August 25, 2010
9/12 Project gears up for September’s ‘March on Washington’ Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/25/912-project-gears-up-for-septembers-march-on-washington/#ixzz0xcJLdLI3
Several conservative groups are gearing up for the 9/12 Project, a big Washington, D.C., rally in its second year. The 9/12 Project, a movement started by Fox News personality Glenn Beck, brings together conservatives from all over the country to Washington.
The 9/12 Project’s March on Washington is set to take place on Sept. 12 with keynote speakers including FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, and Republican Indiana Rep. Mike Pence. Some other key conservative events are happening over the few days leading up to the Sept. 12 march.
On Sept. 9 and Sept. 10, the Liberty Xhibit of Patriot Organizations (XPO) will showcase speakers from the National 9-12 Project, the National Center for Constitutional Studies, the Leadership Institute and other conservative organizations.
Conservative groups also plan to gather at the Washington Monument on Sept. 11 to hold a 9/11 Memorial Ceremony from 8:45 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
The 9/12 Project events come three weeks after Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally, which has been grabbing most rally-related headlines as of late.
Liberty Central, a non-profit promoting conservative ideas founded by Ginni Thomas, launched an online video contest to try to garner enthusiasm for the March on Washington and other events taking place from Sept. 9 through Sept. 12.
The contest winner, Liberty Central said in a release, will receive an all-expense paid trip to Washington, D.C., from his or her hometown from Sept. 9 through Sept. 12, complete with roundtrip airfare, a hotel room and $200 for purchasing food and other incidentals.
Conservatives have until Sunday to get their 90-second video submissions into Liberty Central. Further details about the contest appear on their website.
Liberty Central managing editor Brian Faughnan said the contest is geared towards getting conservatives around the country involved with the 9/12 movement.
“We’re trying both to promote the importance of liberty to folks as they vote this fall and also to create a way for an enthusiastic conservative activist to come to Washington who wouldn’t be able to otherwise themselves,” Faughnan said.Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/25/912-project-gears-up-for-septembers-march-on-washington/#ixzz0xcB5WZ9t
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Tea partiers: How deep into our civil liberties?
Tea partiers: How deep into our civil liberties?
By Nat Hentoff
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com
Former House Majority leader Dick Armey has become a leading presence in the tea party movement as chairman of the FreedomWorks organization, with its many thousands of volunteers across the nation working for limited government and more individual freedom. As a civil libertarian, I was first surprised and impressed by Armey when he vigorously opposed, as House majority leader, Bush administration Attorney General John Ashcroft's Operation TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention System). As described on the government's citizen corps Web site, "millions of American truckers, letter carriers, utility employees" were provided "a formal way to report on suspicious terrorist activity" by calling a toll-free hotline number to be directly connected to a proper law enforcement agency." How more vaguely defined could "suspicious" be?
This conservative House majority leader, in a markup section, also defied President Bush by striking out the Operation Tips section of the Homeland Security bill -- emphasizing: "Citizens Will Not Become Informants." At the time, I wondered what then vice president Dick Cheney thought of that!
Then, Armey made me cheer when, on his retirement, in his farewell address at the National Press Club in December 2002, he warned: "We the people had better keep an eye on … our government." And hear this! Addressing Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft et al, Armey asked:
"How do you use the tools we have given you to make us safe in such a manner that'll preserve our freedom? … Freedom is no policy for the timid. And my plaintive plea to all my colleagues that remain in this government as I leave it is, for our sake, for my sake, for heaven's sake, don't give up on freedom!"
That reminded me of Supreme Justice Hugo Black's always contemporary message to all Americans: "Don't be afraid to be free!"
Consider what has happened to our individual constitutional liberties since December 2002, under George W. Bush -- and also clearly Barack Obama, who, as I continually report, has in his first term been even more abusive of our privacy and the separation of powers and (never even conceived by Bush) has bullied through a health care law that hastens the rationing of health care, including the rationing of some of our very lives.
Armey now knows well that the Obama administration's commitment is not to preserving our freedoms. Thomas Jefferson's call to us over the centuries is acutely pertinent: "Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. … They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
I recognize that no one person or organization speaks for all the tea partiers. Indeed, in July, when the first House tea party Caucus began to operate in Congress, the caucus's chairwoman, Republican Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, was very careful to caution: "We're not the mouthpiece. We are not taking the tea party and controlling it from Washington, D.C." (The New York Times, July 22).
However, we all know the impact tea party members can have when they organize for specific purposes. More than any other opponents of Obama's health care legislation, tea partiers awakened citizens across party lines to the chilling prospect that for many of us who are dependent on government payments for our care, Obama's regulators, not our own doctors, will have the power to decide which medicines and procedures are too expensive to the government to continue for us.
And increasingly, in various states tea party, members are pivotally deciding the results of elections.
But if tea party members are to succeed in bringing back the Constitution into the lives of all of us -- a Constitution many of them carry in their pockets, as Justice Hugo Black did -- how much do they know and care about other crucial personal liberties Obama is canceling? And if Armey is concerned about these freedoms, to what extent can he effectively share that concern with enough tea partiers to get those liberties back?
To begin, I look at the agenda and priorities of FreedomWorks, of which he is chairman. On its website, there are calls for free trade; repeal of the death tax; Social Security personal retirement accounts that "workers own and control"; fighting to keep the Internet tax-free; enact the flat tax; work, not welfare; Oppose the DISCLOSE ACT; and other concerns that would appear to be harmonious with insistent views of many tea partiers.
What I do not find at FreedomWorks and in reports of tea party campaigns and actions is persistent resistance to Obama's expansion of our being under pervasive government surveillance, as when last year, in Jewel vs. National Security Agency, his Justice Department made so imperious a claim of presidential "sovereign immunity" that "the U.S. can never be sued for spying that violated federal surveillance statutes, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or the Wiretap Act."
Also, there is Obama's frequent invocation of "state secrets" to entirely close down lawsuits before evidence is even heard, on government violations of the Constitution; his insistence on the need for permanent detention of terrorism suspects who cannot be tried in military commissions or our federal courts because alleged evidence against them has been extracted by torture. Forget our rule of law!
And what of the increasing presidential authorization of targeted killings by CIA pilotless Predator and Reaper drone planes in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen that are wholly extra-judicial, and anger civilians there because of the corollary inadvertent killing of their family members and relatives? Moreover, does Dick Armey acquiesce in the increasing use of pilotless drones in this country for government surveillance? And abroad, what's his reaction to an American citizen on a CIA list of targeted killings by drones, with more to come?
I much admired Armey's courageous constitutional concern for our personal liberties when he was the House majority leader. And I've written admiringly of the tea party's acting on Samuel Adam's challenge: "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate tireless minority to set brushfires in people's minds."
But there is more that tea partiers and Dick Armey can do to remind us why we are Americans -- because I repeat, Thomas Jefferson warned: "Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. … They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
var zflag_nid="794"; var zflag_cid="625/32"; var zflag_sid="6"; var zflag_width="300"; var zflag_height="250"; var zflag_sz="9";
on error resume next
p0=IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash.5"))
if(p0
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights and author of several books, including his current work, "The War on the Bill of Rights and the Gathering Resistance". Comment by clicking here.
