Archive for the ‘regulations’ Category

h1

Bedloe’s Island

February 1, 2017

The progressive democrats and the main stream media are once again trying to revise history of this nation, this time they are trying to revise what the statue of Lady Liberty actually stands for. Below will be a history lesson to counter the lies the media and the progressive democrats are trying to revise.

The work started on the statue in 1870 where the french govt and the french people would fund the building of the statue while the United States at that time would fund and build the pedestal that Lady Liberty would be placed upon.

The french artist Bartholdi, had specifically chosen what everything on lady liberty was to represent. The crown and the seven spires or rays represented the sun, the seven seas, and the seven continents, to enlighten the world in addition to the torch.

The broken chains at the feet of lady liberty represents freedom and democracy, the tablet in her one arm and hand represent the book evoking the law and the year of the United States independence. The torch symbolizes freedom, hope and the future. The torch was meant to imply that at night, lady liberty’s light would guide those seeking freedom at night.

The poem that senator schummer and Nancy pelosi were repeating and it didnt help with the ignorance of chuck todd asking pelosi what the Statue of Liberty pin is for and its a total lie.

Emma Lazarus was a refugee advocate in the late 1800’s and was asked in 1883 to write a poem that would be auctioned off to raise funds for the pedestal to be built to hold lady liberty. The poem is in no way connected to the Statue of Liberty it was cast in bronze and sits in the main room of the pedestal foundation, by no means has it ever been part of Lady Liberty which was given as a gift from France as a gift to signify an alliance and friendship between the two countries. Her poem was cast in bronze in 1903 and placed in the main room of the pedestal, 17 years after the statue had been fully erected and dedicated.

On October 28th, 1886 lady liberty had been fully reassembled on the pedestal on bedloe’s island which was then renamed Liberty Island in 1956 and 1.1 miles separate liberty island and Ellis island.

Its a total sham what the progressive democrats are doing in trying to revise history and the true meaning of Lady Liberty.

Advertisements
h1

Gun Control

June 23, 2016

I say give them the gun control, but they first must agree to totally enforce all current immigration laws regardless and approve of voter ID cards in all 50 states before gun control is voted on.  I say vote on enforcement of all current legal immigration laws that are on the books and put voter ID into the constitution permantly and stipulate that to get a voter ID card in your state the person must provide a legal drivers license, social security number(to be verified as being a legal social security number based on instant verification) and or a current and valid passport and legal birth certificate, and agree to the voter ID card will have the persons face and right thumb print on the card along with current address.

Then after the voter ID law has been in effect for 6 months and they agree never to challenge the voter ID and never bring up immigration reform again they get tighter gun control laws as long as another mass shooting that is done by another person based on religion then the gun controls go back to the previous levels before their gun controls.

It’s a valid and sane approach to all three issues, they get what they want and the country gets what it needs to be enforced.

Voter ID placed in the constitution with the requirement of the following on the voter ID card: this card is for voting only not a valid ID, a face picture and your right thumb print, and your current address.  The states provide voter ID cards at no cost to the citizens of each state as long as they have a valid drivers license, valid passport and valid security number based on instant check and or a valid birth certificate. Needing 3 of the 4 would be perfect.

Tie gun control to enforcing the current immigration laws on the books and get rid of the notion of anchor babies and tie gun control to voter ID

h1

Freedom of Speech

June 3, 2016

Free speech is under attack again by the party of slavery and illegal immigration, as long as the majority stays silent and toes the line on political correctness and never doubt the veracity of what they say, they will not send in goons to beat up people attending conservative rallies. Since the presidential race to see who will be the standard bearer of each political party, the goons have been sent out to those who hold rallies and speak the words that scare them to their core and that is enforcement of our Countries laws.

The failure to enforce our laws started in the mid 1980’s when the democrats banded together and refused to pass the budget bills for the federal agencies specifically the agency over seeing the border patrol. They took to the airwaves with the complicity of the media, spewing misinformation on the illegals then, about how they were doing the jobs americans wouldn’t do. It was to be just a one time deal that was struck with then president Ronald Reagan, what a shock it was to see them beating the drums on overhauling the immigration laws under George W. Bush in his last two years of his 2nd term.

Then when Obama was elected and people who saw America the same way he did were placed into positions within the department of homeland security and the border patrol started the downward slide of our nations immigrations lasws. Border patrol agents have been fired for speaking out against obams’s policies on illegal immigrants, budgets have been cut or sliced for border patrol posts along the Mexican border so that it severely hinders the border patrol from doing the job of stopping illegals and even drug smuggling.

