Tag Archives: Jimmy Carter

UNLEASHED LIBERALS

Years and years ago, I heard Rush Limbaugh comment that liberals were the craziest when they were out of power.

Now that the left no longer has the presidency, the Congress, and hopefully soon, power will return to the right on the Supreme Court, we have unleashed liberals, saying anything to get attention, not caring if it is true or false.

I often use the term, “tolerant left.” I have even told some folks that I coined the term. Bill O’Reilly has used the term, but only after I used it. It’s no secret to anyone that liberals are the most tolerant and open-minded people on earth except when you don’t agree with them and where they stand on political issues. Then you are subject to ridicule and being called a moron, idiot, clueless, and a few other monikers which I won’t put in print.

A week ago, an interesting looking article appeared on my newsfeed. The headline read: Trump Takes Breather from White House, Hold Rally this Weekend

This article was shared by a liberal and contained comments by unleashed liberals. According to most news outlets, President Trump has worked every day since he’s been in office, but these unleashed liberals were accusing him of taking the weekends off. In fact, on this particular weekend, it was announced early on Friday (February 17, 2017) that after going to the Charleston Boeing plant for the unveiling of a new plane, that he would be spending a weekend working at Mar-a-Lago. The unleashed liberals claimed that he had already taken three vacations since becoming president. The unleashed liberals were also complaining about the so-called campaign rally that he was holding late Saturday afternoon, saying that he had better things to do with his time that attend a rally. One poster on another thread implied that the president only worked 9-5, five days a week.

The problems with these unleashed liberals, among other things, is they can’t seem to understand what they read. Ever since I’ve been commenting on liberal threads, I often must explain what I write two or three times to get a liberal to understand what I’m writing about. It makes me wonder if, to avoid admitting to being wrong, they’re attempting to change the subject.

When I commented, asking the participants on the thread, would they rather the president play golf or go on a date night like Obama was continuously doing, the comments were generally that he should be doing the country’s work, instead. One commenter even said there was no precedence for such a rally. Again, the unleashed liberals can’t comprehend what they read or hear. No precedence for such a rally? Does there have to be. Remember, Jimmy Carter started his presidency out with those fireside chats, a new thing in the era of television. Not since Franklin Roosevelt had that been done. I further pointed out to the unleashed liberals that Obama held multiple rallies when foisting Obamacare on the American people. They denied it, but, as usual, they were wrong. After one commenter kept insisting that he had better things with that two hours Saturday evening that to hold a rally, I got a little chippy and indicated that she should apply for the position of scheduling advisor.

These threads, whether they are conservative leaning or liberal leaning always get off subject. One commenter asked about FEMA aid for the New Orleans tornado victims and for the Oroville damn scenario in California. I had read where California Governor Moonbeam had an acknowledgement from President Trump that assistance was approved and on the way. While I never heard anything about FEMA assistance to New Orleans. If it had been delayed, we would have heard about it. You can “betcha” bottom dollar. Of course, one unleashed liberal whined because she thought President Trump should have said something about the disasters. Upon this, I informed her that during the Nashville, Tennessee flood of 2010, Obama never talked about it, nor did he visit the Nashville area. I then threw in the fact that after the generational tornado outbreak on April 27, 2011 where parts of the states of Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia were devastated by long-form violent tornadoes, the only thing Obama did was visit Tuscaloosa, Alabama a few weeks after the fact.

The thread got very contentions with a number of the commenters piling on me, which is nothing new. At one point, one of the commenters attacked me in way that I have never been attacked, even by the most hate-filled unleashed liberals. At first, I laughed and shook my head. But after several hours, I started thinking that this particular attack was way out of line. I responded to the commenter that his/her (couldn’t tell from first name if man or woman) comments may have crossed the line when it comes to appropriateness. I then asked this person to take the comments down. I wasn’t holding my breath that the comments would be removed, but in less than twenty-four hours, they were.

Before their gal lost the election, liberals were the real haters, racists, bigots, and liars. Plus, they’ve always had trouble with reading comprehension and don’t care about the truth. Get ready, this new wave of unleashed liberals is becoming their former selves on steroids.

Facebooktwitter

HE OR SHE, WHO’S OUR NEXT PRESIDENT GOING TO BE?

The presidential election on November 8, 2016 will be the first election where I honestly have no idea who will win and become the next President of the United States. Note: I only said that this one is the first where I don’t feel like I can make a call. In all the elections since Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, I have made calls, even not all of them were correct.