Nat Hentoff Archives
© 2006, NEA
.ins {font-family:arial; font-size:10px;}
Arnold Ahlert Mitch Albom Barbara Amiel Michael Barone Tony Blankley Andy Borowitz David Broder Stratfor Briefing Mona Charen Linda Chavez Richard Z. Chesnoff Ann Coulter Greg Crosby Alan Douglas Larry Elder Suzanne Fields John Fund Frank J. Gaffney Lloyd Garver Jonah Goldberg Julia Gorin Jonathan Gurwitz Paul Greenberg Lewis Grossberger Victor Davis Hanson Betsy Hart Nat Hentoff David Horowitz Cheri Jacobus Jeff Jacoby Paul Johnson Jack Kelly Ed Koch Ch. Krauthammer Michael Ledeen John Leo David Limbaugh Kathryn Lopez Rich Lowry Michelle Malkin Jackie Mason Dick Morris Bill O'Reilly Jim Mullen Kathleen Parker Dennis Prager Wesley Pruden Tom Purcell Jonathan Rauch Robert Robb Cokie & Steve Roberts Heather Robinson Pat Sajak Debra J. Saunders Culture Shlock Michael Smerconish Thomas Sowell Mark Steyn John Stossel Cal Thomas Bob Tyrrell Diana West Dave Weinbaum George Will Walter Williams Byron York Mort Zuckerman
Robert Arial Chuck Asay Baloo Chip Bok Dry Bones Lisa Benson John Branch Gary Brookins John Cole J. D. Crowe John Deering Brian Duffy Everything's Relative Mallard Fillmore Jake Fuller Bob Gorrel Joe Heller David Hitch Jerry Holber Steve Kelley Jeff Koterba Dick Locher Chan Lowe Ranan R. Lurie Jimmy Margulies Rick McKee Michael Ramirez Kevin Siers Jeff Stahler Ed Stein Danna Summers John Trever Gary Varvel Kirk Walters
Lori Borgman Fixit Dr. Peter Gott GET A JOB! by Marty Nemko Richard Lederer Tech Maven Every Monday Matters Nutrition Myths Bookmark These Bruce Williams How Stuff
By Nat Hentoff
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com
Former House Majority leader Dick Armey has become a leading presence in the tea party movement as chairman of the FreedomWorks organization, with its many thousands of volunteers across the nation working for limited government and more individual freedom. As a civil libertarian, I was first surprised and impressed by Armey when he vigorously opposed, as House majority leader, Bush administration Attorney General John Ashcroft's Operation TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention System). As described on the government's citizen corps Web site, "millions of American truckers, letter carriers, utility employees" were provided "a formal way to report on suspicious terrorist activity" by calling a toll-free hotline number to be directly connected to a proper law enforcement agency." How more vaguely defined could "suspicious" be?
This conservative House majority leader, in a markup section, also defied President Bush by striking out the Operation Tips section of the Homeland Security bill -- emphasizing: "Citizens Will Not Become Informants." At the time, I wondered what then vice president Dick Cheney thought of that!
Then, Armey made me cheer when, on his retirement, in his farewell address at the National Press Club in December 2002, he warned: "We the people had better keep an eye on … our government." And hear this! Addressing Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft et al, Armey asked:
"How do you use the tools we have given you to make us safe in such a manner that'll preserve our freedom? … Freedom is no policy for the timid. And my plaintive plea to all my colleagues that remain in this government as I leave it is, for our sake, for my sake, for heaven's sake, don't give up on freedom!"
That reminded me of Supreme Justice Hugo Black's always contemporary message to all Americans: "Don't be afraid to be free!"
Consider what has happened to our individual constitutional liberties since December 2002, under George W. Bush -- and also clearly Barack Obama, who, as I continually report, has in his first term been even more abusive of our privacy and the separation of powers and (never even conceived by Bush) has bullied through a health care law that hastens the rationing of health care, including the rationing of some of our very lives.
Armey now knows well that the Obama administration's commitment is not to preserving our freedoms. Thomas Jefferson's call to us over the centuries is acutely pertinent: "Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. … They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
I recognize that no one person or organization speaks for all the tea partiers. Indeed, in July, when the first House tea party Caucus began to operate in Congress, the caucus's chairwoman, Republican Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, was very careful to caution: "We're not the mouthpiece. We are not taking the tea party and controlling it from Washington, D.C." (The New York Times, July 22).
However, we all know the impact tea party members can have when they organize for specific purposes. More than any other opponents of Obama's health care legislation, tea partiers awakened citizens across party lines to the chilling prospect that for many of us who are dependent on government payments for our care, Obama's regulators, not our own doctors, will have the power to decide which medicines and procedures are too expensive to the government to continue for us.
And increasingly, in various states tea party, members are pivotally deciding the results of elections.
But if tea party members are to succeed in bringing back the Constitution into the lives of all of us -- a Constitution many of them carry in their pockets, as Justice Hugo Black did -- how much do they know and care about other crucial personal liberties Obama is canceling? And if Armey is concerned about these freedoms, to what extent can he effectively share that concern with enough tea partiers to get those liberties back?
To begin, I look at the agenda and priorities of FreedomWorks, of which he is chairman. On its website, there are calls for free trade; repeal of the death tax; Social Security personal retirement accounts that "workers own and control"; fighting to keep the Internet tax-free; enact the flat tax; work, not welfare; Oppose the DISCLOSE ACT; and other concerns that would appear to be harmonious with insistent views of many tea partiers.
What I do not find at FreedomWorks and in reports of tea party campaigns and actions is persistent resistance to Obama's expansion of our being under pervasive government surveillance, as when last year, in Jewel vs. National Security Agency, his Justice Department made so imperious a claim of presidential "sovereign immunity" that "the U.S. can never be sued for spying that violated federal surveillance statutes, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or the Wiretap Act."
Also, there is Obama's frequent invocation of "state secrets" to entirely close down lawsuits before evidence is even heard, on government violations of the Constitution; his insistence on the need for permanent detention of terrorism suspects who cannot be tried in military commissions or our federal courts because alleged evidence against them has been extracted by torture. Forget our rule of law!
And what of the increasing presidential authorization of targeted killings by CIA pilotless Predator and Reaper drone planes in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen that are wholly extra-judicial, and anger civilians there because of the corollary inadvertent killing of their family members and relatives? Moreover, does Dick Armey acquiesce in the increasing use of pilotless drones in this country for government surveillance? And abroad, what's his reaction to an American citizen on a CIA list of targeted killings by drones, with more to come?
I much admired Armey's courageous constitutional concern for our personal liberties when he was the House majority leader. And I've written admiringly of the tea party's acting on Samuel Adam's challenge: "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate tireless minority to set brushfires in people's minds."
