurance and other financial activities. Wasn't the ability for commercial and investment banks to merge (the result of the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed part of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act) a major stabilizer to the financial system this past year? Indeed, it allowed Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch to be acquired by J.P. Morgan Chase and Bank of America, and allowed Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to convert to bank holding companies to help shore up their positions during the mid-September bear runs on their stocks."
=======
WSJ.com: "A Silver Lining to the Financial Crisis: A More Realistic View of Capitalism"
Two familiar scapegoats for the financial crisis---deregulation and bankers' bonuses--- don't appear to be responsible for the disaster.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704454304575081680480599148.html

"Regulators of banks, insurance companies and broker dealers have all incorporated the work of the ratings agencies into their regulations in myriad ways. Most importantly, bond ratings determine -- as a matter of law -- how much capital regulated institutions need in order to own the bonds.

For every dollar of equity that insurance companies are required to hold for bonds rated AAA, $3 is needed for bonds rated BBB, and $11 is needed for bonds rated just below investment grade (BB). For banks, the sensitivity of capital requirements to ratings is generally even more extreme.

The Bank for International Settlements also uses ratings to drive capital requirements, so the rating agencies have the same role in global capital markets that they have in the U.S.

For money market funds, ratings are equally critical: They are typically barred altogether from investments rated lower than AAA. In short, the ratings agencies are like a Consumer Reports for financial instruments -- but with the force of law behind their ratings. It is as if you were forbidden by law from buying an iron or a toaster unless it is rated 'Excellent.'"
---
"But under the recourse rule, "well-capitalized" American commercial banks were required to spend 80 percent more capital on commercial loans, 80 percent more capital on corporate bonds, and 60 percent more capital on individual mortgages than they had to spend on asset-backed securities, including mortgage-backed bonds, as long as these bonds were rated AA or AAA or were issued by a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), such as Fannie or Freddie. Specifically, $2 in capital was required for every $100 in mortgage-backed bonds, compared to $5 for the same amount in mortgage loans and $10 for the same amount in commercial loans."
=======
WSJ.com: "The Price for Fannie and Freddie Keeps Going Up"
Barney Frank's decision to 'roll the dice' on subsidized housing is becoming an epic disaster for taxpayers.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703278604574624681873427574.html

"There is more to this ugly situation. New research by Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer for Fannie Mae and a housing expert, has found that from the time Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans as early as 1993, they routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime or Alt-A."
=======
WSJ.com: Let's Write the Rating Agencies Out of Our Law
By Robert Rosenkranz
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123086073738348053.html

"Indeed, that is the entire raison d'être of the $6 trillion structured-finance business, which serves little economic function other than as a rating-agency arbitrage. Subprime mortgages (and all manner of other risky loans) held directly by financial institutions are questionable assets with high associated capital charges. Each one alone would deserve a "junk" rating. Structured finance simply piles such risky assets into bundles and slices the bundles into tranches. The rating agencies deemed some 85% of the tranches by value as AAA, and nearly 99% as investment grade -- thus turning dross into gold by a sort of ratings alchemy."
=======
AmericanThinker.com: Why the Mortgage Crisis Happened
By M. Jay Wells
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/what_really_happened_in_the_mo.html
=======
Townhall.com: Frank Data: How Federal Policy Triggered the Mortgage Meltdown
http://townhall.com/columnists/CarlHorowitz/2010/05/29/frank_data_how_federal_policy_triggered_the_mortgage_meltdown
=======
Video of the CSPAN congressional hearings on the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Accounting scandal which came to light in 2004.
see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
 =======
Clinton administration's "BANK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION"
Andrew Cuomo references a Federal Reserve Report that was later discredited.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64
 =======
IBDeditorials.com: How the Fed, Media and Academia Aided and Abetted Lending Debacle
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=459798
 =======
WSJ.com: A Mortgage Fable
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122204078161261183.html
=======
WSJ.com: The Fannie Mae Gang
By Paul A. Gigot
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121677050160675397.html
=======
WSJ.com: Information Haves and Have-Nots
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122203382068860947.html
=======
NationalReview.com: Inside Obama’s ACORN
By Stanley Kurtz
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=
=======
IBDeditorials.com: Congress Tries To Fix What It Broke
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=490605
=======
WSJ.com: Faith in Ratings
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212668589565225.html
=======
WSJ.com: The Moody's Blues
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120303641478270219.html
=======
WSJ.com: AAA Oligopoly
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120398754592392261.html
=======
WSJ.com: Another 'Deregulation' Myth
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122428201410246019.html
=======
WSJ.com: Spitzer and Sarbox Were Deregulation?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122541609109386729.html
=======
WSJ.com: The Ratings Racket
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121435051391301517.html
=======
WSJ.com: The Meltdown That Wasn't - A primer on credit default swaps, the latest Beltway scapegoat.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122670411909729683.html
=======
WSJ.com: Bad Accounting Rules Helped Sink AIG
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122169320421449849.html
=======
NYTimes.com: Dear A.I.G., I Quit! http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html
=======
SeattlePI.com: Activists vent at AIG executives http://www.seattlepi.com/business/404117_aigbus22.html

Exposed: Who is REALLY writing our bills in Congress?

