Archive for the ‘Firings’ Category

h1

Mr McCain

August 4, 2017

Mr. McCain, what you did on the floor in the senate amounts to nothing more than turning your back on the people who re-elected you on the basis that you would vote to repeal the A.C.A., when it was brought up onto the floor in the senate.

What exactly did the Democratic Party promise you in the form of quid pro quo to get you and Ms. Susan Collins and Ms. Lisa Murkowski to vote against the repeal bill. It is not your place to decide what type of insurance I or anyone else will buy in the form of health insurance.

In your rush to protest what President Trump said on the campaign trail was really beneath you as a former military member. You have utterly disgraced the military as a whole and the uniform you wear at times. You gave up your honor, integrity, and spit upon the oath that you gave as an enlisted man into the military. You have totally disgraced all the branches of the military and the men and women who served before you, served with you, and that are currently serving in the military. So what are you getting from the democrats for voting no….

Your no vote just inflicts more monetary pain upon the people who re-elected you. But what do you care, when we the taxpayers are subsidizing the health care premiums that you pay each month. Your tantrum disgraced the senate chambers, you sounded like a woman experiencing her first period.

The repeal was to put health insurance cost controls back where it needs to be in the hands of the consumers not the likes of you. As a single older male and just because of my age and the state that I currently live in, my monthly premium would be 978.00 a month with a 100.00 dollar deductible for both docotors visits and prescription copays.

I need basic health care and catastrophic health insurance, I do not need to pay additionally for children medical care, and or health care for a woman.

By your actions, I have to decide do I pay my mortgage or do I pay my health insurance premiums, because of your selfish actions which is a national embarassement.

You pretend that you are a republican but you vote with the democrats 80% of the time against your own party. Either grow the balls that you had as a pilot and stop campaigning on the fact that you were a POW. It’s time to honor the promises that you made to the people of Arizona to repeal the A.C.A. And get rid of Obama illegals actions.

Retire and let a true conservative take your seat in the senate since you have lost your honor, and integrity by selling out to the democrats.

h1

Rights Versus Priveleges

May 21, 2017

I’ve decided to comment on everything that has been going on since the election back in November of 2016.

I find it funny that people who disagree with the election results now literally border on the edge of insanity. Never have I seen people go to the extreme that I have seen occur both in the print media and legacy tv news.

You have college students who never before participated in a presidential election and are literally emotionally upset that their candidate after listening to the media tell them 24/7 every day that their candidate will in in a landslide, it didn’t happen. They are taking to social media threatening to kill themselves if election results are not overturned in their favor.

Then you have both the print media and their owners and the legacy tv talking heads and the class of politicians who deem themselves to be our betters, bordering on treason with what they are doing as well.

Never before has an elected president been attacked and viciously harassed and interfered with in establishing his administration and setting his agenda as this president has been, did I vote for him no I didn’t, but I am accepting the election results.

What’s rights does a person have either private or public, are not priveleges but there are a few who see those rights as their privelegs.

Rights:
Freedom of speech: there are some limits on free speech.

Freedom to travel: you are only limited by your desire and imagination.

Freedom of association: because of the PC culture, you are attacked if you think differently than liberals and progressives.

Freedom to live where you want: this goes with freedom to travel, but there are those who feel its their right to enforce restrictions against those who disagree with them.

Freedom to drive: this is a freedom but the license to drive is a privilege only its not a right.

Back in 2015 the print media and the legacy tv news felt it was their right and privilege to literally destroy an announced candidate for president they disagreed with, so they pulled out all the stops that would have caved a pedigree GOP candidate for president or any other elected office.

They pulled out of storage a video of the candidate saying what he could do if he wanted to because he was a star, did he say he did those things, no he only spoke of an action not taken. Was it crude, yes it was but goes no where near Anthony Weiner did with a teenage girl.

Since Trump was sworn in as President there has been a constant 24/7 daily barrage by both the print media and the legacy tv news to try and take down President Trump, this a first that the 4th estate has been so open in its hatred of a President. But then again responsible journalism was tossed out during the 1990’s and its never been seen again.

What the media in general is now doing actually borders on treason with the constant printing and revealing confidential meetings between the president and the foreign dignitaries visiting the White House. This very same media in general gave both Obama and Hillary a complete pass on whatever they did legally or illegally.