But there is more that tea partiers and Dick Armey can do to remind us why we are Americans -- because I repeat, Thomas Jefferson warned: "Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. … They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
var zflag_nid="794"; var zflag_cid="625/32"; var zflag_sid="6"; var zflag_width="300"; var zflag_height="250"; var zflag_sz="9";
on error resume next
p0=IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash.5"))
if(p0
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights and author of several books, including his current work, "The War on the Bill of Rights and the Gathering Resistance". Comment by clicking here.
Nat Hentoff Archives
© 2006, NEA
.ins {font-family:arial; font-size:10px;}
Arnold Ahlert Mitch Albom Barbara Amiel Michael Barone Tony Blankley Andy Borowitz David Broder Stratfor Briefing Mona Charen Linda Chavez Richard Z. Chesnoff Ann Coulter Greg Crosby Alan Douglas Larry Elder Suzanne Fields John Fund Frank J. Gaffney Lloyd Garver Jonah Goldberg Julia Gorin Jonathan Gurwitz Paul Greenberg Lewis Grossberger Victor Davis Hanson Betsy Hart Nat Hentoff David Horowitz Cheri Jacobus Jeff Jacoby Paul Johnson Jack Kelly Ed Koch Ch. Krauthammer Michael Ledeen John Leo David Limbaugh Kathryn Lopez Rich Lowry Michelle Malkin Jackie Mason Dick Morris Bill O'Reilly Jim Mullen Kathleen Parker Dennis Prager Wesley Pruden Tom Purcell Jonathan Rauch Robert Robb Cokie & Steve Roberts Heather Robinson Pat Sajak Debra J. Saunders Culture Shlock Michael Smerconish Thomas Sowell Mark Steyn John Stossel Cal Thomas Bob Tyrrell Diana West Dave Weinbaum George Will Walter Williams Byron York Mort Zuckerman
Robert Arial Chuck Asay Baloo Chip Bok Dry Bones Lisa Benson John Branch Gary Brookins John Cole J. D. Crowe John Deering Brian Duffy Everything's Relative Mallard Fillmore Jake Fuller Bob Gorrel Joe Heller David Hitch Jerry Holber Steve Kelley Jeff Koterba Dick Locher Chan Lowe Ranan R. Lurie Jimmy Margulies Rick McKee Michael Ramirez Kevin Siers Jeff Stahler Ed Stein Danna Summers John Trever Gary Varvel Kirk Walters
Lori Borgman Fixit Dr. Peter Gott GET A JOB! by Marty Nemko Richard Lederer Tech Maven Every Monday Matters Nutrition Myths Bookmark These Bruce Williams How Stuff
Friday, August 20, 2010
OOPS - The Blame Bush Poll
A prominent Democratic pollster is circulating a survey that shows George W. Bush is 6 points more popular than President Obama in “Frontline” districts — seats held by Democrats that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sees as most vulnerable to Republican takeover. That Bush is more popular than Obama in Democratic-held seats is cause for outright fear.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Three Things You Need to Know about Islam
Three Things You Need to Know about Islam
Three Things You MUST Know about Islam
Three Things You Need to Learn about Islam
I am putting this on our blog, on our meetup site, and if I get time, on our Westshore Tea Party Web site so everyone will stop being stupid about volunteering submission. I will not submit.
Please make the 5 minutes to watch this video found by our Mary O'Malley. Then read the article published in the WestLife on Aug. 4th, as a reprint by Charles C. Haynes, followed by my response, to be printed in the WestLife today Aug. 18th.
We must combat the negative stereotypes of our enlightened classes or we will find ourselves servants of dhemmis
Is the Tea Party Islamophobic? I didn't put the entire article in this post but you can look it up yourself. Here is my response:
Is the Tea Party Movement Islamophobic?
Response from A Party Girl
Mr. Charles C. Haynes was a recent guest columnist in the WestLife (Aug. 4th edition). He claims the Tea Party must answer any and all charges against it because some random members make inane statements. Really?
As a former nurse, I was taught that the difference between someone who is “phobic” (irrational fear) and someone who is “paranoid” (psychotic fear) and someone who is being attacked, shot at, bombed, and planed to death is a reality on the ground. The reality on the ground is that the victims families in New York City are totally outraged that there is a big BIG hole in the ground STILL and yet the very first thing that is going to be built overlooking that hole is a Mosque. Culturally insensitive of them to not see they are wounding the tender feelings of the Muslim community and tinkling on the outreached hand of multiculturalism faith based prayers and good wishes to the Capitalist.
Here are some facts Mr. Haynes. First, the tea party might have some visible organizers, but no one speaks for all, including me. So if you can roam around the entire 300 million people of the USA and find less than a dozen who are Tea Party + Islamic sore, then our average is certainly better than the Democratic National Party. Can anyone say Tawana Brawley? For those in need of background, Tawana Brawley was a mildly retarded black teen who ran off for a few days and didn’t want momma to know what she was up to. When she came home, she claimed some white boys held her captive and raped her. Enter a man looking to make his career in race baiting and we have Al Sharpton. Good old Al was on the Democrat stage as a potential presidential candidate. Seriously. Who was questioning his history of making brash statements?
There are some names which got left out of the article by Mr Haynes, like Mohammed Atta, for one. Is that real enough for you Mr. Haynes? There is zero question that he did it for his religious beliefs. Zero.
I researched Mr. Haynes, and I will say that he is consistent in his outrages about religious discrimination. He does demand freedom for all. However, what Mr. Haynes did not tell you about the “Ground Zero Mosque” kerfunkle is that the rush to prove how tolerant Americans are didn’t extend to the Greek Orthodox church which was severely damaged on Sept. 11th, 2001. The article from the New York Times dated Dec. 6, 2007 continues to remain true, see http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/no-church-at-ground-zero-yet-faith-and-hope-persist/ for complete details. And there is still a gaping hole in the ground that hasn’t been filled. But a Mosque? Sure. Go ahead. We rushed that one through red tape. And let one person graffiti it like they are free to do to Christian churches, and all H double hockey sticks will flow from those whose brains are so open they fell out, rolled around in the gutter, and got drop kicked by Saudi Arabians. Ooooooh. Am I not supposed to mention that? Was that naughty?
People blew up our embassies. Attacked our ships. Brought down our buildings. Yet everyone wants to say we are intolerant to their needs. I reject that argument.
