Tag Archives: Clinton Administration

TRUMP WIN, NOW WHAT?

“The Fox News Decision Desk has called Pennsylvania for Donald Trump. This means that Donald Trump will be the forty-fifth President of the United States.”

Those were the words of Fox News Anchor, Bret Baier, in the wee hours of the morning on November 9, 2016 telling Fox News viewers of the Trump win.

As a reserved person, I didn’t jump up and down, I didn’t scream. Instead, I smiled and prayed a short prayer to God, thanking him for putting Donald Trump as the next leader of our country. God is in control and he puts kings in power and he strips kings of power. Those are the words that were used in Biblical times, but of course today, the leaders of the many countries on the planet have different names for their leaders. Here in the United States, we call our leader, President.

I continued to listen to the commentary and flipped to different channels, laughing to myself at the commentators of CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS. They were all so solemn, wondering how a Trump win could possibly have taken place.

In my mind, I was thinking about all the things that worried me when Obama and the Democrats had hold of this nation. I worried about being able to own firearms, I worried about how the Obama administration had treated Israel, I worried about the Iran nuclear deal, and how the Iranians were violating the stipulations and pursuing nuclear weapons. I also worried what a continuation of the Obama administration would have on businesses, our job creators. In the liberal quest to inflict pain upon those who sign our paychecks, would more people lose their jobs and would the prices of their goods and services increase. The Middle East is in ruins and ISIS has vowed to destroy the United States of America with Obama and the Democrats not seeming to care. During the eight years of Obama, I worried about my own personal situation. My health insurance premiums had sky-rocketed to the point that they were within a few dollars of my house payment. If we were to go to a single-payer healthcare system where the government had total control over our bodies, would I be able to get the health care I needed or would they give me pills and let me die. Maybe that wouldn’t be so bad. If a continuation of the Obama administration implemented major distribution of wealth programs, would I even had money to live? As a small business owner who is trying to “make it,” would I also be subjected to the many punishments a Hillary Clinton administration would certainly inflict on private businesses. As a result of not having to worry about the items I mentioned above, a burden was lifted off of me.

As I continued watching the election results, I remembered something Rush Limbaugh said a long time ago. Rush said that liberals are at their craziest when they are out of power. And as of the election results, they are certainly out of power.

Liberals/Democrats/progressives, or whatever they want to call themselves, accuse conservatives of being haters, racists, misogynists, xenophobes, homophobes, etc. If you disagreed with Obama’s policies, you were a hater, a racist, and many other things. If you were against illegal immigration, you were a xenophobe and a racist, if you believed that marriage should be between one man and one woman, you were a homophobe.

I’ve expressed in writing many times that it’s the liberals/Democrats/progressives who are the real haters, the real racists, the real bigots, etc. And if you ever want to enrage a liberal, just turn it around on them. They can’t take it.

We all know about the riots, the whining, the threats, etc. made by liberals after the Trump win. We’ve experienced nothing but hatred from the “tolerant” left. I’ve been on many liberal threads and I can tell you that these people are crazy, they’re delusional, and they’re demented. Some of the posts I’ve read are scary beyond the pale.

Yes, there was expressions of concern and maybe even some comments and statements that weren’t in the best of taste when Obama was elected in 2008 and then re-elected in 2012. But nothing any conservatives could say during the Obama years can compare with the vitriolic hate that the left has expressed, not only for Donald Trump, but for conservatives, white people, straight people, and Christians. Even white liberals are going after their white conservative counterparts. There was not one liberal friend or acquaintance of mine who would denounce the “Rape Melania” sign that was displayed by protestors outside of Trump Tower in New York after I denounced an improper comment that was made by a conservative.

Monday and Tuesday of this week, I spend several hours monitoring some liberal threads. In one, I chose to comment. Because of that comment, I was called the usual and was attacked because of my skin color (my skin color is white and so was the person who attacked me because of it), my sexual orientation, my religious beliefs, my views on the issues, and of all things, where I live and have lived all my life. Talk about tolerance!

On another thread, President Elect Trump was called unspeakable names and what was said about God took my breath away. It was horrible.