In 1976, I was sure that Gerald Ford would be Jimmy Carter. Who in their right mind could possibly vote for Jimmy Carter? I predicted all the following elections correctly until 2012 when I forecasted that Mitt Romney would win. Again, how could anyone in their right mind vote to re-elect Barak Obama? I predicted Clinton would win in both 1992 and 1996 and that Barak Obama would win in 2008.

In this election cycle, the polls have been all over the place, and there has been hints that those polls conducted by left leaning entities may not be telling the exact truth. However, the polls, per news sources, are tightening in favor of Donald Trump. Romney seemed to have the momentum in 2012 and was ahead in the polls, but somehow, Obama pulled it out easily. Do I think there was some fraud? Possibly. Going back to 1992, I’ve always said that while Clinton had the momentum, if the election had been held four weeks later, George H.W. Bush would have been re-elected. I almost feel the same way about Donald Trump. He’s gaining momentum and Hillary is losing momentum. Is it too close to election day for Trump to surge ahead?

While I have no idea who will be elected this year, I do know one thing is certain, not only with respect to the election, but in every aspect of our lives. “God is in control.” Yes, he is. He’s in control now, and he will be in control on the morning of November 9, 2016. This is being re-enforced in my church and in my Bible study. Christians should know this. Even though God knows who’s going to come out ahead next week and none of the rest of us do, this doesn’t let us out of any responsibilities of going to vote and praying for our country.

In his message on Sunday, October 30, 2016, my minister indicated that God puts people in positions of leadership for both blessings and judgement. According the website, Now the End Begins: “All through the Bible, we see God set up kings for a purpose, and take them down for a purpose. Sometimes God raises up a ruler to bless His people like He did with King David. And sometimes He sets up a ruler by whom the people will be judged, as He did with Saul.

Should God inflict upon America a ruler for judgmental purposes, it is still our obligation to pray for this leader and to pray for our country. It is also our responsibility to speak out against policies that are being forced upon us which will be detrimental to the nation. Because God is always in control and will always be in control, He put us on this earth for a reason. He has a purpose for us and we are to fulfill that purpose and everything we do should be to glorify God.

In closing, I encourage each one of you to spend some time reading the Bible and praying. There’s also substantial information on the Internet regarding the establishment of Kings and rulers by God. There’s only a few days left whereby we will elect a president, but there is no limit to God’s control.

God Bless…

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

DETERIORATING RACE RELATIONS UNDER OBAMA

Are there deteriorating race relations under the current president? Absolutely! And who’s to blame? The current president, the current administration, and “the left” in general.

Obama to blame for deteriorating race relations.

Deteriorating race relations in America are this man’s fault!

I’m reviewing an article on aol.com discussing how racist commenters on Fox Cable News attacked Malia Obama after the cable news network ran an article indicating that she would be attending Harvard University after taking a year off from her studies following high school graduation. After the unacceptable comments appeared, FNC did remove the comment section of that article.

Of course, the “tolerant left” is going to call all those who watch Fox News every bad name they can possibly think up. Racist, bigoted, ignorant, low-life, etc. But before I can form an opinion and give my two cents worth, I need to know how many comments were made before FNC removed the comment section and how many of those comments were inappropriate. While the “tolerant left” doesn’t care about facts and statistics, I do.

Remember when former president Jimmy Carter was diagnosed with brain cancer? Fox News ran an article about the diagnosis on its Facebook site. Then, numerous far left websites published articles regarding the hateful vitriolic comments made by those horrible Fox News followers. Well, I found the article. There were approximately 2,000 comments. I took the time to skim about 1,000 of those comments and found only six that were inappropriate. Furthermore, numerous replies were made to those inappropriate comments telling the commenters that they were out of line. Did the “tolerant left” lie? Not really because there were some inappropriate comments. But to accuse those who watch FNC and follow their website and Facebook sites unflattering names is just wrong.

Having said the above, I am noticing more use of the “N” word and other unflattering words when racial issues are being discussed. Why is this when during the Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 administrations, race relations in the U.S. seemed to be optimal? It’s the democrats aka the “tolerant left.” In order to garner votes for their candidates, the left preys upon blacks and other minorities, telling them that they are still considered second class citizens and haven’t reached their full potential even though it’s been a half century since the Civil Rights Act was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson. And why haven’t they reached their full potential? It’s because of “whitey.” The white establishment, particularly white conservatives, have kept you down because they are all prejudice. They don’t like people of color so they won’t allow you to succeed.