The Apollo Alliance has now ADMITTED that they wrote the Stimulus Bill AND the Cap and Trade Bill. It will only be a matter of time before America learns THEY wrote the Healthcare Bill too!

The APOLLO ALLIANCE consists of a coalition of UNIONS, like SEIU, Social Justice groups the likes of ACORN and at the helm is Van Jones a Communist that is Obama’s “Green Czar” and head of the Green Initiative. So the triad of these groups are writing our Legislation. America, have you had enough yet?

One thing any American attending any townhall meeting this Congressional recess break should ask your Congressman/woman: WHO WROTE THE HEALTHCARE BILL? WHAT ARE THEIR NAMES?

Apollo Alliance Writing Legislation? Stimulus Bill, Cap and Trade Bill, Healthcare Bill? America Needs To Know!

The radical activist group ACORN “works” for the Democratic Party and deliberately promotes election fraud, ACORN employees told FBI investigators

The Daily Caller: ACORN employees tell FBI of deliberate election fraud, according to new documents

One of the largely untold stories of our time has been the story of how ACORN, Jesse Jackson and other community activists have been able to transfer billions of dollars from banks to their own organizations' causes, with the aid of the federal government...

Thomas Sowell:

How did we reach the point where a city is so polarized that an overwhelming majority of the white vote goes to one candidate and the overwhelming majority of the black vote goes to the opposing candidate?

How did we reach the point where black voters put racial patronage and racial symbolism above the education of their children and the safety of everyone?

There are many reasons but the trend is ominous. One key factor was the creation, back in the 1960s, of a whole government-supported industry of race hustling.

The Politics of Resentment

BREAKING: FEC complaint filed against the Obama campaign for “illicit coordination” with ACORN

Breaking news today is that Anita MonCrief will file an FEC complaint against the Obama campaign for “illicit coordination” with ACORN. MonCrief is in possession of his campaign donor list and claims that The New York Times turned down publishing her story before the election, stating that it would be a “game-changer” for Obama if they did. MonCrief claims that ACORN conducted and admitted to a “massive push” for Obama in 2008 instead of fulfilling its purported role of a “non-partisan” organization.

MonCrief’s website, which contains the donor lists, was launched on July 23, 2010.

IF JOURNOLIST MEMBERS CONSPIRED TO HIDE JEREMIAH WRIGHT FROM THE PUBLIC, WHAT ELSE DID THEY HIDE?

A laugh a minute...

REPORT: “ACORN is a political machine that uses a complex corporate web, connections to the SEIU, and powerful political allies to break laws in pursuit of a partisan agenda."

“Perceptions that ACORN is a charitable organization are simply wrong and part of ACORN’s efforts to deceive the American people,” said Rep. Issa in releasing the report. “ACORN is a political machine that uses a complex corporate web, connections to the SEIU, and powerful political allies to break laws in pursuit of a partisan agenda. This report shines more disinfecting sunlight on ACORN’s secretive methods of abusing taxpayer funds and charitable donations.”

Read the whole thing

The "Secretary of State" Project: George Soros gearing up to steal 2012 elections for Democrats

A group backed by [George] Soros is gearing up to steal the 2012 election for President Obama and congressional Democrats by installing left-wing Democrats as secretaries of state across the nation. From such posts, secretaries of state can help tilt the electoral playing field.

This is, of course, the same Soros, the same hyperpolitical left-wing philanthropist who makes no secret of his intention to destroy capitalism. ...

The vehicle for this planned hijacking of democracy is a below-the-radar non-federal "527" group called the Secretary of State Project. The entity can accept unlimited financial contributions and doesn't have to disclose them publicly until well after the election.

It was revealed during a panel discussion at the Democratic Party's convention last year that the Democracy Alliance, a financial clearinghouse created by Soros and Progressive insurance magnate Peter B. Lewis, approved the Secretary of State Project as a grantee.

Read the whole thing!

(All the way) through the looking glass

Exclusive: ACORN Qualifies for Funding in Senate Health Care Bill

HAT TIP: Big Government

Democrats trying to criminalize citizen journalism

By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
12/03/09 5:10 PM EST

An amendment to a bill currently being considered by the Senate would deny ordinary citizens doing vital investigations in the public interest the same legal protections as professional journalists. If it were to become law, the change could significantly stifle important citizen journalism efforts similar to the recent ACORN expose.