Folks, we’re going to have to get used to this. We’re going to have to brush it off and continue to push policies that will make America great again. Because I am a political writer, I have to explore these areas and I have to see this stuff, even though at times, it does upset me. Disagreements on the issues are expected and welcomed by most of us. Yes, let’s have a discussion on Obamacare. Let’s discuss the fine points of the Iran nuclear agreement. Let’s have a discussion on the pros and cons of gun control and our foreign policy. This is what we Americans are all about, This is what made this country great.

What we have become, though, is not good. The left refuses to discuss pertinent issues while focusing on how horrible America and conservatives are. All they want to talk about is racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, bigotry, etc. Maybe if we were able to discuss the issues I cited in the previous paragraph on an adult level, racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, and bigotry would greatly diminish. But as long as we have the left doing little else but hurling those accusations at anyone who dares not tow their line, we’re facing an uphill battle in making this country great again. Uphill battle or not, I believe that we can do it.

Liberals are doing everything they can to disrupt what has always been a peaceful transition of power after presidential elections. They’re currently in the process of recounting votes in certain states where they were certain Hillary Clinton would take. They’ve also promised to protest at Trump’s inauguration. They’re going to make life in American as miserable as possible for every man, woman, and child in this country. White folks will be vehemently attacked, conservatives will be vehemently attacked, heterosexuals will be vehemently attacked, Christians will be vehemently attacked, gun owners will be attacked. If you’re a white deplorable uneducated redneck, you’re going to be attacked. It’s going to be a rough ride.

Facebooktwitter

JIMMY CARTER’S COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT

How the Community Reinvestment Act oppressed blacks and other people of color

On September 2, I authored an article entitled “My Thoughts on Colin Kaepernick.” My thoughts when I initially learned about Kaepernick’s actions were, how is the United States currently oppressing black people or all people of color, for that matter? Affirmative action programs are still in place which allow blacks to get “bumped up” ahead of whites with respect to employment, promotions, college acceptance, etc. Along that line, Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act paved the way for many people to qualify for loans to purchase homes when those same people were not capable of making the house payments. A lot of those folks were black. Furthermore, being able to collect welfare for having a child out of wedlock, a part of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, was directed toward blacks in order to keep them voting Democrat.

According to discoverthenetworks.org, in his book, Back to Work, former president Bill Clinton attributed the housing market crisis of 2008 to the greed of banks that were over-leveraged, with too many risky investments, especially in subprime mortgages and securities and derivatives that were spun out of them. Clinton opined that the crash occurred because there was too little government oversight of, and virtually no restraint on, risky loans without sufficient capital to back them up. President Obama attributed the crisis to the failed policies of the days when Wall Street, unencumbered by government regulators, played by its own rules.

Discoverthenetworks.org further indicated that the earliest roots of these government policies can be traced back to the mid-1970s when progressive Democrats in Congress began a campaign to help low income minorities improve their economic condition through homeownership. At that time, the homeownership rates of blacks and Hispanics alike were just above 40%, while the white rate hovered nearly 70%. Because the Congressional Democrats felt that these inequities were evidence of America’s persisting racial injustice, many Democrats pushed for measures to rectify the situation.

Henry Reuss, a far-left McGovern Democrat sponsored the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977. Title VIII of this bill, known as the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), required each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to assess each bank’s record of helping to meet the credit needs of its entire community, including low and moderate income neighborhoods. In other words, this was a mandate for banks to make special efforts to seek out and lend to minority borrowers of meager to modest means. The bill passed with near unanimous Democrat support and was signed into law by President Carter in 1977.

The law was founded upon a principle with far reaching implications that government intervention was necessary to counteract the racist and inequitable nature of American society, including the free market. In the early 1990s, implications of this premise began to “hit the fan” when studies showing disparate mortgage loan approval rates for blacks and whites resulted in sensational media headlines. In 1992, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston released the results of a seminal study which found that whites and blacks with equivalent incomes had been denied mortgages at the rates of 17% and 38% respectively.

As a result of the study, then Attorney General Janet Reno warned that no bank would be immune to an aggressive Justice Department campaign to punish discrimination in lending practices. Also, Comptroller of the Currency, Eugene Ludwig told the Senate Banking Committee, “We have to use every means at our disposal to end discrimination and to end it as quickly as possible.”