The media in general has given up all pretense on being balanced in its delivering of the news, both the writers and the talking heads on tv show their utter disdain for President Trump in their words and actions. President Trump calls them fake news and it does fit the bill to a T. The news in general they give rarely is based on truth but their privately held beliefs.

Trump could if he wanted to due to the treason and espionage act, could shut down the tv broadcasters nationwide. Because they have leaked information that they shouldn’t have in the first place. They are working hand in hand with political appointees and elected democrats and rhinos in taking down a sitting president by any means even a coup.

It’s time for the average American citizen to understand that the Founding Fathers wanted a citizen congress and the president represent the nation as its sole leader. We have now what I call a political class that see them as being privileged and are better than the average citizen. They see themselves as being above the law, they see their constituents as being stupid animals that need to be told how to think.

The latest example is shoddy journalism is the recent firing of former FBI chief Comey, did President Trump stop any investigation no he hasn’t he is just replacing a man who helped Obama thwart any investigation into actions by Obama or Hillary.

The head of the FBI serves at the pleasure of the President, for the FBI is an administration agency, its not operated by congress or by the Supreme Court.

I watched actual tv for the first time since 2002, I lasted 30 minutes when I realized that, I have not missed out on anything at all. When I use to watch tv and the news, I became despondent on this nations future, just from watching the tv news.

By not watching the news or listening to the radio much, I have a better view and outloook for this nation. I have a right to my views and outlook but according to the talking heads and the printed media, my rights are archaic and I should be killed off because of them.

h1

E.E.O.C.

April 28, 2016

It is time for the EEOC to take the leap forward that the democrats have been complaining about for the past 100 years about equality in the work place.  It is time for the EEOC to do away with quotas in every way and form and function.

The EEOC can do something totally mind boggling that would make every liberal head spin by requiring all employers public and private by redoing the employment process that is currently used for one thing called quotas in the work place.

Its time to end the use of full names required on applications or resumes and require last names only.  It’s time to get rid of gender identity identification on applications.  It’s time to rid the application process of race related identification as well.

its time that applications should have at the top of every.  Application the following statement: The best qualified applicant will be selected for the job posted.

The application and resume should only have the following: first initial and last name only, instead of full name which will identify the applicants gender.

Remove the gender identity boxes

Remove race identifying on the application.

Remove age as well unless it is a job requirement of OSHA

Using the new system would require the employers to select which applicatants based on the qualifications in the resume and interview accordingly and have no preset notions of each applicant.

h1

The Media And The Democrats Lie Again

March 31, 2015

The latest attack on conservatism has been happening since the Governor of Indiana,
signed into law a bill that is nearly 100% identical to the bill that then president
bill clinton signed into law in 1993. The law that I am referring to is the Freedom Of Restoration Act that then president bill clinton signed into law and 25 other states had signed into law similar or identical to the federal law.

Here is a little bit of history on the bill that was signed into law by then president bill clinton, a group of native american indians were arrested and jailed for possession of peyote that they stated was for religious purposes. In 1993 when the democrats held congress and the presidency the bill Religious Of Freedom Restoration Act was passed with near 100% in the house and near 100% in the senate and bill clinton signing it into law.

Now that a Republican Governor and Republican legislature have passed the nearly identical Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the Federal version is to be deemed discriminatory against gays, lesbians, transgender but yet wont protest the same federal law that has been on the books since 1993. Here is the Federal Law Link, and Indiana’s law Link, as you can tell the laws are nearly identical the only issue is that a Republican Governor did the same thing that the democrats rushed to protect the use of peyote by native american indians.

Now that liberals are having to deal with the state of Indiana having the same law on their state law books, they had to come up with a farce of claiming discrimination and will not allow the truth to be known. The law has what is called the Sherbert Test which mandates strict scrutiny if a law has violated the freedom of religion in the 1st amendment.

liberals and democrats and the media hate that a state with a republican governor, and state controlled legislature are applying the same federal law and having it on the state law books. They now see this law only in one light and will not accept any other story line other than it is based on allowing sexual discrimination against gays and lesbians and transgendered.

Colorado does not have this law on their books and case in point is when a lesbian couple knowing full well that a specific bakery ran their bakery based on their religious beliefs. They went in and tried ordering a wedding cake knowing that they would be turned down for the cake only, for years they had been customers for other bakery items. The couple never turned them away from buying any of their products they only turned them down for the wedding cake based on their religious values and beliefs. They were put out of business by the lesbian couple complaining to the state for the bakeries discrimination against them based on sexual orientation.