Race relations have certainly deteriorated since Barak Obama has taken office. Of course, the left will tell you that it’s because the whites, particularly the Republicans are prejudice and can’t stand the thought of having a black president. Well, that’s just BS and the left knows it. Besides the current president of the United States is half white. Want to make a black Democrat mad? Point out to them that you (if you’re white) have the same in common with the president with respect to ethnicity as they do. Black democrats don’t like to hear that.

Barak Obama and the “tolerant left” are 100% to blame for deteriorating race relations in the United States! Barak Obama injects race into everything he possibly can. And even though he’s half white, he always takes the side of the black person or persons, the facts of the situation be damned. And that shouldn’t be surprising to anyone because Democrats don’t care about facts or statistics. All they seem to be able to do is get emotional and accuse Republicans of hating minorities, hating the poor, and hating the current president because he’s black (excuse me, he’s half black).

Barak Obama is constantly denigrating Republicans and blaming them for everything that has gone wrong during his time as president. When, in fact, it’s his own policies and political philosophies that have caused things to do so wrong in this country since his inauguration. Furthermore, anything that the left deems as racist, even though it may not be remotely related to race, is now considered racism. When this president was elected, I fully anticipated that those who didn’t agree with him on the issues and didn’t fall in lockstep with his policies would be considered racist. However, I didn’t anticipate that if you cheered for the Denver Broncos with white quarterback Peyton Manning to beat the Carolina Panthers with black quarterback Cam Newton, you would be considered a racist.

People are fed up with this constant talk of race and ethnicity a half century after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. People are also fed up with those who get their feelings hurt and demand that a safe space be provided to them when they hear something they don’t particularly like. And “safe spaces?” What a crock!

Then there are the demands that all references to the Civil War be removed and erased from history, including the renaming of buildings that were named after Confederate heroes. Also, we can’t teach our children how this great nation was founded because many of the founding fathers owned slaves. This has led to many young people supporting Communist Bernie Sanders for president. And while I have been accused of racism because I don’t eat turnip greens and collards, a young white guy was assaulted by a black female because he wore his hair in dreadlocks.

What is it people, what do you want? I don’t think you know what you want. You’re told by your minority leaders that the Republicans are all prejudice against you when a Republican holds the office of the presidency, even though race relations are always much better when a Republican is president. Then when a Democrat holds the office of the presidency, you’re told by your minority leaders that the reason the Democrat president can’t get you the things you want because of those racist Republicans.

To all minorities out there, as long as you listen to the current president or anyone from the “tolerant left,” you’re will stay frustrated and spend more time bellyaching as to why you’re not achieving. Instead, become an individual and get out there and work for what you want to achieve.

This nation is in bad shape, very bad shape. Race relations, among other things, have been deteriorating to the point that it may take several decades to restore them to where they were before Barak Obama assumed the office of the presidency. Many folks, including me, have individually worked on making race irrelevant except for maybe identification purposes. And it saddens me greatly that one, Barak Obama, and his liberal henchmen have destroyed our work in 7-1/2 years.

Facebooktwitter

REAGAN’S RECOVERY VS. OBAMA’S RECOVERY

creation-obama-reagan-770x330

Ever have a discussion with a liberal that seems to know everything and cites statistic after statistic for his or her side? Have you ever been at a loss for statistics? I know that I have. I’ve never been good remembering numbers, but I do know when things are just better.

Recently, the democrats have been yapping on and on about our lethargic economic recovery, while indicating that the slowness of the recovery is due to the awful mess that George W. Bush left for him. While things are ever so slightly getting better, according to information from ijreview.com, when President Reagan took over from Jimmy Carter in 1981, things were actually worse economically than they were when Obama took over in 2009.

Statistics cited by ijreview.com are as follows:

  • Unemployment was at 10.8% in 1981 and 7.7% in 2009.
  • The inflation rate was 13.5% in 1981 and 2.7% in 2009.
  • The prime interest rate was 21.5% in 1981 and 3.25% in 2009.

            Also, according to ijreview.com, job growth has declined under Obama By the end of their second of their respective presidencies; job grown under Reagan averaged 7.1% while job growth under Obama averaged 2.8%.

How did President Reagan orchestrate his recovery? He did it with across the board tax cuts, non-defense spending cuts, a restrained monetary supply, and deregulation. What’s Obama done? He has increased taxes, increased spending, increased the money supply through quantitative spending, and cumbersome increases in regulation.

Who’s plan worked? It seems like a no-brainer to me, but I operate on at least two or more brain cells.

 

 

Facebooktwitter