Media institutions including not only the liberal Boston Globe, but Business Week jumped on the bandwagon with Business Week sporting a headline that read, “There’s no Whites Only Sign, but…”

A second study that was done for the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston showed that black loan applicants not only had greater debt burdens and poorer credit histories than their white counterparts, but also tended to seek loans covering a higher percentage of proper values in question. The later study determined that after correcting for these and other standard credit criteria such as income, net worth, age, education, and probability of employment, the loan rejection gap between racial groups dwindled to 11% for whites and 17% for blacks. By manipulating the numbers, The Boston Federal Reserve Bank report chose to imply that racism played a role in the disparity. For additional statistics, visit DiscoverTheNetworks.org.

The Federal Reserve Board in Washington later re-examined the original Boston Fed Study and found its conclusions difficult to justify. Similarly, Nobel Prize winning economist, Gary Becker, found that the first Boston Fed study had some serious methodological flaws, making its results dubious. Furthermore, in 1988, it was reported that the data used by that study contained literally hundreds of errors via such variables as the net worth of the applicants and the interest rates of the loans they sought. When those data errors were corrected, evidence suggesting that lenders had discriminated against minority borrowers disappeared.

As we all know, Democrats don’t use facts when determining their plans of action, they float on emotions while considering how they, the governing powers, can further intrude into our lives and make us more dependent on big government. Thus, the Clinton administration was determined to transform the CRA from an outreach effort into a strict quota system. Under this new arrangement, if a bank failed to meet its quota for loans to low income minorities, it ran a high risk of failing to earn a satisfactory CRA rating from the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation). Because this could derail bank operations and expansion, the banks had no recourse other than to drastically lower their standards on down payments and underwriting in order to approve many loans even to borrowers with weak credit credentials.

Additional pressure was applied to banks by community organizations such as ACORN and the Greenlining Institute. By accusing banks, however frivolously or unjustly, of having engaged in racially discriminatory lending practices that violated the mandates of the CRA, these groups could stall or prevent banks from expanding or merging as they wished. Moreover, these groups routinely threatened to file lawsuits or negative publicity campaigns against such banks.

As a result of such pressures, CRA commitments, which from 1977 to 1991 had cumulatively totaled just under $9 billion, suddenly jumped to $34 billion in 2991 alone. Then over the next 16 years, those commitments would amount to $6 trillion.

However, the CRA was not the only mechanism designed by government to impose lending quotas on financial institutions. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under the leadership of Henry Cisneros, developed rules encouraging lenders to increase their approval rates for loans to minority applicants by a hefty 20% within one year. In 1993, HUD began filing legal actions against mortgage bankers who had turned down a higher percentage of minority applicants than white applicants, regardless of their reasons for doing so. This caused lenders to lower their down payment and income requirements for minorities. Moreover, HUD pressured the government sponsored institutions, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two largest sources of housing finance in the United States, to earmark a rising number of their own loans for low-income borrowers.

No one supported these reckless lending practices more fervently than Democratic Congressman, Barney Frank, a member of the powerful House Committee on Financial Services. Subsequently in 2004, Frank said that the federal government had probably done too little rather than too much to push Fannie and Freddie to meet the goals of affordable housing.  Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, called Freddie and Fannie, of the greatest success stories of all time.

It should be noted, though, that some Republicans were also in favor of lower mortgage approval standards. In 2002, the Bush administration pressed Congress to pass the American Dream Down Payment Initiative to subsidize the down payments and closing costs of low income and first time home buyers. After ADDI was enacted, President Bush also pushed Congress to pass legislation permitting the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to make zero down payment loans at low interest rates to low income individuals.

These political pressures entirely restructured the landscape of the mortgage lending business. Subprime loans, which had constituted just 7% of all mortgages in 2001, accounted for 19% of mortgages by 2006. The situation was exacerbated further by the fact that many banks securitized the risky loans.

The result of these ill-conceived lending practices was a full-blown financial crisis characterized by countless home foreclosures and skyrocketing employment rates. The primary victims of these calamities were non-white minorities of modest means, the very people who were the intended beneficiaries of the CRA, the ADDI, and the aforementioned HUD and FHA policies. As of November 2011, approximately one quarter of all black and Hispanic borrowers had either already lost their homes to foreclosure or were seriously delinquent, compared to just under 12% of white borrowers. These disparities in foreclosure rates were, for the most part, due to African Americans and Hispanics having comparatively poor credit ratings and being disproportionately represented among those who had fallen into the financial trap of the high-priced subprime mortgages encouraged by the CRA and similar government policies.

