You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. - Charles Austin Beard

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Thousands in welfare cash tapped at California strip clubs

Thousands in welfare cash tapped at California strip clubs

Government stikes again!!!

Tuesday, June 29, 2010


Monday, June 28, 2010

NRA-ILA :: Statement by Wayne LaPierre Executive Vice President, NRA and Chris W. Cox Executive Director, NRA-ILA Regarding U.S. Supreme Court Decision EMMcDonald v. City of Chicago/EM

NRA-ILA :: Statement by Wayne LaPierre Executive Vice President, NRA and Chris W. Cox Executive Director, NRA-ILA Regarding U.S. Supreme Court Decision EMMcDonald v. City of Chicago/EM

Today marks a great moment in American history. This is a landmark decision. It is a vindication for the great majority of American citizens who have always believed the Second Amendment was an individual right and freedom worth defending.

The Supreme Court said what a majority of the American public believes. The people who wrote the Second Amendment said it was an individual right, and the Court has now confirmed what our founding fathers wrote and intended. The Second Amendment -- as every citizen’s constitutional right -- is now a real part of American Constitutional law.

NRA-ILA :: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

NRA-ILA :: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Judge Faces Death Threats After BP Gulf Oil Drilling Moratorium Ruling

Judge Faces Death Threats After BP Gulf Oil Drilling Moratorium Ruling

While many Americans undoubtedly agree with the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman to overturn the Obama administration’s moratorium on deep water drilling, not everyone is happy. In fact, the Judge is now receiving death threats in the aftermath of his bold ruling.

Don't you just love eco-terrorists?

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Inmates Get Homebuyer Tax Credits: Gov't Report - CNBC

Inmates Get Homebuyer Tax Credits: Gov't Report - CNBC

Another example of 'government strikes again'!!

$100,000 Is Plenty for Deposit Insurance

Government strikes again! From the Wall Street Journal:

By: Robert C. Pozen*
Wall Street Journal, 6/23/2010 -- It looks as if Congress is about to permanently increase FDIC deposit insurance to $250,000 from $100,000 per bank account. What's more, it plans to make this increase retroactive to Jan. 1, 2008, in order to protect certain depositors at Indy Mac and other banks that became insolvent before the financial crisis reached its height. This move will substantially raise the cost of resolving troubled banks, and isn't necessary to protect small depositors.

The old limit of $100,000 per bank account was interpreted so flexibly by the FDIC that a family of four could easily obtain federal insurance for $600,000 by opening multiple accounts under different names. For example, a husband and wife could both deposit $100,000 in their personal accounts and their business accounts. These parents could also deposit $100,000 in savings accounts for both of their children.

Less than 2% of all bank accounts were above the old $100,000 limit. These uninsured accounts were not held by small depositors, but by high net worth individuals and local business people, many of whom could not easily create enough different accounts in one bank to cover their large deposits. Such accounts had an average balance of $432,000 as of June 2008.

By raising the maximum insurable amount to $250,000 per account, we will lose the market discipline exerted by these wealthy individuals and experienced business people. If they can split a $432,00 bank account into two accounts of $216,000, each under a different name, they would be fully protected under the new legislation. With a 100% guarantee from the federal government, why would they care whether the bank made imprudent loans or bought risky bonds?

Historically, the weakest banks have attracted a flood of deposits by advertising sky-high interest rates. These bankers typically believe that they can grow their way out of problems by investing in new loans and high-yield bonds. This practice was one of the key factors that caused the savings and loan debacle of the 1980s.

By raising the maximum insurable limit to $250,000 per account, we will enhance the ability of weak banks to expand their deposit base very quickly. The result is predictable: much higher costs for the FDIC when it takes over insolvent banks. Meanwhile, the FDIC is already struggling to handle the growing number of bank failures. It recently received a $500 billion line of credit from the U.S. Treasury.

When Congress raised the limit on insured deposits in October 2008 to $250,000 from $100,000 as a response to the financial crisis, it was supposed to expire at the end of 2009. Then, in the middle of 2009, without any hearings or much debate, Congress extended the temporary $250,000 limit until 2013. Now Congress is about to carve this limit into stone.

Congress is also giving serious consideration to making permanent an FDIC program for insuring unlimited amounts on corporate checking accounts in banks. This is another FDIC program that was supposed to be a temporary response to the financial crisis. If Congress extends unlimited insurance on corporate checking accounts, it will undermine the market discipline exerted by corporate treasurers and sharply raise the FDIC's cost of bailing out banks.

What's the rush? Community bankers believe they are at a competitive disadvantage to large banks that benefit from the public perception of being "too big to fail." These bankers have been pushing for higher limits on FDIC insurance since they rely heavily on retail deposits.

Although understandable from a political perspective, these permanent extensions of temporary FDIC insurance programs are bad policy. If political pressures require a permanent expansion of FDIC insurance of bank deposits, Congress should move to a two-tiered structure. The FDIC should fully guarantee the first $100,000 in any bank account, and should guarantee a lesser percentage (e.g., 80%- 90%) of any amount in that bank account between $100,000 and $250,000. That compromise would help community banks, retain a measure of market discipline, and reduce the FDIC's costs in resolving bank failures.


*Mr. Pozen is a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School and author of "Too Big To Save? How to Fix the U.S. Financial System" (Wiley, 2009

Monday, June 21, 2010

Obama-mind numb robot-following infamous “New World Order” footsteps

Obama-mind numb robot-following infamous “New World Order” footsteps

President Obama on Saturday revealed a chilling glimpse of a new national security doctrine that sounds very much like echoes from the past. In a commencement speech to the graduating class at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the president outlined his departure from “American internationalism." Instead, Obama pledged more of his soft apologetic rhetoric to gain favor and likeability in the world in order to shape a new "international order" (liberal socialist translation “New World Order”) based on apologies, meekness and boot licking. (Feeling a chill or tingle yet?)

Thursday, June 17, 2010

American Thinker: Report: Obama said 'I Am a Muslim'

American Thinker: Report: Obama said 'I Am a Muslim'

Fannie and Freddie's House of Horror

From the Wall Streeet Journal:

By: Peter Eavis
Wall Street Journal, 6/17/2010 -- Does Frankenstein's monster always have to be a monster?

Mortgage firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac grew into terrifying creatures because they are private companies with a government backstop. That has already cost taxpayers over $100 billion. Wednesday's announcement that their bombed-out shares are being delisted from the New York Stock Exchange is a reminder of how badly the public-private model worked. Unfortunately, most housing-finance overhaul plans floated assume this hybrid approach will continue.

Most reformers want entities that continue most of what Fannie and Freddie do-- buy mortgages from banks and package them into bonds to sell in the market. The key change reformers advocate is removing government backing for the entities. They want a government guarantee on the bonds issued by these entities.

Granted, that approach substantially limits the degree to which the Frannie-replacements benefit from the government intervention. But the danger is that the government, in its desire to support housing, underprices the guarantee, leaving taxpayers again exposed to potential losses.

People want government intervention in the belief the mortgage market needs support during economic slowdowns. But promising that support likely will hinder changes that could make the mortgage market more resilient. If the government withdrew, banks would design mortgages they would want to hold through an economic cycle. Right now, they would rather sell their new mortgages to Fannie and Freddie.

A more radical shake-up is needed to avoid another housing horror story.