Archive for the ‘misspending’ Category

h1

Net Neutrality The Fail

December 15, 2017

In 2015 the three FCC commissioners specifically selected by Obama stated that the Internet should be treated as a Utility, so the three sat down with the people from Google, FB, and Twitter and hammered out just how net neutrality would be applied and how it will work. Only problem was that it only affected companies that provided access to the internet such as verizon, comcast and AT&T as examples meaning they could not selectively slow down content. The Net Nuetrailty rules gave internet giant content providers the ability to decide what is considered free speech and what is deemed hate speech, the 2015 net nuetraility act was written with a huge influence by George Soros.

The past two years, I have seen content providers become the sole arbiters of what they deem is free speech and what is hate speech, my web blog was deemed hate speech because I freely give my opinions regardless who you are that will read my blogs, they are my opinions and nobody is forced to read them at all. FB enjoyed being the sole arbiter of free speech on their website, only problem was anyone who disagrees with FB’s political views is deemed a person with hate speech, their pages are blocked, suspended, and even canceled. YouTube is another content provider who extensively used net neutrality to block, defund and even cancel channels they deem not consistent with their political views, google is another content provider who did the same thing as FB, and YouTube.

The ruckus over ending net nuetrailty means that snowflakes and liberals can not silence those who disagree with their political views anymore, the way it was before 2015. What most liberals and snowflakes do not realize is that internet providers still slowed down you internet speed once you reached a certain level of data used, and it was perfectly legal to do so, because in the 2 year contracts people would agree to listed that the persons internet speed would be slowed down after using 10 gigs of data just as an example. Even telephone companies with non contract phones had the same detail as 2 year contracts. So in reality the only real thing about net nuetrailty was allowing left leaning corporations be the sole arbiters of what is deemed free speech and what they define as hate speech.

With the current FCC having three republican commissioners giving Obama’s net nuetrailty rules a total rebuke and handing oversight to the FTC, takes away the liberals and progressives the ability to control free speech. The internet has been around now for 28 years, prior to the net nuetrailty rules the internet ran perfectly without the governments heavy handed approach. When the internet took off in the 1990’s the Democratic Party wanted price controls over how much companies like AOL, compuserve, prodigy, and earthlink as examples could charge customers for internet access. My first year of having internet access my monthly charge was 70 a month for 100 hours of internet access each month. Today, I have a selection of tiers of internet speed and the prices reflect those speed levels. Either in January or February I will be getting gigabit internet access speed for 80 dollars a month, I am choosing the speed that best reflects my needs.

The internet has blossomed and exploded without any help or controls that the deomcratic Party feels is necessary, treating the internet as a utility gave the democrats the control over the internet they have so longed desired because it never discriminated who could access the internet, where as the democrats want to silience free speech unless you agree with their political views.

For 25 years the internet operated just fine without strict heavy handed government controls. For the past two years, the internet was under free speech attack if you disagreed with the content providers political views, such as disagreeing with abortion as just one example. Roe V Wade was a Supreme Court decision in the 1970’s but there was a demcocrat actually implying that without net neutrality a lady would not be able to look up where to get an abortion, surprise net nuetrailty boils down to who decides what is free speech and what they deem as hate speech.

Democrats and progressives literally hate the head FCC comissioner Ajit Pai, who with the other two FCC memebers wrote the rules repealing net nuetrailty and giving freedom back to the people who use the internet without fear of being labeled hate speech writer, homophobic, islamphobic as just a few examples. If you disagree with liberals, democrats and progressives, you are a unredeemable deplorable person.

Once again this blog is my opinion…….

Advertisements
h1

Double Standards

September 10, 2017

There abounds a huge double standard by the democrats when it comes to GOP nominees, two democrat senators blasted two judicial nominees for their catholic faith. The U.S. Constitution bars a religious test of anyone entering into an appointed position or elected position. The Democratic Party views anyone with a solid religious conviction that is not the same as theirs to be unfit for any office.

The democratic senators on the judicial committee used every minute to attack Trumps judicial nominees for their religion, and they both are stellar nominees in their own right, and one gave the democratic senators a schooling on issues that conflicted with their personal beliefs and that is the recusal step in any case that is brought before them.

We are told that Nominees by Clinton and Obama are above the recusal step even if they have a direct impact as to how a court case will end. The latest is the appointment of special prosecutor mueller, he should have declined the appointment due to the direct involvement of one party namely James Comey that he has been friends with for decades. The apppintments of lawyers that mueller has selected should also be stepping down due to conflicts of party affiliations.

It is time to start holding all democrats to the same standards that they try to impose upon anyone who is not a liberal progressive democrat. It’s time we solidly judge them for their politics and stop the destruction of America. Far to long have they used the phrases “its for the children”,”they want to take away your social security”, “they want to kick your grandparents to the streets”,”they want to starve the children”, those are just a few phrases they have kept repeating since the 1970’s.