Is stated by discoverthenetworks.org that the housing market crisis cast a black cloud over what had been one of America’s greatest success stories, the rise of the black middle class. Between 1949 and 1994, the proportion of African Americans in the middle class had nearly quadrupled, from 12% to 44%, an unprecedented advance for any formerly oppressed group in any society on record.

In addition to foreclosures, other indignities suffered by non-white minorities included the loss of jobs and the rising unemployment rates. And if these blows to the black community were not enough, left-wing Democrats, for reasons of promoting economic justice, tried to resurrect the CRA in 2009. In that year, 53 Congressional Democrats sponsored the Community Reinvestment Modernization Act in order to close the wealth gap in the United States by increasing home ownership and small business ownership for low and moderate income borrowers and persons of color. Specifically, the legislation sought to extend the CRA’s strict lending requirements to credit unions, insurance companies and mortgage lenders and to make its mandates more explicitly race-based by applying lower lending standards not only to low and moderate income borrowers, but to any non-white minorities, regardless of income.

Every American, man, woman, and child, was hurt by the Community Reinvestment Act and other  liberal/progressive policies that were put in place over the years since the late seventies, with minorities and people of color being hit the hardest.

While very few people “on the street” can intelligently discuss the Community Reinvestment Act, implemented by the far left and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter, this law, to date, as wreaked more suffering on the American people than any other piece of passed legislation and it took it took nearly a generation after its enactment for the full effects to be realized.

I have often said that the Affordable Care Act AKA Obamacare is the most insidious piece of legislation that has ever been wrought on the American people and I sticking to my statement. It took thirty years for the American people to realize the full results of the Community Reinvestment Act. What is in store for the American people thirty years from now?

Note: The facts and substances of this article originated from the website, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org.

 

 

Facebooktwitter

WHERE ARE WE HEADED?

As a believer in Jesus Christ and a follower of his teachings, I am instructed to follow him, pure and simple. I’m not to concern myself with why my life is not perfect, yet there are so many in this world who appear to have perfect lives. Even though I have so much love to give, I’m not to concern myself with the fact that, to date, I haven’t married, nor bore children. I’m to follow him and know that he is in control. Furthermore, God never promised any of us a perfect life. In fact, quite the opposite. We will have struggles in life, but are comforted to know that God is in control.

I have friends and acquaintances who appear to have a blessed life, surrounded by many loving family members and wonder why I’m alone. I have friends who have never had a problem controlling their weight and wonder why I struggle constantly. Yada, yada, yada…you get my drift.

This planet is not a perfect place and won’t be until Jesus returns and sets up his thousand year reign here on earth. And while we should always strive to be the best we can be and never accept imperfection as the norm, we know true perfection cannot be achieved until Jesus returns.

Every day, though, especially since the current President of the United States took office, we see liberals, on the surface, at least, attempting to provide ultimate perfection in our lives. Sadly, they have made things worse.

Let’s begin with everyone’s favorite, healthcare. In railroading the ACA through Congress and making it the law of the land, this administration has wreaked more havoc on the American people that any other administration. Americans are being forced to purchase health insurance against their will. For those who are able to purchase health insurance, premiums have sky-rocketed and the quality of healthcare is decreasing. Many have been unable to keep their doctors and have deductibles so high that they would suffer financially if they incurred a health catastrophe. Yet liberals, told us to focus on the fact that everyone would have access to health care. Moon bat Pelosi even encouraged us to quit our jobs that we hated and “write that great American novel, follow your dreams.” We wouldn’t have to worry about healthcare. I could write a short story on this and will one of these days, but not today.

After foisting an extremely flawed ACA down our throats and shedding tears because now all those poor souls who didn’t have access to healthcare would not have it, it looks as though liberals are realizing that it’s not working. Now they’re telling us that we’ll get used to it, the high premiums and the lesser quality.