I don’t know why the residents of Murfreesboro are worried about an Islamic training center. Before I rush to judgment about them being possibly ignorant, intolerant, Tennessee Islamophobes, maybe I’d call them up and see what they are protesting. Instead, it is better to infer they are irrational (phobic) and potentially crazy (paranoid) and not realists. (note ~ if I were a better writer or not restricted to 700 words, I would have included this sentence - That Mr. Haynes believes he knows the effective recruiting tools of Al Qaida is quaint. He doesn't. He assumes that they use these things but has no fact based knowledge or facts of any kind to support his theory. In fact, repeat, in FACT, we do know one recruitment tool used by Al Qaida that is not only a reality but is proving to be quite efficient, and that is Islamic training centers maintained by radical imans. hmmm. Irration? Crazy? Or sane? cynthea)
On the other hand, wouldn’t it be better if those boys up in New York moved their mosque somewhere more culturally sensitive? If the toe stepping fits us, then it should fit for them. I don’t believe, and neither does most non-Muslim Americans, that they really want to make us feel better. Does that make me Islamophobic? Or does that make me sane? Grow up Mr. Haynes. Painting people whose slogan is Taxed Enough Already as haters is soooo last month. Cynthea Sabolich Community Organizer/Activist/Westshore Tea Party
Three Things You MUST Know about Islam
Three Things You Need to Learn about Islam
I am putting this on our blog, on our meetup site, and if I get time, on our Westshore Tea Party Web site so everyone will stop being stupid about volunteering submission. I will not submit.
Please make the 5 minutes to watch this video found by our Mary O'Malley. Then read the article published in the WestLife on Aug. 4th, as a reprint by Charles C. Haynes, followed by my response, to be printed in the WestLife today Aug. 18th.
We must combat the negative stereotypes of our enlightened classes or we will find ourselves servants of dhemmis
Is the Tea Party Islamophobic? I didn't put the entire article in this post but you can look it up yourself. Here is my response:
Is the Tea Party Movement Islamophobic?
Response from A Party Girl
Mr. Charles C. Haynes was a recent guest columnist in the WestLife (Aug. 4th edition). He claims the Tea Party must answer any and all charges against it because some random members make inane statements. Really?
As a former nurse, I was taught that the difference between someone who is “phobic” (irrational fear) and someone who is “paranoid” (psychotic fear) and someone who is being attacked, shot at, bombed, and planed to death is a reality on the ground. The reality on the ground is that the victims families in New York City are totally outraged that there is a big BIG hole in the ground STILL and yet the very first thing that is going to be built overlooking that hole is a Mosque. Culturally insensitive of them to not see they are wounding the tender feelings of the Muslim community and tinkling on the outreached hand of multiculturalism faith based prayers and good wishes to the Capitalist.
Here are some facts Mr. Haynes. First, the tea party might have some visible organizers, but no one speaks for all, including me. So if you can roam around the entire 300 million people of the USA and find less than a dozen who are Tea Party + Islamic sore, then our average is certainly better than the Democratic National Party. Can anyone say Tawana Brawley? For those in need of background, Tawana Brawley was a mildly retarded black teen who ran off for a few days and didn’t want momma to know what she was up to. When she came home, she claimed some white boys held her captive and raped her. Enter a man looking to make his career in race baiting and we have Al Sharpton. Good old Al was on the Democrat stage as a potential presidential candidate. Seriously. Who was questioning his history of making brash statements?
There are some names which got left out of the article by Mr Haynes, like Mohammed Atta, for one. Is that real enough for you Mr. Haynes? There is zero question that he did it for his religious beliefs. Zero.
I researched Mr. Haynes, and I will say that he is consistent in his outrages about religious discrimination. He does demand freedom for all. However, what Mr. Haynes did not tell you about the “Ground Zero Mosque” kerfunkle is that the rush to prove how tolerant Americans are didn’t extend to the Greek Orthodox church which was severely damaged on Sept. 11th, 2001. The article from the New York Times dated Dec. 6, 2007 continues to remain true, see http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/no-church-at-ground-zero-yet-faith-and-hope-persist/ for complete details. And there is still a gaping hole in the ground that hasn’t been filled. But a Mosque? Sure. Go ahead. We rushed that one through red tape. And let one person graffiti it like they are free to do to Christian churches, and all H double hockey sticks will flow from those whose brains are so open they fell out, rolled around in the gutter, and got drop kicked by Saudi Arabians. Ooooooh. Am I not supposed to mention that? Was that naughty?
People blew up our embassies. Attacked our ships. Brought down our buildings. Yet everyone wants to say we are intolerant to their needs. I reject that argument.
I don’t know why the residents of Murfreesboro are worried about an Islamic training center. Before I rush to judgment about them being possibly ignorant, intolerant, Tennessee Islamophobes, maybe I’d call them up and see what they are protesting. Instead, it is better to infer they are irrational (phobic) and potentially crazy (paranoid) and not realists. (note ~ if I were a better writer or not restricted to 700 words, I would have included this sentence - That Mr. Haynes believes he knows the effective recruiting tools of Al Qaida is quaint. He doesn't. He assumes that they use these things but has no fact based knowledge or facts of any kind to support his theory. In fact, repeat, in FACT, we do know one recruitment tool used by Al Qaida that is not only a reality but is proving to be quite efficient, and that is Islamic training centers maintained by radical imans. hmmm. Irration? Crazy? Or sane? cynthea)
On the other hand, wouldn’t it be better if those boys up in New York moved their mosque somewhere more culturally sensitive? If the toe stepping fits us, then it should fit for them. I don’t believe, and neither does most non-Muslim Americans, that they really want to make us feel better. Does that make me Islamophobic? Or does that make me sane? Grow up Mr. Haynes. Painting people whose slogan is Taxed Enough Already as haters is soooo last month. Cynthea Sabolich Community Organizer/Activist/Westshore Tea Party
Fannie's And Freddie's Fakeover
Fannie's And Freddie's Fakeover
Posted 08/17/2010 06:56 PM ET
Subprime Scandal: You can't talk about the housing crisis or reforms without talking about the affordable-housing goals HUD slapped on Fannie and Freddie. That is, unless you're Tim Geithner.
The Treasury secretary hosted a summit Tuesday to discuss redesigning the mortgage-finance system — 75% of which is still controlled by Fannie and Freddie, which are still bleeding billions at taxpayer expense.
Geithner vowed to fundamentally "change" the failed government-sponsored mortgage giants. Yet, suspiciously, he didn't offer how. Nor did he explain why they lowered their underwriting standards and collapsed under the weight of subprime loans and securities. So here's a refresher:
• In 1996, as part of Clinton housing policy, HUD required that 42% of Fannie's and Freddie's mortgage financing go to "underserved" borrowers with unproven or damaged credit.
• To help them meet that goal, HUD, their regulator, authorized them to relax their lending criteria.
• HUD also authorized them to buy subprime securities that included loans to uncreditworthy borrowers.
• Unhappy with the results — despite Fannie and Freddie committing trillions in risky low-income loans — HUD in 2000 raised its affordable-housing target again, this time to 50%.
• By 2008, HUD's target had topped out at 56%. And Fannie and Freddie had drowned in a toxic soup of bad subprime paper.
HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan insists that affordable-housing goals aren't to blame. "We should be careful not to learn the wrong lesson from this experience," he said, "and sacrifice an important feature of the current system: wide access to mortgage credit."
This is revisionist history. Fannie and Freddie e-mails confirm that executives then were under huge pressure to meet "HUD goals."
