Monday, August 31, 2009
“American Casino is a powerful and shocking look at the subprime lending scandal. If you want to understand how the US financial system failed and how mortgage companies ripped off the poor, see this film.”
"Investigative reporters Leslie and Andrew Cockburn have spent nearly 30 years uncovering major stories (for PBS, CBS Reports, 60 Minutes, et alia), but with "American Casino" they take on the biggest economic crisis of our lifetime: the subprime mortgage meltdown that has caused more than a million Americans to lose their homes. The Cockburns interview Wall Street wizards who are as nervous about revealing their identity as any mobster in the witness protection program; they rewind to Phil Gramm (R, Texas) calling us "a nation of whiners... (facing) a mental recession"; they replay Alan Greenspan's admission that his ideology was "flawed"; and they put a human face on the victims of bankers who targeted minority communities with no-income verification loans, adjustable rates (that adjusted upwards, dramatically), and complex language that even the pros can't fathom. Out of this mess, the filmmakers build a case against those who used government deregulation to make a fortune for the few and create havoc for the many."
"Leslie Cockburn’s debut feature gets to the guts of the matter, visiting defectors from Bear Stearns and Standard & Poor’s and other high-level players in the subprime mortgage gamble and, on the flipside, visiting the working-class Americans who were the unwitting chips on the table."
REALLY!! HONESTLY!! Where do I start here? Let's concentrate on the bold of the quotes. Mortgage companies "ripped off the poor?"
Meet Joe Poor. Joe works at the grocery store and makes $30k a year ($2500 monthly). Joe decides to buy a home after some evil mortgage companies dare to advertise their business in the daily newspaper. After all, it's the American dream and Joe feels "entitled" to this. He finds the home he wants and before closing the deal he sees that the monthly mortgage payment is $1,200. The little voice inside Joe's head tells him that he cannot afford the payment (or maybe Joe isn't smart enough to have a little voice), but Joe WANTS his new house and signs all of the documents to purchase. After some time it becomes apparent that Joe cannot make the payments on his home. After a length of time goes by with Joe failing to make his mortgage payment, the evil mortgage company forecloses on his home.
Scenario #2- after seeing his monthly mortgage will be $1200, Joe tells the mortgage company he cannot afford that type of monthly payment. The evil mortgage company tells him not to fear, they can give him an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) which will lower his interest rate and his monthly payment to $700 a month. Joe signs the documents and purchases his home. After 3 years Joe gets his new payment booklet from the mortgage company and is alarmed to see that his monthly payments are going up to $1400 a month. Joe stops making payments and the evil mortgage company forecloses, having tricked poor Joe with the EXTREMELY "complex language" of Adjustable Rate Mortgage.
Okay, call me cruel, but I stand for personal responsibility in most incidents in life. If you are going to sign any type of contract in life, especially one dealing in hundreds of thousands of dollars, are you signing anything which contains "complex language that even the pros can't fathom?" If you ask the agent what this or that means in the contract and he/she cannot explain it, are you signing the document? If you do sign the document, not understanding what you're signing, is it not your own fault? If I asked my 13 year old son what he thinks "adjustable rate" means regarding a mortgage, I am certain he would have an idea of what that might mean.
None of these alleged "low income" or "working class" Americans were "unwitting chips on the table."
Personal responsibility has been eroding for decades and has now sunken to the level where people actually have the gall to openly believe they are the victims when they fail to uphold their end of a promise or contract. Once upon a time if you failed to pay your bills your services were turned off or taken away, and you were embarrassed. In our current degraded society you go hunting for someone to blame.
The true "tragedy" of the sub-prime mortgage fiasco is the government bailing out these irresponsible people (once referred to as deadbeats) with our taxpayer dollars. If there's anyone who can truly be referred to as "unwitting chips on the table" it is the hard-working Americans who pay their mortgages every month. We have been forced to pay for our own mortgage, as well as the mortgage of our deadbeat (yes I said it) neighbor. This is another example of socialist concepts being forced upon our nation.