This law in Indiana now has the state making sure that bills passed and signed into laws do not encroach on the first amendment of the Constitution. George Stephanopoulos on ABC tried to redirect the interview many times by implying that the law was blatantly discriminatory only against gays and lesbians. The Governor would have nothing to do with that tactic and kept on message and even educating George that the same law was passed by the democrats and signed into law by bill clinton in 1993.

The democrats passed the bill in 1993 and signed into law the same year praised it for being all inclusive. Now that the law is being used for practical reasons and it fits squarely into conservative views and values they are in a catatonic state of anger that their law is being used for good.

Bill Clinton signed the bill into law in 1993 and obama voted for a nearly identical bill in 1998, democrats hate when a law can be used by conservatives in the same manner to protect individuals and businesses

This Law means that the person or business is considered innocent until the state can find that a law was not burdensome on a person or business now……..As does the Federal Law…….

h1

The Real Truth Is Exposed About The Housing Bubble!!!!

November 5, 2011

This ties the C.R.A. bill signed into law in 1976, bill clintons secret commission that found their

findings on false information and used the findings as a loaded gun to the banking, savings and loans

and the mortgage companies.  It is these two actions that created and caused the abuses and the

economy that we have today, it can be laid at the feet of the Democrats and obama is taking it even

more to the left of the left…………

Smoking-Gun Document Ties Policy To Housing Crisis

By PAUL SPERRY, FOR INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 10/31/2011 08:05 AM ET

 View Enlarged Image

President Obama says the Occupy Wall Street protests show a “broad-based frustration” among Americans with the financial sector, which continues to kick against regulatory reforms three years after the financial crisis.

“You’re seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on the abusive practices that got us into this in the first place,” he complained earlier this month.

But what if government encouraged, even invented, those “abusive practices”?

Rewind to 1994. That year, the federal government declared war on an enemy — the racist lender — who officials claimed was to blame for differences in homeownership rate, and launched what would prove the costliest social crusade in U.S. history.

At President Clinton’s direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.

Bubble? Regulators Blew It

The threat was codified in a 20-page “Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending” and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining.

The edict — completely overlooked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the mainstream media — was signed by then-HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Attorney General Janet Reno, Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, along with the heads of six other financial regulatory agencies.

“The agencies will not tolerate lending discrimination in any form,” the document warned financial institutions.

Ludwig at the time stated the ruling would be used by the agen cies as a fair-lending enforcement “tool,” and would apply to “all lenders” — including banks and thrifts, credit unions, mortgage brokers and finance companies.

The unusual full-court press was predicated on a Boston Fed study showing mortgage lenders rejecting blacks and Hispanics in greater proportion than whites. The author of the 1992 study, hired by the Clinton White House, claimed it was racial “discrimination.” But it was simply good underwriting.

It took private analysts, as well as at least one FDIC economist, little time to determine the Boston Fed study was terminally flawed. In addition to finding embarrassing mistakes in the data, they concluded that more relevant measures of a borrower’s credit history — such as past delinquencies and whether the borrower met lenders credit standards — explained the gap in lending between whites and blacks, who on average had poorer credit and higher defaults.

The study did not take into account a host of other relevant data factoring into denials, including applicants’ net worth, debt burden and employment record. Other variables, such as the size of down payments and the amount of the loans sought to the value of the property being bought, also were left out of the analysis. It also failed to consider whether the borrower submitted information that could not be verified, the presence of a cosigner and even the loan amount.

When these missing data were factored in, it became clear that the rejection rates were based on legitimate business decisions, not racism.

Still, the study was used to support a wholesale abandonment of traditional underwriting standards — the root cause of the mortgage crisis.

For the first time, Washington’s bank regulators put racial lending at the top of their checklist. Banks that failed to throw open their lending windows to credit-poor minorities were denied expansion plans by the Fed in an era of frenzied financial mergers and acquisitions. HUD threatened to deny them access to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which it controlled. And the Justice Department sued them for lending discrimination and branded them as racists in the press.

“HUD is authorized to direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to undertake various remedial actions, including suspension, probation, reprimand or settlement, against lenders found to have engaged in discriminatory lending practices,” the official policy statement warned.

The regulatory missive, which had the effect of law, advised lenders to bend “customary” underwriting standards for minority homebuyers with poor credit.