So, were they really wanting to make things perfect for us in the U.S.A. or were they just wanting to take control over 1/6 of this nation’s economy and exert additional power over our day to day lives. I’ll take the latter.

Currently, the current president and his liberal henchmen are advocating that companies, provide paid family leave for their employees. Also, anyone who is against a government mandate for paid family leave, according to liberals, is evil. Of course, I’m a conservative, and I think paid family leave would be a great benefit for companies to provide for their employees and think it should be encouraged. What I’m against is a government mandate for paid family leave.

The Family Leave Act passed by the Clinton administration in the nineties, requires companies to provide family leave to their employees, but it’s unpaid. Twenty years later, I still have yet to find anyone who has used Clinton’s Family Leave. Most workers will use the paid time allowed that their companies provide them, so they won’t lose pay. For me personally, using Clinton’s Family Leave would be a last resort.

Should the liberals get their way, companies, especially small businesses are going to be hit hard. And what’s this going to mean for employees? We all know the answer to this. Possible layoffs, a decrease in raises and other benefits, etc. Also, this would surely result in an increase in the price of goods and services a company provides.

But liberals seems to think that government mandated family leave is another panacea in their quest to make our lives perfect. And again, “be aware of Greek’s bearing gifts.” Liberals, including the current administration, do not care about you. All they care about is taking control over as many aspects of your lives as possible.

With liberals, step by step, attempting to take God out of our lives and foist all their government programs upon us under the ruse of making our lives perfect, are they trying to establish “heaven on earth?” Well, it’s not going to happen.

Facebooktwitter

ON NET NEUTRALITY

The Federal Communications Commission past a set of Internet regulations known as “Net Neutrality” by a vote of 3-2 yesterday, February 26, 2015. What is Net Neutrality and what’s it going to mean to me are the questions most asked by private citizens such as myself.

According to USA Today, Net Neutrality is the principle that Internet Service Providers should give consumers access to all legal content and applications on an equal basis, without favoring some sources and blocking others. It prohibits ISPs from charging content providers for speedier delivery of their content on “fast lanes” and deliberately slowing the content from content providers that may compete with ISPs.

ISP stands for Internet Service Provider and is a company that provides you access to the Internet. Examples include ComCast, AT&T, Verizon, etc. Content providers include companies such as Amazon and NetFlix. In other words, content providers are companies that create and distribute content. I guess Wing Nut Gal is a content provider. Sometimes ISPs can also be content providers.

The regulations are 317 pages long, but it appears that only the commissioners have seen the regulations. According to TomsGuide.com, Net Neutrality is about treating all content on the Internet equally. Websites like NetFlix and Amazon won’t be given preferential treatment in relation to any other website, no matter how small. So, ISPs can’t give content providers preferential treatment/access to more bandwidth to the Amazons and the NetFlixes of the Internet.
This is like everything else the government throws out at us. It sounds good, but what are the unintended consequences or the intended consequences, for that matter. Since I started Wing Nut Gal, I’ve said this until I’m blue in the face. Our country was founded on the principle of limited government. Government would stay out of people’s lives and give the individuals room to take care of themselves and create wealth. So, anytime the government sticks its nose into something, we have to beware. Now, I’m not a libertarian. I’m a mainstream Republican. So, I realize that government has a role to play in a lot of aspects of our lives, but we’re headed down the road to becoming a socialist country where the government provides for its citizens womb to tomb everything. You don’t have to take responsibility for any aspect of your life, government will provide.

Do you think the government is going to stop with these 317 pages of regulations? If your answer is yes, I have some swamp land in Louisiana that you might be interested in. Eventually, it’s going to be costlier to access the Internet and it won’t be as user-friendly. Will certain types of speech be prohibited? I’m sure that somewhere within the government, some little bureaucrat monitors Wing Nut Gal. Could someone be watching me, monitoring my comings and goings? Am I on some kind of list? Will I be audited by the IRS while we have a Democrat administration?

I remember back during the later years of the Clinton administration, a government website was being developed. It was touted as the only website any of us would need to visit. It was a minor news story and didn’t get much traction. Once President Bush moved into the oval office, you never heard anything else.

I don’t want the government sticking its nose into the Internet. And even if these regulations sound good to you, please activate that second brain cell and think this thing through.

Facebooktwitter