And yes, my liberal friends about to blow their top, I realize and remember that it was George W. Bush who signed this bailout. I had a HUGE problem with him on that issue. Unlike liberals, conservatives remain objective and able to criticize anyone they disagree with, even those who claim to be conservative.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Glenn Beck did such a good job of exposing this radical that Mr. Jones has now launched his own mission to destroy Glenn Beck and his show. Jones has launched an intimidation campaign aimed at any business that buys advertising time on Beck's show, and unfortunately has been quite successful so far. He has been able convince more than 30 of Beck's advertisers to cancel their sponsorship. I have listed some below but everyone who wants to support Glenn Beck needs to go to http://www.supportglennbeck.com/ where they can easily send letters to all of these spineless companies who have allowed themselves to be pushed around by the radical leftist group "Color of Change" and Van Jones.
Bank Of America
Procter and Gamble
Thursday, August 27, 2009
There are currently (15) cabinet members appointed by the President and they are basically Department Heads who report to and advise the President regarding their respective departments. In addition to being appointed by the President, prospective cabinet members must be confirmed by the Senate. This is an important step in the process of maintaining the “balance of power” which is so necessary to maintain democracy. Without the confirmation, the President would have the unchecked ability to execute an incredible amount of control over these Departments. The confirmation process helps to further identify just who the individuals are that the President is appointing.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
“Nations crumble from within when the citizenry asks of government those things which the citizenry might better provide for itself.” -Ronald Reagan-
Who are the citizens of this country to ask, more like demand, the government provide them with universal healthcare? Where in the Constitution does it state that the government shall provide health insurance to all Americans? This question has actually been asked of many of the liberal politicians who support government run healthcare. Their answer???? They claim the authority of the government to enact such a program rests in Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, often referred to as the “General Welfare” clause. Let’s look a little deeper at this section of our Constitution, which is posted below.
The first paragraph of Section 8 explains that congress will have the power to collect taxes and provide for the general welfare of the United States, but that the parameters for doing this would be limited to the 17 enumerated powers listed below the first paragraph. Let’s look for the paragraph which describes a government provided healthcare program.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Did you find it? That’s right. It isn’t there! Okay, now let’s take a step back in history. Let’s find the paragraph that describes the government’s authority to impose a social security program which forces all to contribute. How about a government welfare program wherein the contributors would be taxed from their income to provide for non-contributing citizens livelihood? I can’t find those paragraphs either.
That’s right, the erosion of the rights of the citizens of this nation, and growth of government control over them started around 1937, under Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” brought about a sweeping government power grab over the liberties and freedoms of the individuals of this nation, who were reeling from the economic fallout of the depression. All of it was unconstitutional, but accepted by the citizens who hoped the government would magically take away their financial problems. Sound familiar? Oh how history repeats itself.
The powers defined in the above section clearly demonstrate the areas of national purpose over which Congress is authorized to enact legislation including raising funds and taxing it’s citizens. Anything not listed in the enumerated powers is outside the purview of the national government and, as defined by the Constitution, should fall upon the individual states.
It is not the government’s duty to provide everything to its citizens. In fact, it is not the government that provides anything to its citizens. The funds utilized to care for a non-contributing member of our society are raised by taxing the contributing members of our society.
Any and all politicians who attempt to gain favor and basically purchase the votes of non-contributing members with the promise of more government programs to benefit them, do so on the backs of the contributing, working class of our society, not from their own personal pocketbooks. In the law enforcement community we have terminology to describe this…LARCENY! Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution was written specifically to PREVENT bureaucrats from exercising such immoral control over citizens.