The American silent majority were not impressed with the GOP approved list of candidates, so two outsiders entered into the GOP party as well, Ben Carson and Donald Trump. True conservatives started to attend their political rallies and neither candidate were going to be P.C., which I just staying on the sidelines thought it was funny as hell watching the democrats and the left wing media tv stations were in histrionics by saying that amongst the illegals were drug runners, murderes and rapists and child rapists. The left wing media talking head shows and the newspapers went on the immediate offense talking about how they should be referred to as undocumented because illegals is such a demeaning name.

The call went out from the Democratic Party for the SEIU goons to harass and attack any citizen attending either of Ben Carson and or Donald Trumps campaigns. The GOP elites of the party tried their best to get the approved politicians to be the ones that republicans would favor and either Ben or Donald would go to the wayside, but what happened was the silent majority woke up and said enough to an approved list of candidates. The silent majority wants a candidate that will attack the democrats candidate based on their political views regardless if they are a female, or male based on ethnicty,religion, sexual preference, or even sexual identity.

Far to long have the silent majority put up with spineless candidates unless they are attacking a rival within the party. Two prime examples of spineless candidates were McCain of Arizona and Romney of Massachusetts were extremely spineless. McCain was the standard bearer because he felt he was entitled to it after being a senator for so many years, and relying on the fact he was a captured air force pilot twisting it into him being a hero. McCain was spineless, because he refused to go after Obama and his political views, I believe McCain was suffering what the media called white guilt. Romney was selected because he wouldn’t offend Obama either by calling Obama out on his political views for fear of being called racist.

Calling a politician out on his or her political views is not racist, it’s politics. Hillary was begain her coronation even before the campaign season began because she was entitled to it for being married to Bill Clinton and her being a woman. Since the approved list of GOP candidates are no longer in the picture and Trump is the last man standing and being able to garner support of the silent majority and not being P.C., which majority of Americans are happy about and is also attacking the media and not being apologetic, the way the media wants our candidates. Is he a true conservative no.

The silent majority is tired of P.C. presidential candidates going up against the Democratic Party chosen, they want a candidate who will attack their politics and their hatred of the constitution and our nation and our laws. What I fear is the democrats hatred of america the start of violent civil unrest by the Democratic Party because it is not beneath them and they have have history of beating people up even those in wheelchairs, and trying to deny the rights of the military personnel serving overseas from voting.

I wrote this after reading about the goons and the illegal goons bought and paid for by the DNC and George Soros to intimidate those who went to Donald Trumps rally in California on 06/02/2016, just for attending people were beaten by mobs paid for by the DNC and George Soros. There will be more goons at the Trump rally in Redding CA, it’s time for the rolling thunder group to help the police protect citizens doing nothing wrong other than exercising their rights of freedom of association and freeDom of speech which the democrats wish to abolish.

I am a constitional conservative, kicked out of both the democratic party and the GOP…..

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

ObamaCare The Law That Is Racist

October 13, 2013

I woke up sometime during the night because mother nature has deemed me old enough to have a time clock alarm in my bladder thank you mother nature.

The title says it all and I wrote down what it means and by federal law this program must end……….

The Affordable Patient Health Care Act aka obamacare comes right to the point of being racist and discriminatory in the same breath first time that congress has allowed and even voted on a bill that lets the federal govt to use discrimination and be racist legally at the same time.

This law discriminates against you because of your age!

This law discriminates against you because of your sexual preference!

This law discriminates against you based on your skin color!

This law discriminates against you because of your gender as well!

This law discriminates against you if you are not muslim!

This Law also discriminates against couples who are married………..

talking about racism this law was written and aimed at illegals to begin with because the democratic party needs a new group to enslave and they will be worshiped for it.

If you are an American Citizen already you are punished by the law….

Exceptions to this are in you are black, gay, lesbian, perpetual pro amnesty, muslim, pro baby death (planned parenthood actually admitted they are for this), if you are getting govt subsidies and are willing to live according to the rules that the federal govt sets forth for you to live on govt handouts then you will not be punished by the law.

Soon this law will encumber if a person will be selected by the govt to go onto a college education provided by the state, The U.K. is a great example of how the govt selects who gets into college.

Prove me wrong with verifiable proof that obamacare is not based on racism and discriminatory acts built into the law by the democratic party

This law also does what the democrats have been trying to do by re-enslaving the very people who were freed by President Abraham Lincoln, plus it shreds the constitution by letting the HHS Dept do what

they have been unable to do and that is bypass the constitution and the rule of 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.