Archive for the ‘Nazi Party’ Category

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.

Advertisements
h1

Southern Poverty Law Center

August 26, 2017

After reading multiple websites and reading information on how the southern poverty law center came into being, I have come to the conclusion the real and true nature of the SPLC aka southern poverty law center real intentions are and what they do so as to keep the DNC and demcorats such as harry Reid and shummer and Nancy pelosi hands clean from contact but they are indirectly giving monies and blueprint on what to do each month.

The SPLC is the clearing house for information and directive control of the KKK, black lives matter movement, neo-nazis and the white supremacists by directing them where to demonstrate and to cause as much mayhem even violent acts to intimidate the elected GOP memebers in Congress. Every time the SPLC speak or issue a new map listing groups they disagree politically there is a demonstration planned knowing full well that violence will occur even some will be deadly expressly for that purpose at times.

Take Charlottesville as the most recent example of demonstrations and violence, first the person who filed the paperwork for the protest march is in fact one of the leaders that created the occupy Wall Street movement that failed. The ALT-right groups are actually groups created and funded by the SPLC and George Soros. The SPLC gives the groups their orders indirectly thru back channels.

The SPLC should be considered a home grown terrorist hate group because if you even disagree with any of their political views you are deemed full of hate and will be destroyed for not acknowledging that their way of thinking is the only what to think, any opposing views are not tolerated by the group. GuideStar what use too be a legit organization that listed charities that used most of the money they received for its purpose versus charities that had very high overhead costs.

The SPLC funnels money to the extremist groups so that they can continue to spread the hate of the left and the Democratic Party. It’s sad to note but nobody has taken the time to tie the SPLC to the attacks that the SPLC has sued and the number of cases they have won. It’s too convenient that to have such a nearly perfect case of winning suits in the manner they have goes against all probabilities. Yes the KKK did attack and burn down the original SPLC building but the coincidences to me are hard to ignore, since the SPLC pays the KKK and other extremist groups. These are just my opinions but somebody needs to investigate the real nature and purpose of the SPLC.

The SPLC does not allow opinions differing from theirs if you do you are a racist, a homophobe, misogynist, anything to intimidate a person to back down from their personal beliefs. I know that I will be attacked because of this post but what can they do, when they malign people and groups already for not accepting only their view of the world. Currently the SPLC is attacking President Trump for the pardon of former sheriff Arpiao of Arizona based on a falsehood they wish to perpetrate upon the American citizens.

First and foremost illegal immigrants do not have they same civil rights as American citizens and LEGAL immigrants have, illegal immigrants are granted the most basic rights which are to be treated fairly when arrested, and basic medical needs or food. ILLEGAL immigrants are not entitled to a free education, citizenship does not happen if you are born here unless one parent is already an American citizen, so there is no such thing as anchor babies to begin with, as the SPLC wants people to believe.

Checking a persons immigration status is not illegal to do, only when obama was in office, La Raza and the SPLC are assisting the Democratic Party in creating the next voting block of American citizens who in fact would really become 2nd class citizen with no opportunity to advance or get an education to help them achieve independence from govt handouts. The democrats see the ILLEGAL immigrants only purpose is to keep them in power politically.

The SPLC and La Raza put the rights of ILLEGALs higher than the civil rights of American citizens and LEGAL immigrants. If you are in America illegally then you only have basic rights and nothing more, American citizens and LEGAL immigrants have the same basic civil rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution where as ILLEGALs only have basic rights that are less than American civil rights.

I stated before it’s time someone really investigated the SPLC and its ties to the groups that protest and violently demonstrate. There are no conservative groups or individuals that give money to groups such as the KKK ever. The media should also be included in being investigated for helping assist the SPLC.

This post is just my opinion, but if someone wants to do the investigating, I say go for it one hundred percent.

h1

Confederacy

August 25, 2017

The Democratic Party has now begun the whitewashing of the parties real history, they are trying to erase the real confederacy connection that the party has.

The democrats are going to have to purge all members of the house and senate members from the time of the confederacy. They will have to purge the awarding of the Margaret Sanger award, and the fullbright scholarship.

They will need to rename buildings named in honor of former demcorats, the party as a whole will have to renounce their creation of the KKK and the continued control of the organization as well.

The Civil war was not originally about slavery but excessive taxation by the federal government at the time. In Lincolns own papers it shows where he ordered the navy to fire upon fort Sumter the tax fort in Charlestown bay. Freeing the slaves was a means to end the war faster than to let it continue for years. What most people do not realize is that the emancipation proclamation only covered the southern states in the confederacy that was fighting against the union army.

It wasn’t until 1869 that congress freed the slaves that were slaves in the northern states, the main reason for the delay was”good help is hard to find”.

The media also needs to be held accountable for their actions as well, for lying about the connections of the person who was the organizer for the Charlottesville protest march is actually a founder of the occupy wall street protest. They now have people from their own party organizing protest marches for people with conservative views, so they can accuse conservatives creating a hostile environment that allows the taking and erasing of their true history.

Currently the entire media both print and television are helping the Democratic Party and its elected members whitewash their real history by implicating that the neo-nazis, white supremacists,and the KKK are all socialist progressive based. The KKK was created by the democrats during the reconcruction era and have continued to fund it thru the likes of George Soros, and other multimillionaires within the Democratic Party ranks. If they want to totally white wash their history then they need to renounce Margaret Sanger, Al Gore Sr, formers senators Fulbright and the scholarship, and senator Byrd as well.

They need every democrat whose family even remotely is tied to slavery and or rascism, to resign.they also need to admit they blocked the real end to slavery for four more years after the end of the civil war. Slavery was still allowed in the northern states for four years after the civil war ended on the basis of “good help was hard to find”.

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.

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

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.