We are quickly approaching a point in our nation’s history where we, believers in the Constitution of this nation, must stand and defend it. The government is spiraling out of control in debt, yet we’re increasing government spending to fund more of these unconstitutional social programs designed to enslave the citizens of this country to government control. Many are beginning to push back, but this will not be a brief or easy fight. We must continue to vocalize our Constitution-backed conservative values in a loud, boisterous manner. We must ensure we help educate our fellow citizens on what is and isn’t included in the Constitution. Finally, we must be on the frontlines, pursuing every avenue possible to ensure the removal of any and all representatives of Congress, Republican or Democrat, that do not strongly uphold the Constitution of our United States of America. I end with another quote from the greatest President in my lifetime:
“We've been blessed with the opportunity to stand for something - for liberty and freedom and fairness. And these are things worth fighting for, worth devoting our lives to.” –Ronald Reagan-
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
With everyone currently focused on defeating this “hostile takeover” of our freedom to choose healthcare for ourselves, we need to ensure we are watching what President Obama’s left hand is up to. I have noticed when liberals have all of us so focused on one issue, they tend to quietly be up to no good in another area, hoping we won’t notice.
Last month President Obama named Mark Lloyd the associate general counsel and chief diversity officer at the Federal Communications Commission. Okay, first things first…chief diversity officer?!?!?! Really?? Seriously??? That is an actual title for a real occupation?? That is such an incredibly stupid title that I am physically laughing out loud as I am typing this. What do you do Ron? I am the chief diversity officer for the Marine Corps. What a joke! Speaking of the USMC, there is no more diverse organization in our country than the US military. We are recruited from all cultures, backgrounds, financial classes, races, and ethnicities. We accomplish the most difficult of tasks that are physically and mentally exhausting, in environments much more demanding than any boardroom, and we do it successfully every day without the need for any chief diversity officer, but apparently the FCC needs one.
I apologize for ranting away from the point I am wanting to make, but really…CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER!!! Okay, I am laughing by myself again. I’ll get back to the point.
President Obama appointed Mark Lloyd to this position with the FCC. You know...the FCC, the government entity that controls the airwaves. Now it is already well known to all Americans that the mainstream television media is very biased…Say it ain’t so!!! No, really, they are just a tad bit biased towards the left. So let’s look at the history behind the latest Obama czar (substitute “stooge” for “czar” if you prefer) to determine what direction he may look to take the FCC as it’s CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER…hahahaha!! Step aside everyone!! Make way for the CDO!!
In 2007, Mark Lloyd co-authored a report titled, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” which you may read the contents of at:
In this report Mr. Lloyd…sorry, I mean CHIEF Lloyd, stated some very troubling things…unless, of course, you live in a country like North Korea, China, or Venezuela, where the state controls what the media is allowed to report to the people. I have included some of the quotes from this report below:
“Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system”
Yes, this genius…I mean CHIEF, has concluded that the 10 to 1 ratio of conservative talk radio programming to statist, I mean progressive talk radio is caused by the lack of government regulation of the airwaves…Oh yes he did!!! Chief Castro over here doesn’t recognize the rule of supply and demand, he only recognizes the need for more government enforcement over our freedom to listen to what we want to as Americans. But he goes on…
“This analysis suggests that any effort to encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming will first require steps to increase localism and diversify radio station ownership to better meet local and community needs. We suggest three ways to accomplish this:
Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.”
The first paragraph is just the everyday typical liberal mush…”to better meet local and community needs” is their pompous attitude that they know better than we do what we need on the radio. Doesn’t capitalism as well as the rule of supply and demand take care of that already? If a local community really, really wanted more liberal (funny they call it “progressive” throughout the report) programming in their area, wouldn’t a smart business person see the income potential and put such a station on the air?
Uhh, yes, his first idea is honestly to have the government control who can and cannot own a radio station…no conflict of interest there!!!
Yes, your eyes are correct…the last idea is to assess fines for radio station owners that do not air the programming the government wants them to. Not only that, they will take the money from the fines and give the money to public broadcasting (NPR). So it’s broadcasting’s version of “redistribution of wealth.” It makes all the sense in the world. Take money from successful business owners who provide a product in high demand from the American people, and give the money to failing, government owned radio stations that nobody listens to.