There are over 50 federal jobs programs in every state, that are not needed because its is a private industry issue not a federal govt issue. Just as the minimum wage law is not needed, it is just a federal program that creates an incentive for people to rely on the largesse of the federal government. I am in a state where the minimum wage is almost double the federal minimum wage law.

The double standard is so apparent, they are directly implying that average person is not as intelligent as they are and that is why they deem themselves smarter than the average person who needs to be told how to do everything from where to live, what to eat, where to work, where they can go to school. Take congresswoman Maxine Waters, prime example of living proof of double standards she does not live in the district she represents, she lives in a multi-million dollar house while the average person in the district she represents has a home that is less than 80,000 at best.

The media also helps in furthering the double standards by refusing to investigate anyone who has the Letter D behind their names if they are elected, the media will only investigate them if they can no longer be useful. Another double standard is Hillary Clinton, she has broken so many federal laws, yet they refuse to even think she has done anything wrong.

A huge double standard is the difference between President Trump and, former President Clinton. President Trump only spoke crudely of treating women being caught on video tape intentionally to try and ruin his life, versus former President Clinton who has been a serial sexual deviant and rapist since he was 18 and a Rhodes scholar. Former President Clinton has been a frequent flyer on the Lolita express owned by a convicted pedophile and a frequent visitor to said pedophiles island, where as President Trump has not and will not go near the convicted pedophile.

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

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 Ryan Budget The Democrats HATE………

September 6, 2012
LIST OF BUDGET CUTS PAUL RYAN IS PROPOSING.. (WTF ) NO WONDER THE DEMS HATE HIM.

READ TO THE END… IT TOOK MY BREATH AWAY…..

A List of Republican Budget Cuts

Notice S.S. and the military are NOT on this list.
These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting. Read to the end.

* Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy — $445 million annual savings.
* Save America ‘s Treasures Program — $25 million annual savings.
* International Fund for Ireland — $17 million annual savings.
* Legal Services Corporation — $420 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Arts — $167.5 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Humanities — $167.5 million annual savings.
* Hope VI Program — $250 million annual savings.
* Amtrak Subsidies — $1.565 billion annual savings.
* Eliminate duplicating education programs — H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
* U.S. Trade Development Agency — $55 million annual savings.
* Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy — $20 million annual savings.
* Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding — $47 million annual savings.
* John C. Stennis Center Subsidy — $430,000 annual savings.
* Community Development Fund — $4.5 billion annual savings.
* Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid — $24 million annual savings.
* Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half — $7.5 billion annual savings
* Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20% — $600 million annual savings.
* Essential Air Service — $150 million annual savings.
* Technology Innovation Program — $70 million annual savings.
* Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program — $125 million annual savings..
* Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization — $530 million annual savings.
* Beach Replenishment — $95 million annual savings.
* New Starts Transit — $2 billion annual savings.
·       Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts — $9 million annual savings
* Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants — $2.5 billion annual savings.
* Title X Family Planning — $318 million annual savings.
* Appalachian Regional Commission — $76 million annual savings.
* Economic Development Administration — $293 million annual savings.
* Programs under the National and Community Services Act — $1.15 billion annual savings.
* Applied Research at Department of Energy — $1.27 billion annual savings.
* Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership — $200 million annual savings..
* Energy Star Program — $52 million annual savings.
*Economic Assistance to Egypt — $250 million annually.
* U.S.Agency for International Development — $1.39 billion annual savings.
* General Assistance to District of Columbia — $210 million annual savings.
* Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority — $150 million annual savings.
*Presidential Campaign Fund — $775 million savings over ten years.* No funding for federal office space acquisition — $864 million annual savings.
* End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
* Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act — More than $1 billion annually.
* IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget — $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
*Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees — $1 billion total savings.WHAT THE HELL IS THIS ABOUT?
* Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees — $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
* Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of — $15 billion total savings.
*Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.WHAT???
* Eliminate Mohair Subsidies — $1 million annual savings.
*Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — $12.5 million annual savings  WELL ISN’T THAT SPECIAL
* Eliminate Market Access Program — $200 million annual savings.
* USDA Sugar Program — $14 million annual savings.
* Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) — $93 million annual savings.
* Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program — $56.2 million annual savings.
*Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs– $900 million savings.
* Ready to Learn TV Program — $27 million savings..
* HUD Ph.D. Program.
* Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.
*TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years

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

C.L. Bryant Speaks The Truth…………..

October 31, 2011

 

Okay I will try and repost this for some reason my last posting of these two movie trailers have vanished

The gentleman in the movie called runaway slave is C.L. Bryant he was a former NAACP chapter president

who woke up and just saw exactly what the democratic party was doing to all blacks and people of color

to keep them in their place aka the plantation, for the past 35 years the democrats have as Mr Bryant put

it have the blacks trained in economic slavery and set up to fail once they get you into the govt system…………..