Archive for the ‘liars’ Category

h1

San Jose, CA

June 5, 2016

Why did the mayor of San Jose order the chief of police to stand down and let Trump rally attendees be assaulted by practicing a guaranteed civil right of association without fear or intimidation.

We all know the mayor supports Hillary but why is he taking away the rights of others because he disagrees with who the speaker was, because he was paid by Clinton and George Soros is my assumption, if they can imply people will be assaulted just for listening to Trump speak. Clinton and George Soros will win by taking the civil rights away of those who disagree with Clinton.

The clintons next move will be to employee the new black panthers and arm them with billy clubs. Freedom of association is in danger by Hillary Clinton.

Advertisements
h1

California

May 1, 2016

I am not surprised that the media is all agog in regards to the illegals rioting in Costa Mesa all because Donald Trump went to speak and exercise his right to freedom of speech.  Because the illegals disagree with his speeches they have the right to riot and destroy public and private property in Costa Mesa.

Freedom of speech is for everyone as long as you are a progressive, liberal, democrat, socialist, and or illegals.  If you are a conservative in anyway form or fashion your right of free speech or the right to gather or assemble for meetings and or conventions of any kind that is never to be tolerated.  Proof is in the media and they are glorifying the rioting and blaming trump for his speeches, for the cause of the riots.

If a republican or conservative disagrees with a democrat, liberal and or progressive they are considered to racist, homophobic, religion hating, and gender hating.  If a conservative disagrees with Obama regarding his politics that person is considered 100% racist.

I do not feel that a person breaking our nations laws by entering this nation illegally should not be rewarded and we need to get rid of the notion that if you are an illegal and your baby is born an American citizen, that was already decided by the Supreme Court that citizenship is passed onto your children only if one or both parents are already citizens of the United States.

The illegals should be arrested for making threats against legal citizens and legal immigrants who wish to have legal political rallies that the illegals disagree with so they have threatened to use violent demonstrations and rioting to disrupt all and any rallies for Donald Trump.  What’s fascinating is you do not see republican or conservative to even libertarians using violence at any Hillary or Bernie political rallies.

Hillary and Bernie are both accomplices to those who are using violence and riots because they disagree with what Trump is saying in his political speeches.  So if you disagree with Trump it is okay to destroy both public and private property because you do not hear or see either Hillary or Bernie asking their followers to stop the rioting it’s more of a wink and nod to those who riot.

Just because Trump is making speeches that people disagree with that does not give them the right to riot in the first place.  Demonstrate peacefully to get your point across, is more effective than rioting, Dr. Martin Luther King had the right approach. Demonstrate peacefully and let the other side commit the violence, during the civil rights marches you had the democrats fighting back with the police and national guard against peaceful demonstrators.  Dr. Martin Luther King had all peace marchers sign pledge cards not to respond with violence no matter what happens.

It’s time for those that are here illegally to go home demonstrate against their own governments, instead of demanding the right to vote and live in a country where they are living illegally.

h1

Lies The Media & Democrats Say

March 22, 2016

I have been watching the media and the democrats say whatever they can to

belittle Trump. History is against them because they do not want the facts to be

known about the illegal deportations done by Presidents Hoover, Truman and Eisenhower

and President Carter banning Muslims from Iran and other Arabic nations. Eisenhower’s

Operation Wetback, Hoover encouraged the local govt and states do the deporting and

even encouraged them. Under Truman the federal govt rounded up over 500,000 and the

3.2 million left America because of Truman’s deportation program. Between 1939 to 1959

just under 6 million illegals were deported. In the 1970’s Carter and the democratic

controlled Congress passed a bill that Carter signed into law banning/barring Muslims

entrance into America, the law stated Iranians but customs officials were told bar all

Muslims entrance into America.  Clinton’s program operation gatekeeper and the miles

built as well.

In 2006 Congress had set aside 2.5 billion to build the wall, but the democrats and the

media has lied and used racism and discrimination accusations to keep the wall from

being built.

If Trump wins the Presidency, all it will take is rounding up about a million illegals and the

rest will return on their own just like they did under Hoover,Truman, and Eisenhower.

To talk about racism people should look at the states that have been run into the ground

by the democrats and even the Cities run by the democrats as well.  The latest is Flint,

Michigan and its water problem, it was designed to fail from the start if you look at the

substandard materials and water pipes. Then you have the mayor of Baltimore telling

people that they can riot in a certain area and no arrests will happen, only thing that the

mayor forgot to notice that all the businesses that were in that area that was set aside for

the riot. the riot caused 20 million dollars in damages, FEMA denied the business owners

any types of monies from the riot that was implicitly approved by the mayor of Baltimore.