Mr. Lloyd, like President Obama, is on the record as saying they are not interested in re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine. Well, of course they aren’t! Enough Americans have heard of the Fairness Doctrine by now. It wouldn’t be popular to support it. But if we take the Fairness Doctrine out of its packaging, rename it; say, the DIVERSITY in Broadcasting Act, or something similar…and re-attach the same regulations as before, the American people would support that, right? After all, it’s DIVERSITY!! Anything with the word “DIVERSITY” in it has to be good, right? Anything with diversity in the title has to be supported, lest the protestor be labeled a racist.
I could go on a rant all day about this but the point I’m making is we have to be great multi-taskers. At the same time we are organizing our resistance to this unconstitutional healthcare fiasco, we have to pay attention to the other maneuvers being initiated by the statists in Washington, lest we end up bamboozled (I love that word and try to use it whenever possible)
Friday, August 14, 2009
It should disturb any freedom loving American to hear that labor unions(SEIU) and special interest groups such as ACORN are mobilizing their members and busing them to townhalls to disrupt, intimidate, and even assault, any Americans who would dare voice their concern or disagreement with the Obama healthcare plan.
I am disturbed, but not surprised that these tactics are taking place. After all, The democratic leaders, if not directly giving the order for this to take place, at a minimum have encouraged it by their rhetoric towards anyone who would dissent from their self-professed wisdom.
Nancy Pelosi made the bogus claim that protestors attending townhall meetings were "carrying swastikas" to the meetings. She has also called the protestors "un-american" in an op-ed column this week. It should be noted that comrade Pelosi likes to throw around the "un-american" accusation. She earlier this year labeled police raids on companies known to be employing illegal immigrants as "un-american."
Senator Harry Reid called the townhall protestors "evil-mongers."
Chris Matthews went a few steps further by identifying townhall protestors as racists. On his Tuesday show he was quoted as saying, "I think some of the people are upset because we have a black president."
Michigan Congressman John Dingell (D) appeared in a TV interview this week comparing the ongoing nationwide town hall protests to the 1960's opposition to the Civil Rights Act by the Ku Klux Klan.
This is just the type of behavior I would expect from these liberal statists. Even though the polls (not that I'm big on poll numbers) would support that a majority of Americans are against this healthcare legislation, these holier-than-thou leftists will, rather than admit they are wrong about anything, force the legislation down our throats, because in their pompous fantasy world, they certainly know what is better for us than we know for ourselves.
Continually dismissing a majority of the voting population as "fringe" is not very intelligent on their part, as they must face election in coming years. But then again, I'm sure they can count on their "enforcers" to help swing the vote in their favor with another nationwide fraudulent voter registration program. Maybe they can mobilize more Black Panthers to be present at voting locations to intimidate voters. After all, as long as their candidate gets elected they will not be prosecuted for the behavior.
It is no longer time to get angry about these type of incidents. It is time to take action with the tools guaranteed to us in the U.S. Constitution. All Americans who value their liberty and independence must get actively involved now, before we wake up one morning and wonder where our freedom went.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." President Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)
Thursday, August 13, 2009
The most disturbing aspect of this committee is how it will be formed. The Chair of the committee will be the surgeon general (appointed by thePresident), there will be (9) members who are not federal employees or officers directly appointed by the President. (9) members will be appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States, which, is currently being filled by an interim, Gene Dodaro, until...you guessed it, President Obama appoints a new one. I'm seeing a trend here. The final (8) members will be federal employees and officers appointed by; of course, President Obama. So let's do the math...(18) members of this committee will be directly appointed by President Obama, and (9) will be indirectly appointed by President Obama. It is quite obvious to see who will be molding the clay of the coverages in this bill.
A lot of discussion has been raised as of late in regards to abortion funding in this bill. As stated previously, the bill is worded so vaguely as to not specifically say that abortion will be funded. The bill speaks only vaguely about "family planning" coverage. What exactly will be covered under "family planning?" I cannot be completely sure, but because President Obama will be in direct control over who sits on the committee which will make these decisions, It is my guess that many of his viewpoints will make their way into the coverage. So, let's look at Barack Obama's political history regarding abortion:
President Obama supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest.