But as Orwell warned, whoever controls the present controls the past. And right now, the people who pushed Fannie and Freddie — along with our entire financial system — off the cliff in the name of "affordable housing" are running the show.
Just look at some of the experts Geithner invited to his Potemkin summit. Like ex-Clinton aide Ellen Seidman, who became head of the Office of Thrift Supervision. She aggressively enforced Clinton's beefed-up Community Reinvestment Act, which codified the "flexible" underwriting that Fannie and Freddie adopted.
Seidman argued that Fannie's and Freddie's support for "low-income and minority communities" — especially now amid a wave of foreclosures — is "absolutely critical." She wants government to take an even larger role in pushing housing for "underserved markets."
"The private sector will not do it on its own," Seidman said, "and we should just stop having that debate."
Excuse us, but homes aren't a right. People who lost their homes can go back to renting. There's no shame in that. The shame came when government pushed them into homes they couldn't afford. And the housing bubble it created hurt everybody in the end.
Echoing Seidman, Geithner asserted that whatever replaces Fannie and Freddie must continue to "provide access to affordable housing for lower-income Americans" and to guarantee loans.
In other words, Fannie and Freddie aren't going anywhere. They'll just be absorbed into the government, most likely Treasury or HUD, or both.
Why must taxpayers continue subsidizing homeownership through a government-guaranteed secondary mortgage market run by a government-protected duopoly?
Within the proper framework, we're confident that private firms can originate and securitize mortgages more efficiently — and do so without the politically injected risk or taxpayer liability.
Wells Fargo, for one, would gradually replace Freddie and Fannie with private "mortgage conduits" that buy loans on the primary market and roll them into a common mortgage-backed security.
They'd assume the risk on the underlying mortgages, while the government would guarantee only the MBSes. To protect taxpayers, the conduits would pay into an insurance fund.
The plan maximizes the use of private capital while limiting Washington's role to assuming catastrophic risk.
Other charter privileges enjoyed by Fannie and Freddie would be eliminated, including their Treasury line of credit, state and local tax exemptions, and weak capital requirements.
Above all, the plan would curb HUD's interference in the mortgage market. No more unrealistically high affordable-housing goals. No more NINJA — no income, no job or assets — loans.
I don't know who authored this piece or even if the suggestions are practical but they make a great case of what caused the financial meltdown. cynthea
Posted 08/17/2010 06:56 PM ET
Subprime Scandal: You can't talk about the housing crisis or reforms without talking about the affordable-housing goals HUD slapped on Fannie and Freddie. That is, unless you're Tim Geithner.
The Treasury secretary hosted a summit Tuesday to discuss redesigning the mortgage-finance system — 75% of which is still controlled by Fannie and Freddie, which are still bleeding billions at taxpayer expense.
Geithner vowed to fundamentally "change" the failed government-sponsored mortgage giants. Yet, suspiciously, he didn't offer how. Nor did he explain why they lowered their underwriting standards and collapsed under the weight of subprime loans and securities. So here's a refresher:
• In 1996, as part of Clinton housing policy, HUD required that 42% of Fannie's and Freddie's mortgage financing go to "underserved" borrowers with unproven or damaged credit.
• To help them meet that goal, HUD, their regulator, authorized them to relax their lending criteria.
• HUD also authorized them to buy subprime securities that included loans to uncreditworthy borrowers.
• Unhappy with the results — despite Fannie and Freddie committing trillions in risky low-income loans — HUD in 2000 raised its affordable-housing target again, this time to 50%.
• By 2008, HUD's target had topped out at 56%. And Fannie and Freddie had drowned in a toxic soup of bad subprime paper.
HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan insists that affordable-housing goals aren't to blame. "We should be careful not to learn the wrong lesson from this experience," he said, "and sacrifice an important feature of the current system: wide access to mortgage credit."
This is revisionist history. Fannie and Freddie e-mails confirm that executives then were under huge pressure to meet "HUD goals."
But as Orwell warned, whoever controls the present controls the past. And right now, the people who pushed Fannie and Freddie — along with our entire financial system — off the cliff in the name of "affordable housing" are running the show.
Just look at some of the experts Geithner invited to his Potemkin summit. Like ex-Clinton aide Ellen Seidman, who became head of the Office of Thrift Supervision. She aggressively enforced Clinton's beefed-up Community Reinvestment Act, which codified the "flexible" underwriting that Fannie and Freddie adopted.
Seidman argued that Fannie's and Freddie's support for "low-income and minority communities" — especially now amid a wave of foreclosures — is "absolutely critical." She wants government to take an even larger role in pushing housing for "underserved markets."
"The private sector will not do it on its own," Seidman said, "and we should just stop having that debate."
Excuse us, but homes aren't a right. People who lost their homes can go back to renting. There's no shame in that. The shame came when government pushed them into homes they couldn't afford. And the housing bubble it created hurt everybody in the end.
Echoing Seidman, Geithner asserted that whatever replaces Fannie and Freddie must continue to "provide access to affordable housing for lower-income Americans" and to guarantee loans.
In other words, Fannie and Freddie aren't going anywhere. They'll just be absorbed into the government, most likely Treasury or HUD, or both.
Why must taxpayers continue subsidizing homeownership through a government-guaranteed secondary mortgage market run by a government-protected duopoly?
Within the proper framework, we're confident that private firms can originate and securitize mortgages more efficiently — and do so without the politically injected risk or taxpayer liability.
Wells Fargo, for one, would gradually replace Freddie and Fannie with private "mortgage conduits" that buy loans on the primary market and roll them into a common mortgage-backed security.
They'd assume the risk on the underlying mortgages, while the government would guarantee only the MBSes. To protect taxpayers, the conduits would pay into an insurance fund.
The plan maximizes the use of private capital while limiting Washington's role to assuming catastrophic risk.
Other charter privileges enjoyed by Fannie and Freddie would be eliminated, including their Treasury line of credit, state and local tax exemptions, and weak capital requirements.
Above all, the plan would curb HUD's interference in the mortgage market. No more unrealistically high affordable-housing goals. No more NINJA — no income, no job or assets — loans.
I don't know who authored this piece or even if the suggestions are practical but they make a great case of what caused the financial meltdown. cynthea
Monday, August 16, 2010
The Hindenburg Omen
Is a Market Crash Imminent?
The Hindenburg crashed and burned in 1937 and many investors think the same thing is about happen to the global stock market. According to this indicator if the stocks are at 52 week highs and in the same period of time stocks are at new 52 week lows then the market is experiencing uncertainty and will crash. This indicator takes effect when over 2.2% of the stocks are at highs while a different 2.2% or more are at new lows.
This criterion has been met, so good luck to the investors out there. For more information about the Hindenburg effect go to Investopedia.
The Hindenburg crashed and burned in 1937 and many investors think the same thing is about happen to the global stock market. According to this indicator if the stocks are at 52 week highs and in the same period of time stocks are at new 52 week lows then the market is experiencing uncertainty and will crash. This indicator takes effect when over 2.2% of the stocks are at highs while a different 2.2% or more are at new lows.