“Applying different lending standards to applicants who are members of a protected class is permissible,” it said. “In addition, providing different treatment to applicants to address past discrimination would be permissible.”

To that end, lenders were directed to “make changes in marketing strategy or loan products to better serve minority segments of the market.” They were also advised to “change commission structures” to encourage brokers and loan officers to “lend in minority and low-income neighborhoods” — a practice Countrywide Financial, the poster boy of the subprime scandal, perfected. The government now condemns the practice it once encouraged as “predatory.”

FDIC warned banks that even unintentional discrimination was against the law, and that they should be proactive in making “multicultural” loans. “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” the agency said in a separate advisory.

Confronted with the combined force of 10 federal regulators, lenders naturally toed the line, and were soon aggressively marketing subprime mortgages in urban areas. The marching orders threw such a scare into the industry that the American Bankers Association issued a “fair-lending tool kit” to every member. The Mortgage Bankers Association of America signed a “fair-lending” contract with HUD. So did Countrywide.

HUD also pushed Fannie and Freddie, which in effect set industry underwriting standards, to buy subprime mortgages, freeing lenders to originate even more high-risk loans.

“Lenders should ensure that their loan processors and underwriters are aware of the provisions of the secondary market guidelines that provide various alternative and flexible means by which applicants may demonstrate their ability and willingness to repay their loans,” the policy statement decreed.

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac not infrequently purchase mortgages exceeding the suggested ratios” of monthly housing expense to income (28%) and total obligations to income (36%).

It warned lenders who rejected minority applicants with high debt ratios and low credit scores to “be prepared” to prove to federal regulators and prosecutors they weren’t racist. “The Department of Justice is authorized to use the full range of its enforcement authority.”

It took a little more than a decade for the negative effects of the assault on prudent lending to be felt. By 2006, the shaky subprime mortgages began to default. In 2008, the bubble exploded.

Clinton’s task force survived the Bush administration, during which it produced fair-lending brochures in Spanish for immigrant home-loan applicants.

And it’s still alive today. Obama is building on the fair-lending infrastructure Clinton put in place.

As IBD first reported in July, Attorney General Eric Holder has launched a witch hunt vs. “racist” banks.

“It’s a more aggressive fair-lending enforcement approach now,” said Washington lawyer Andrew Sandler of Buckley Sandler LLP in a recent interview. “It is well beyond anything we saw during the Clinton administration.”

Tom Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights, recently testified that his division “continues to participate in the federal Interagency Fair Lending Task Force.” And he and the task force are working with the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to “enhance fair-lending enforcement.”

The fair-lending task force’s original policy paper undercuts the notion the financial crisis was all about banker “greed,” though it certainly played a role after the fact. Rather, it offers compelling evidence that the crisis evolved chiefly from government mandates and threats to increase lending to applicants who could not afford them.

h1

I SUBPOENA THE FOLLOWING FEDERAL ELECTED OFFICIALS

March 22, 2007

I subpoena the following elected Official’s for their failure to do the peoples business, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Robert C. Byrd, Richard Durbin, Edward Kennedy, Joseph Biden, Dianne Feinstein, Patrick Leahy, Herb Kohl, Charles Schumer, Benjamin Cardin, Sheldon Whitehorse, John Conyers jr., Howard Berman, Rick Boucher, Jerrold Nadler, Robert C. Scott, Melvin L Watt, Zoe Lofgren, Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, Martin T. Meehan, William D. Delahunt, Robert Wexler, Linda T. Sanchez, Steve Cohen, hank Johnson, Luis Gutierrez, Brad Sherman, Anthony D. Weiner, Adam B Schiff, Arthur Davis, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Keith Ellingson, Amy Klobuchar, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel

They have made every attempt to embarrass the president at every turn no matter the cost. It is time that the American People accountable for their actions they are not doing the publics work but seeing to their own ambitions and to remain elected no matter what the damage they inflict

Instead the above mentioned elected officials have made every attempt to grandstand in front of the television and print media to show that they are cleaning up corruption in Washington D.C. They will do anything and everything because of their hatred of the President, they will even disseminate lies and the biased media will help them in their cause of the Destruction of the United States.

If they do not answer to the Subpoenas on-line or in person by March 30th 2007, it will be considered they are guilty of conspiracy in their actions and in their own words that are in the media.

Yours Truly,

Just an American Taxpayer tired of their Lies