During the election last year, then Candidate Obama promised that "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed right to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, allowing an individual to abort a fully developed child!!
Obama opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning them.
He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a "punishment" that she should not have to endure.
Obama has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, which is meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
When in the Illinois Senate, Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to term. So, to clarify...child born alive and completely separated from it's mother...Obama believes in killing the baby. That's not even abortion at that point. It's INFANTICIDE!!
Last but certainly not least, Obama wasted no time once he took office in signing an executive order to repeal the order by Former President Bush, which banned funding abortions worldwide.
So, I'm not here to tell you that the new socialized healthcare debacle specifically details our tax dollars funding abortions, but the facts listed above would give any logical pro-life American cause for alarm.
Am I overreaching on this one??? Before you answer "yes" to that, know that Congress has voted down several health care bill amendments seeking explicit assurance that abortions will not be funded. Why would Congress do that unless they specifically plan to fund them? This is arguably the most dangerous bill our elected representatives have ever voted on. A bill which will give away all of our freedom and independence regarding healthcare to a government which seems to have lost it's moral compass. We must get the word out to our elected officials that we will not stand for, much less fund, this type of morally apprehensible behavior!!
Monday, August 10, 2009
The reinvigoration of the American people's involvement into politics and the direction of this country could not have taken place without the left-wing statists pompous assertions that the American population would blindly support all of their policies without looking into the fine print. It has long been the far-left's achilles heel...their continuing belief that they can mix up their potion of:
1 part- class warfare, 2 parts- villification of one or more classes, 3 parts- government bill which promises to rescue the wronged, punish the perceived villain, and create utopian existence; mix well and top with enthusiastic speeches by world class orators...
and the American people will blindly trust that they have their best interests in mind without looking any further into the actual details of the legislation, which removes a little more of their freedom. I am so inspired by the re-awakening of us "Average Joe Americans" (the"AJA", if you will) that I have downloaded the actual healthcare bill and have done a little research to debunk all of the liberals who continueto lie (yes, I said LIE...A SPADE IS A SPADE) about what is or isn't contained in the bill.
1. A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE WOULD DETERMINE WHAT BENEFITS INDIVIDUAL AMERICANS RECEIVE OR ARE DENIED
page 30, section 123- SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
(1) IN GENERAL.-There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced,and premium plans
(2) CHAIR.-The Surgeon General shall be a member and the chair of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee.
(3) MEMBERSHIP.-The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall be composed of the following members, in addition to the Surgeon General:
(A) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the President.
(B) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States in a manner similar to the manner in which the Comptroller General appoints members to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission under section 1805(c) of the Social Security Act.
(C) Such even number of members (not to exceed 8) who are Federal employees and officers, as the President may appoint. Such initial appointments shall be made not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Note how many members of this board are directly or indirectly appointed by President Obama!!!
I will continue to post the facts and fiction of this proposed healthcare bill, one detail at a time, each day, supported by the actual bill's writing; verbatim, until A) this travesty of legislation is voted down, or B) an Obama supporter reads this and reports me to the "fishy blog police"program he has apparently started. Please check back daily and send this link to all who support or are uninformed of the actual ramifications of this bill.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Will you and the other members of congress be subject to the same provisions of this healthcare plan?
Unless they lie to you (which is quite possible) they either side-step the question in typical politician style, stutter and stammer and attempt to explain themselves out of the issue, or they will let you know that a provision was added to the bill which eliminates them from being a part of the new system.
Congress and their families currently receive health care through the public-option-free, Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) which allows members of Congress to choose between 283 private health insurance plans. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) proposed an amendment that would require all members of Congress and their staffs to enroll in the newly-created public health insurance plan. His amendment passed by just one vote in the Senate Health Committee. In the House, Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) offered a similar amendment and all 21 Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee voted it down. Apparently, the plan is good enough for us, but not good enough for them. Ane alarms going off yet??? (Information via www.heritage.org)