This criterion has been met, so good luck to the investors out there. For more information about the Hindenburg effect go to Investopedia.
Banks to benefit most from White House program to help fight foreclosures
Banks to benefit most from White House program to help fight foreclosures
By Vicki Needham - 08/15/10 03:05 PM ET
Banks will get the biggest benefit from an Obama administration housing program designed to help unemployed homeowners escape foreclosure.Housing experts expressed concern that banks, not homeowners, will be helped by the White House's $3 billion funding infusion -- $2 billion from the Treasury Department and another $1 billion from the Housing and Urban Development Department -- going to those states hit hardest by the housing market crash and unemployment.
"Giving money to the banks isn't what the government should be doing right now," said Dean Baker, co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research."I'm not a big fan; it's ill-conceived," he said.The basic principle is to help struggling homeowners but with so many people underwater on their mortgages the new funding is unlikely to do much good, Baker said."You need to make sure that someone benefits from the program other than banks," he said.Baker suggested that if the government is going to provide up to $50,000 in loans over the course of two years to those struggling homeowners that the money should be used for any of their needs, not just to pay the mortgage.He said banks could offer a program that would allow homeowners to rent their home back from the bank at a lower monthly rate than their mortgage payment for up to five years, providing some security for those struggling to make monthly payments.The arrangement would provide lenders with a real incentive to negotiate with homeowners because they don't want to be landlords.If the recently announced program is expected to work there has to be a reasonable expectation that at the end of the two-year program homeowners will have some equity in their property."If that's not the case, then it's not worth it," he said.He said he'd be "very surprised" if the vast majority of those who take advantage of the program don't eventually lose their homes.Foreclosures were up 4 percent in July with 325,229 filings, a nearly 10 percent increase over the same month in 2009, according to a report from RealtyTrac, a group that tracks foreclosure filings.David Abromowitz, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said the main problem with the funding is that lenders will benefit without requiring any concessions or matching of the federal aid."My concern is what are we asking from lenders who are going to get the benefits source to pay those loans for 24 months," he said.Under the program, lenders don't have to make principle reductions on loans or major modifications, he said. Lenders should also be required to make concessions and possibly even match funding."Banks also should be required to share in the burden being faced by homeowners," he said.Despite his reservations with the funding, he emphasized that with millions facing foreclosure, the fragile economy and a slowing economic recovery, "anything that slows or stops foreclosures is good.""It's targeted well toward people facing a temporary situation when they can't pay their mortgage because of unemployment," he said.Still, the challenge is difficult as federal officials try to find ways to get the economy to turn the corner and pick up pace.
RELATED ARTICLES
Economist: 'The stimulus substituted for thinking'
"No one piece is going to turn the tide," Abromowitz said. "But this certainly could help in the housing market."Under the federal program, Treasury will direct the $2 billion to the "Hardest Hit Fund" created earlier this year, while HUD will create a new "Emergency Homeowners Loan Program" that will provide zero-interest loans of up to $50,000 for two years. The funding will be divided up among 17 states and the District of Columbia.The funding allocation announced last week is the third payout for the housing program, pushing the cost of the program to $4.1 billion.Nevada, Arizona and Florida posted the worst foreclosure rates in July, with Nevada reporting the nation's highest foreclosure rate for the 43rd straight month.Five states accounted for more than 50 percent of national total -- California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan and Arizona.Four of those states will get part of $3 billion from the Treasury and Housing and Urban Development Department to help unemployed homeowners stave off foreclosure.At $476 million, California gets the largest share while Florida will receive about $239 million, Illinois gets $166 million, Michigan $129 million and Nevada is set to receive $34 million under the program.John Weicher, director of the Center for Housing and Financial Markets at the Hudson Institute, said "the most important thing is the strengthening of the economy overall." "What's happened so far hasn't been very helpful," he said about the administration's past efforts.The Obama administration had tried several different avenues to stem foreclosures but hasn't made much headway. About 530,000 homeowners, or more than 40 percent, have dropped out of the Making Home Affordable program."There's an open question of whether this will work particularly well," Weicher said.He said maybe just getting money to people to help them make their mortgage payments may be more successful than other programs.Republicans have argued that it puts taxpayer money at risk, and the special inspector general for the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program is auditing the program."It’s troubling that just weeks after the SIGTARP assailed the administration for its lack of success and transparency in managing their signature mortgage-relief program, they have ignored the IG’s warnings and are committing even more money in a failed program that ultimately isn’t helping those who need it the most," Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) told The Hill.Issa, ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said "if the administration were serious about helping the jobless keep their homes, they would be advancing policies that would create jobs and address the root causes of the housing crisis – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
Sunday, August 15, 2010
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Pilot Program - a financial Obamacare in the making (be very afraid)
First, let me disclaim that I got this from the As A Mom site and will everyone, whether or not they have the prerequist uterus, please join and support them?
Now, for the scary facts:
Posted by Doug~puts Slinky's on Escalators on August 13, 2010 at 9:39am in The Water Cooler
The FDIC is launching a Pilot Program called Model Safe Accounts, designed to bring bank accounts to people the FDIC calls “unbanked”, “underbanked” and “underserved”.
The program proposal contains a few Liberal-ese terms like ‘economic inclusion’, ‘sustainability’ and ‘roadmap’.
Our culture used to refer to ‘underbanked’ people as ‘poor’ people. Obviously the more limited a persons income is, the less frequently they utilize a bank account.
In 2009, the FDIC sponsored a supplement to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey with the focus of collecting data on U.S. households that are ‘unbanked’ or ‘underbanked’.
(source)
This survey was incredibly predictable. It basically said that poor people don’t have the same banking activity as the middle class, or the rich.
In a stunning ‘I could have told you that’ conclusion, the report said, “The study, which is the most comprehensive survey to date of the unbanked and underbanked, reveals that more than one quarter (25.6 percent) of all households in the United States are unbanked or underbanked and that those households are disproportionately low-income and/or minority.”
I wonder if ‘minority’ actually means ‘immigrant’?
(I’m only asking a question...)
The study went on to say, “The proportion of U.S. households that are unbanked varies considerably across racial and ethnic groups with certain racial and ethnic groups being more likely to be unbanked than the population as a whole. Minorities more likely to be unbanked include blacks (21.7 percent of black households), Hispanics (19.3 percent), and American Indian/Alaskans (15.6 percent). Racial groups less likely to be unbanked are Asians (3.5 percent) and whites (3.3 percent).”
(source)
The above excerpt is interesting to me, because the ethnic groups listed are all capitalized like proper names...
...except ‘blacks’ and ‘whites’.
(I printed the quote as-is. I don’t know what’s important about that observation, it just seems interesting to me)
The FDIC’s analysis of this ‘problem’ states that, “Minorities and lower-income households are much more likely to be underserved. In particular, one in five households earning under $30,000 are unbanked, and these households comprise over 70 percent of the unbanked total.”