The Senate is currently considering a new press shield law sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa. The bill would "maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media." Except that Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Cal., and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., want to ensure that any new journalistic protections would only apply to professional journalists and not regular citizens. An amendment filed by Durbin and Feinstein would modify the legislation to define journalists thusly:

AMENDMENTS intended to be proposed by Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. DURBIN)

Viz:

In section 10(2)(A), strike clause (iii) and insert the following:

(iii) obtains the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, an entity—

(I) that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, 1or other means; and

(II) that—

(aa) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;

(bb) operates a radio or television broadcast station, network, cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier;

(cc) operates a programming service; or

(dd) operates a news agency or wire service;

In section 10(2)(B), strike ‘‘and’’ at the end.

In section 10(2)(C), strike the period at the end and insert ‘‘; and’’.

In section 10(2), add at the end the following:

(D) does not include an individual who gathers or disseminates the protected information sought to be compelled anonymously or under a pseudonym.

While the ACORN story has stung congressional Democrats and pointed out the deficiencies of the mainstream media, there's no basis for Durbin and Feinstein's amendment that seems anything other than vindictive or an attempt to protect the powerful. It's telling that bloggers on both the left and the right are in total agreement this is very bad law.

www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Democrats-trying-to-criminalize-citizen-journalism-78461812.html

President Obama's real agenda: Overwhelm & Destroy

Cloward-Piven Government:

It is time to cast aside all remaining doubt. President Obama is not trying to lead America forward to recovery, prosperity and strength. Quite the opposite, in fact.

BREAKING: ACORN ENGAGED IN MASSIVE DOCUMENT DUMP IN SAN DIEGO, OCTOBER 9th

Shockingly, we now learn that the ACORN office in National City (San Diego County) engaged in a massive document dump on the evening of October 9th, containing thousands upon thousands of sensitive documents, just days prior to the Attorney General’s visit.

...ACORN’s political agenda is also exposed, with thousands upon thousands of documents revealing the depth of the political machine that is ACORN, and its disturbing ties to not only public employee labor unions but some of the most radical leftist organizations.

AMERICA'S PROGRESSIVE HEXAGON

ACORN DIAGRAM TO SHARE WITH EVERYONE YOU KNOW

ACORN DOCUMENTARY

WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED



It started last year (2008)...read about it!

MY HEROES

Hannah Giles, ACORN Chainsaw Killer

Leo Donofrio, Attorney

Another day, another lie

The President can say “I didn’t even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money,” but a review of Ms. Lewis’s contacts list suggests that is not the case.

HEALTHCARE - In summary, the president has had to change his arguments, abandon his statistics, and repudiate his anecdotes

Stopping Obamacare's Government Option Via The Blue Dogs: The List and Contact Information

The president has abandoned his "guarantees" that the currently covered can keep their insurance and their doctors. He has dramatically lowered his estimate of the number of uninsured. He has been embarrassed by the fact that he used a false story of insurance denial leading to death in his big speech to Congress last week.

In summary, the president has had to change his arguments, abandon his statistics, and repudiate his anecdotes. Why would anyone believe his assurances, his estimates or his projections, especially about Medicare, given this record of shifting stories and stats?

The collapse of the president's credibility on Obamacare has been accelerated by the ongoing and exploding scandal about ACORN, a group with which he is and will remain closely identified. The president of course is not responsible for the individuals whose criminality has been captured on tape these past two weeks, but if this is the sort of organization he has represented in the past and which is part of his core alliance of activists. What does that tell voters about the reliability of the rest of the president's core coalition?

At a minimum this all adds up to red lights and sirens for the nation's seniors, who know or should know that they are the big target for Obamacare "savings" --which means huge hikes in the cost of Medicare Advantage or huge cuts in available benefits, or both. Seniors especially have to hit the phones to the Blue Dog Democrats --their numbers are listed here and below-- and dial again and again and warn these Democrats that they will be retired in 14 months if they push through Obamacare.

The photo of Obama that was scrubbed from the ACORN website before the election

ACORN is the largest radical Leftist group in America today...This radical group worked closely with the Obama campaign during the election. But, the community organizing group was not open about this. The photo [above] was scrubbed from the ACORN website before the election

BREAKING: NEW ACORN VIDEO NAMES CONGRESS PEOPLE

HOTAIR.COM

Scandal: ACORN Baltimore prostitution investigation

Chaos for Glory: My Time With ACORN

ACORN Officials Could Face Criminal Charges for Trying to Help 'Pimp' and 'Prostitute'

ACORN 101: prostitution tax evasion illegal immigration child sex trade

ACORN Exposed: Stealing Democracy