The mayors immediate response was to ask for more federal govt programs and increasing

the taxes, instead she should have said lets lower the taxes, cut the red tape so that

businesses can expand and that would mean jobs being created. There are over 100 federal

jobs training programs and state and local programs as well, instead of allowing

businesses the opportunity to create jobs the city stifles job creation by the private

sector.  Talking about freedom of speech and the right to assemble is being strangled by

the anti-Trump protesters the latest is at the AIPAC in Washington D.C. by assaulting the

speech attendees that are Jewish with NAZI symbols and symbolism.  A young latina

business owner has been getting terrorist like messages for her decision to support

Trump, because of her right of free speech is being impacted severely by people who

disagree with Trump. The people who follow or support Hillary or Bernie and are

indirectly paid by George Soros, to be physical and attempt to disrupt Trump at any

Rallies that are for his Presidential run. If Trump was running on the Democratic ticket

the media and the current anti-Trump protestors would be holding love-ins for Trump.

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

Joe Biden, Idiot Or Just Ignorant

February 25, 2015

Joe Biden, MOST incompetent vice president even more so than Al Gore, he stated in a speech that the govt must emancipate the peoples wealth, just as the democrats emancipated the slaves during the Civil War.

Last time I checked My history it was President Abrahman Lincoln who by presidential decree freed ended slavery while the democrats have done everything under the sun to bring back slavery and they have succeeded beyond theuir imagination by creating the economic slavery plantation.

They have another entire generation thinking that what the govt gives out is totally free such as the following

rental assistance

Medical coverage – subsidies – obamacare –

school: from kindergarten to college now

cars: cash for clunkers

Houses: Community Reinvestment Act: created the savings and loan scandal of the 1980’s, created the housing bubble in 2008, soon will cause another housing bubble again under new rules applied by congress in 2009.

credit scores: 2009 banking reform law: if your credit score is over 650 anytime you check it or it is checked then upto 10 points are taken and given to people with low credit scores

unempolyment benefits: no cut off or deadlines

welfare: all progress has been reversed from the welfare reform act of the 1990’s

Jobs: instead of working one fulltime job you will now need to work 2 jobs because employers are keeping the hours to under 30 hours to escape the penalty under obamacare.

Biden was talking about the 1% holding all the wealth but that is just smoke and mirrors, the democrats true target is the middle class because that is the segment of the population where the total wealth could run the federal govt for years.  Every action the democrats have passed into law has hurt the middle class and the poor making them more relient upon the federal govt.

The democrats  never emancipate anything or anyone, they just ENSLAVE them deeper to the federal govt.

Biden let the cat out of the bag by telling us that the democrats are going after the middle class wealth….

Just remember the DEMOCRATS have always been the party of slavery, they provoked a civil war to keep slavery….

h1

Obama And Living On 15,000 A Year

January 22, 2015

In obama’s state of the union speech he dared congress to live on minimum wage for a year aka 15,000 a year

only one problem in his poorly written speech, regarding the total yearly income.  obama forgot that each state has

income taxes or none at all.  in states like New York and California  an individual will pay total taxes including federal

taxes.nearly 55% of their income (all federal income taxes, obamacare taxes, state taxes, county taxes, city taxes, sales

taxes, gas taxes, (some states the sugar tax), cigarette tax, property taxes(these pay for fire, police, school, infrastructure city

government, county government, roads) , (some states driving on the road tax), utility taxes(water, gas,land line phone, and

cell phone), prescription taxes, doctors office visits.

So basically a single person tries to live on 7,500 or less a year, and that barely gives the single person a chance to actually

live. From the number of federal programs that could be cut is outrageous, there are almost 50 or more federal jobs training

programs that overlap or duplicate older programs that are just as effective, you could cut 39 to 41 programs and nobody

would notice except for the federal employees union would.

I was living in a state that was taking the same as federal income taxes each month because I was single and making over

31,000 a year, I was placed into the top 10% income earners tax bracket all because I had no dependents and no

deductions. Total taxes that I was paying each month was 1600, I was paying 61% of my income in total taxes…….

I am now  living in a state to where I am able to start saving for my retirement, and start investing my spare money that that

it will help with my retirement when I do retire.

We have a federal government that uses what is called base line budgeting that builds in a 10% budget increase for the

next federal budget and when congress gives itself a pat on the back for cutting the federal budget all they are cutting is just

the pace of the increase, not actually cutting the budget. Under the years of Sequester the budget that was used the

federal budget 2007, less than 10 pennies on 100 dollars was lost on each federal agency budget…….

Obama dares congress to live on 15 grand a year, when all the vacations that he has taken is over 44 million dollars,

compared to George W, Bush his vacations cost the tax payers 4 million total…………

Talk about not walking the talk, he challenges others but wont do it himself, he was born with a a silver spoon in his mouth

and expects others to pay for his life style.

I challenge obama himself to live on 15 grand and nothing else pay for his gas when local in D.C., live on bag lunches and

eat ramen noodles 3 to 5 nights a week…….and live on peanut butter toast during the mornings and powdered milk and no

govt programs……….

But like all democrats they are all show and emotions but no substance or ideas to actually solve a problem….

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.