The focus of the FDIC is to make a bank account, “...available to all consumers, but would be particularly responsive to the needs of underserved and LMI [low to moderate income] consumers; pilot banks [participating in this new program] are strongly encouraged to market the products to those groups.”
Another oddly worded comment says the goal is to include, “...transactional accounts, savings, affordable credit, financial literacy, and incentives.”
What do they mean by “affordable credit”? Why is the government going to determine what is ‘affordable’ for a business? What does ‘financial literacy’ have to do with any of this? And what kind of incentives does the government have in mind, exactly? I thought an incentive was for Bank ‘A’ to give me a better rate than Bank ‘B’, and so I – the consumer – decide which Bank to be a customer at, by shopping around.
(It’s called the Free Market system)
Liberals think a bank is a charity organization. A bank is a business just like a gas station or a supermarket, except the products being dealt with are financial services.
A bank – in essence – either ‘sells’ money to customers, or ‘rents space’ to customers for them to keep their money in.
When a person ‘buys’ money, we call that a Loan (which is payed for through interest), and when a person keeps money in a bank, a customer pays for ‘rental space’ via fees on a checking account.
(There’s my contribution to financial literacy)
So when did having a bank account become a civil right?
(Which is precisely where I think this is headed!)
We know that every time the Government puts its ridiculous fingers all over an industry, that industry goes to heck in a handbasket.
In a report by the FDIC, they said they published the Templates for comment on May 7, 2010, and received 46 comments from banks, other financial institutions, state banking agencies, financial industry trade groups, and private citizens by deadline on June 6, 2010.
May 7th was a Friday (right before the weekend), and June 6th was a Sunday, which provided 30 calendar days to respond.
And respond, people did!!!
Yes.
A whopping 46 comments.
It was published on that well-read news site, the FDIC’s own web page, which has all the excitement
of an overdraft fee schedule.
Their follow-up report stated the obvious by saying, “Banks and their trade associations often stated that they already offer accounts similar to the draft templates. However, when described, the transactional accounts in particular sometimes differed in significant ways from the draft template, for example by featuring fee-based overdraft programs.”
In other words, banks normally charge customers for writing bounced checks. The bank offers overdraft protection as one of its products, which involves covering the transaction with its own money until the account receives a deposit from the customer to cover the transaction and – surprise – banks apparently feel that this is a temporary loan, so they charge a flat fee for that.
But naturally a Liberal government would think that a bank account is a civil right, not a privilege, and so the FDIC wants banks to cover the cost of a bounced check, for free.
Banks are a business. This is no different than an automobile repair shop which repairs engines, but then the government steps in and says, “You need to fix flat tires for free”.
Did you hear about any of this anywhere on the Internet, or FOX News, or Glenn Beck? I heard about it a couple of days ago on the Phil Valentine Radio Show, and he only included this among the other stories he was covering.
I pounced on it. This thing is huge, as far as I’m concerned, because the government loves to monkey around with things and drive them into the ground, such as tinkering with the nuts and bolts of the Sub-Prime market so that it crashes.
This gives the government a problem to solve, since the government needs something to do.
The Government has done wonders for Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae (latest estimates put bailouts at $1 Trillion), and now they want to be just as helpful with all the banks in America?
(source)
So why is this story important?
Because of the stated purpose of the pilot program: “The FDIC Model Safe Accounts Template is a roadmap for accounts that would be available to all consumers.”
I thought bank accounts were already available to all consumers...
...unless wealth is being redistributed, which is what this sounds like.
Here’s a scary sentence in the report: “Regarding overdafts, consumer groups and nonprofits were firm that a prohibition on fee-based overdrafts was an essential feature to a safe transactional account.”
Translation: ‘All of us Liberal groups want banks not to charge for a service because a bank account is a right, not a privilege’.
The FDIC proposal uses ‘between the lines’ polite arm-twisting terminology such as “participation will be encouraged”, and this little gem, “The FDIC will approach a number of insured institutions prior to the application process to encourage participation by large insured institutions and interested community institutions.”
At the risk of using a cliche, this is wrong on so many levels.
The focus on the entire program is to make banking more accessible to LMI (low to moderate income) consumers.
So that means...
...the rest of us have to pay full price? (or pay even more to make up for the banks losses?)
The program also allows for “...alternative forms of customer identification”.
(What is that? An illegal alien ID card?)
First, I think that the FDIC (the government) is planning a redistribution of wealth scheme. How else can you give a bank account (a financial product) to someone who can’t afford one?
Second, I think that the ‘Safe Account’ template has much to do with an effort to more seemlessly assimilate illegal immigrants into this country. Remember, the FDIC survey stated that Hispanics made up 19.3 percent of the ‘unbanked’, making that demographic minority group second only to Blacks at 21.7 percent.
Third, none of us are seriously thinking that a Liberal administration is just going to try and be helpful to minorities so they can have bank accounts.
A Liberal (socialist!) government cannot help but turn this into a sort of ‘Financial Obamacare’ with the public being forced to have some kind of government controlled bank account.
This is just now starting out as some sort of pilot program, but I believe it’s just a first step into the government taking control of our financial lives the same way they did with Healthcare, and taking control of private companies like General Motors.
How ironic that the FDIC is using counterfeit kindness to sell us a defective bill of goods.
=========
(sources)
Phil Valentine Radio Show
http://www.philvalentine.com/
Memo to FDIC from Ellen Lazar, a member of the Corporation for Enterprise Development
http://www.fdic.gov/news/board/10AugPilot.pdf
Wikipedia page on Corporation for Enterprise Development, which sounds like a Liberal Think Tank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Enterprise_Development
FDIC Website announcing Safe Account Pilot Program
http://www.fdic.gov/consumers/template/
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac bailout $1 Trillion
http://247wallst.com/2010/06/14/fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-bailouts-could-cost-1-trillion/
FDIC Blog(?) Economic Inclusion survey results
http://www.economicinclusion.gov/press_room.html
FDIC survey via Census Bureau results
http://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/
Now, for the scary facts:
Posted by Doug~puts Slinky's on Escalators on August 13, 2010 at 9:39am in The Water Cooler
The FDIC is launching a Pilot Program called Model Safe Accounts, designed to bring bank accounts to people the FDIC calls “unbanked”, “underbanked” and “underserved”.
The program proposal contains a few Liberal-ese terms like ‘economic inclusion’, ‘sustainability’ and ‘roadmap’.
Our culture used to refer to ‘underbanked’ people as ‘poor’ people. Obviously the more limited a persons income is, the less frequently they utilize a bank account.
In 2009, the FDIC sponsored a supplement to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey with the focus of collecting data on U.S. households that are ‘unbanked’ or ‘underbanked’.
(source)
This survey was incredibly predictable. It basically said that poor people don’t have the same banking activity as the middle class, or the rich.
In a stunning ‘I could have told you that’ conclusion, the report said, “The study, which is the most comprehensive survey to date of the unbanked and underbanked, reveals that more than one quarter (25.6 percent) of all households in the United States are unbanked or underbanked and that those households are disproportionately low-income and/or minority.”
I wonder if ‘minority’ actually means ‘immigrant’?
(I’m only asking a question...)
The study went on to say, “The proportion of U.S. households that are unbanked varies considerably across racial and ethnic groups with certain racial and ethnic groups being more likely to be unbanked than the population as a whole. Minorities more likely to be unbanked include blacks (21.7 percent of black households), Hispanics (19.3 percent), and American Indian/Alaskans (15.6 percent). Racial groups less likely to be unbanked are Asians (3.5 percent) and whites (3.3 percent).”
(source)
The above excerpt is interesting to me, because the ethnic groups listed are all capitalized like proper names...
...except ‘blacks’ and ‘whites’.
(I printed the quote as-is. I don’t know what’s important about that observation, it just seems interesting to me)
The FDIC’s analysis of this ‘problem’ states that, “Minorities and lower-income households are much more likely to be underserved. In particular, one in five households earning under $30,000 are unbanked, and these households comprise over 70 percent of the unbanked total.”
The focus of the FDIC is to make a bank account, “...available to all consumers, but would be particularly responsive to the needs of underserved and LMI [low to moderate income] consumers; pilot banks [participating in this new program] are strongly encouraged to market the products to those groups.”
Another oddly worded comment says the goal is to include, “...transactional accounts, savings, affordable credit, financial literacy, and incentives.”
What do they mean by “affordable credit”? Why is the government going to determine what is ‘affordable’ for a business? What does ‘financial literacy’ have to do with any of this? And what kind of incentives does the government have in mind, exactly? I thought an incentive was for Bank ‘A’ to give me a better rate than Bank ‘B’, and so I – the consumer – decide which Bank to be a customer at, by shopping around.
(It’s called the Free Market system)
Liberals think a bank is a charity organization. A bank is a business just like a gas station or a supermarket, except the products being dealt with are financial services.
A bank – in essence – either ‘sells’ money to customers, or ‘rents space’ to customers for them to keep their money in.
When a person ‘buys’ money, we call that a Loan (which is payed for through interest), and when a person keeps money in a bank, a customer pays for ‘rental space’ via fees on a checking account.
(There’s my contribution to financial literacy)
So when did having a bank account become a civil right?
(Which is precisely where I think this is headed!)
We know that every time the Government puts its ridiculous fingers all over an industry, that industry goes to heck in a handbasket.
In a report by the FDIC, they said they published the Templates for comment on May 7, 2010, and received 46 comments from banks, other financial institutions, state banking agencies, financial industry trade groups, and private citizens by deadline on June 6, 2010.
May 7th was a Friday (right before the weekend), and June 6th was a Sunday, which provided 30 calendar days to respond.
And respond, people did!!!
Yes.
A whopping 46 comments.
It was published on that well-read news site, the FDIC’s own web page, which has all the excitement
of an overdraft fee schedule.
Their follow-up report stated the obvious by saying, “Banks and their trade associations often stated that they already offer accounts similar to the draft templates. However, when described, the transactional accounts in particular sometimes differed in significant ways from the draft template, for example by featuring fee-based overdraft programs.”
In other words, banks normally charge customers for writing bounced checks. The bank offers overdraft protection as one of its products, which involves covering the transaction with its own money until the account receives a deposit from the customer to cover the transaction and – surprise – banks apparently feel that this is a temporary loan, so they charge a flat fee for that.
But naturally a Liberal government would think that a bank account is a civil right, not a privilege, and so the FDIC wants banks to cover the cost of a bounced check, for free.
Banks are a business. This is no different than an automobile repair shop which repairs engines, but then the government steps in and says, “You need to fix flat tires for free”.
Did you hear about any of this anywhere on the Internet, or FOX News, or Glenn Beck? I heard about it a couple of days ago on the Phil Valentine Radio Show, and he only included this among the other stories he was covering.
I pounced on it. This thing is huge, as far as I’m concerned, because the government loves to monkey around with things and drive them into the ground, such as tinkering with the nuts and bolts of the Sub-Prime market so that it crashes.
This gives the government a problem to solve, since the government needs something to do.
The Government has done wonders for Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae (latest estimates put bailouts at $1 Trillion), and now they want to be just as helpful with all the banks in America?
(source)
So why is this story important?
Because of the stated purpose of the pilot program: “The FDIC Model Safe Accounts Template is a roadmap for accounts that would be available to all consumers.”
I thought bank accounts were already available to all consumers...
...unless wealth is being redistributed, which is what this sounds like.
Here’s a scary sentence in the report: “Regarding overdafts, consumer groups and nonprofits were firm that a prohibition on fee-based overdrafts was an essential feature to a safe transactional account.”
Translation: ‘All of us Liberal groups want banks not to charge for a service because a bank account is a right, not a privilege’.
The FDIC proposal uses ‘between the lines’ polite arm-twisting terminology such as “participation will be encouraged”, and this little gem, “The FDIC will approach a number of insured institutions prior to the application process to encourage participation by large insured institutions and interested community institutions.”
At the risk of using a cliche, this is wrong on so many levels.
The focus on the entire program is to make banking more accessible to LMI (low to moderate income) consumers.
So that means...
...the rest of us have to pay full price? (or pay even more to make up for the banks losses?)
The program also allows for “...alternative forms of customer identification”.
(What is that? An illegal alien ID card?)
First, I think that the FDIC (the government) is planning a redistribution of wealth scheme. How else can you give a bank account (a financial product) to someone who can’t afford one?
Second, I think that the ‘Safe Account’ template has much to do with an effort to more seemlessly assimilate illegal immigrants into this country. Remember, the FDIC survey stated that Hispanics made up 19.3 percent of the ‘unbanked’, making that demographic minority group second only to Blacks at 21.7 percent.
Third, none of us are seriously thinking that a Liberal administration is just going to try and be helpful to minorities so they can have bank accounts.
A Liberal (socialist!) government cannot help but turn this into a sort of ‘Financial Obamacare’ with the public being forced to have some kind of government controlled bank account.
This is just now starting out as some sort of pilot program, but I believe it’s just a first step into the government taking control of our financial lives the same way they did with Healthcare, and taking control of private companies like General Motors.
How ironic that the FDIC is using counterfeit kindness to sell us a defective bill of goods.
=========
(sources)
Phil Valentine Radio Show
http://www.philvalentine.com/
Memo to FDIC from Ellen Lazar, a member of the Corporation for Enterprise Development
http://www.fdic.gov/news/board/10AugPilot.pdf
Wikipedia page on Corporation for Enterprise Development, which sounds like a Liberal Think Tank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Enterprise_Development
FDIC Website announcing Safe Account Pilot Program
http://www.fdic.gov/consumers/template/
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac bailout $1 Trillion
http://247wallst.com/2010/06/14/fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-bailouts-could-cost-1-trillion/
FDIC Blog(?) Economic Inclusion survey results
http://www.economicinclusion.gov/press_room.html
FDIC survey via Census Bureau results
http://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)