Fanny-Mae and Freddie-Mac are Federal Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs). This means that they had to be competitive in the market place and maintain their stock prices. However, they did not have to show profits and so they quickly took over almost all of the market for home mortgages. Today they hold 91% of all mortgages.
Another advantage they had was that it was implicitly understood that their resold mortgages to investors (on the secondary market) was secured by the Federal Government. The primary Investors were US & Foreign Banks. Because of this advantage, Fanny and Freddie held less capital to cover any losses.
The FEDs set them up this way so that they could buy qualified mortgages, insure them, and resell them to other investors thus freeing-up Banks to make new mortgage loans.
In 2007, the banks started to reduce the number of home loans. This resulted in the Democrat Congress encouraging the banks to decrease their home loan standards that before included 20% down, conventional 30 year loans, and fixed interest loans.
When in late 2007 & early 2008, the Bush Administration tried to pass legislation to curtail these practices, the Democrat Congress said no
, and didn’t pass the legislation.
Then Fanny & Freddie changed their policies to go back into the primary home loan business until they were back to holding 50% of all new loans. Fanny & Freddie then tried to resell these mortgages to investors (again Mostly US & Foreign Banks) at the same high profit rates that they had done with conventional loans. By this time, Fanny had a whopping $5.5 Trillion in loans, and Freddie had $11.5 Trillion in home loans.
One of the US Banks (Lehman Bro’s) over-invested in these mortgage packages from Fanny & Freddie, and when the market for these investments decreased, the dam broke and Lehman Bro’s failed. The Federal Government (& Congress) decided not to bail Lehman Bro’s out -- forcing the housing market bubble in the US to break. In trying to save the whole US economy, the Democrat Congress forced two bailout programs on the taxpayers of the nation: First, the TARP ($750+Billion) Bailout Program for Banks and AIG; and second, the First Stimulus Bill ( $800+Billion) to be spent on “Shovel Ready Jobs”, Green Energy, and Bailout of GM. Since 2008, the Federal Government has bailed out Fanny & Freddie to the tune of $150 Billion and this isn’t the end of the story!
What is the Federal Government’s record of success in managing business?
- Fannie May & Freddy Mac are in debt over $5 Trillion, but have been able to acquire 91% of all US mortgages (Established in 1938).
- AMTRAC -- $31.3 Billion lost by the tax payers since established in 1970.
- Postal Service -- $12 Billion lost by tax payers over the last 10 years.
- FEMA -- $6.33 Billion spent, 1/3 was lost to scammers. New Orleans planned 314 repair projects, of which only 6 have been completed. Compare this to 126 Walmart Stores damaged, 110 were repaired in ten days.
Can we trust the Federal Government to be efficient?
- Up to 12 different agencies are responsible for 35 food safety laws.
- 29 agencies are responsible for 541 clean air, water, and waste programs.
- 7 agencies are responsible for 40 different programs primarily for job training.
- 8 agencies are responsible for 50 different programs to aid the homeless.
- 11 agencies administer at least 90 early-childhood programs.
- 8 agencies administer and operate 27 teen-pregnancy programs.
We have tried 11 times to reorganize/streamline our Federal Government without success; including: 1905, 1911, 1964, 1965, 1969, 1870, 1980, and 1993 to name some of them. (Wikipedia, 2012).
And now we have Obamacare to deal with (See earlier Blog -- May 2, 2013
Did you know that Obamacare Is the Law of the Land? Well 42% of the population in the US today don’t! Only 53% of all legal voters voted in 2012. More proof that there were uniformed people voting for President (48%) in the United States of America in 2012. Well who are they? (Wikipedia and Census Bureau, 2013 Information):
My Savior and Lord Jesus Christ, how do You put up with this situation? Obviously You don’t. Yes, we know You are punishing this country! I pray You will have mercy on us and not let us destroy the US of A.A
- Almost all of those voting, in school, and under the age of 26.
- Almost all of those who voted illegally.
- Over 40% of Blacks.
- Over 40% of Hispanics.
- Less than 10% of the Muslims.
- More than 20% of Christians!
- Over 40% of the Sexually Deviant Voters.
- Over 50% of Those on Welfare.
With the passage of the NDAA and his use of executive orders, Obama has managed to bring about an inexorable slide to tyranny. On March 16, 2012, he signed executive order 13603
about “National Defense Resources Preparedness”. This act provides Obama with the authority to control food, water, production, material, and labor of almost unimaginable proportions. This, of course, is not the first time it has been done. Like it has been said, “There is nothing new under the sun.”
In 1933, just shortly after his election, Franklin D. Roosevelt declared a state of emergency. His actions were covered by the NIRA (National Industrial Recovery Act), which essentially gave him the same scope of power that Obama now has. In his inaugural address in January 1933, Roosevelt said, “If we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. This I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us all as a sacred obligation and with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife. With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.”
In the same year, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany. In many ways, Hitler and FDR faced similar problems with high unemployment, inflation, a lack of consumer confidence, a lack of industrial output, and a country in the depths of depression. Hitler also managed to unite his countrymen into one unified people under his total control, just as Roosevelt and through executive order managed to command the entire nation’s economy. In Germany, this act was called “The Enabling Act”, another name but essentially the same function. For example, after the Enabling Act, Hitler declared public holidays for workers in all industries, while at the same time banning all workers’ unions.
Throughout much of the late 1920′s and into the late 1930′s, Mussolini in Italy enjoyed support and adulation from liberals and progressives in the USA. So great was his support that an image resembling him was contained within a sculpture representing Atlas in Rockefeller Plaza. He was being revered as having unified and put the labor force of Italy to work, creating a fast-growing Italian economy through collective means.
In January 2013, Obama in his second inaugural address said: ”But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation and one people.”
While Obama, when he signed the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), pledged he would never think about using the indefinite detention portion of the act upon American citizens, it would be legal under the provisions of the act. He also signed the executive order as stated in the opening of this article and has yet to activate it, although as it stands it would be legal. Remember, we are still under a state of emergency begun after Sept 11th by George W. Bush and extended by Obama. Are we to awaken one morning after another attack (another Boston perhaps) and find this act also activated?
Remember (as many historians have found), under German law as it stood at the time, everything Hitler did was legal. Are we also on that inexorable slide to tyranny? Do we wait for these acts to come into play before we respond even to their existence? Will it be too late if we do? Will we as a country who under the Constitution are the true rulers of our nation allow this to happen?
Spain has just announced that their unemployment rate is over twenty seven percent, and they are developing extraordinary measures to combat the situation. How long before the collapse of the dollar, or another oil embargo such as what happened in the 1970′s (or another war perhaps with Syria, Iraq, or North Korea) plunges the United States into such turmoil as Europe is now toiling against? No one knows the fate of the European Union at the moment. But are the foundations of the United States any more sound than that of Europe? Or is it simply being held together by the perception of unity, the notion that our once-great nation could not be brought down by economic rules that have stood for all time? The Obama administration seems to eschew the notion that the United States is an exceptional country. Can a country that is not exceptional hope to avoid the rules that have applied to all other economies throughout all time?
Personally, after watching the martial law (whether declared or not) in Boston and the calls by Bloomberg and others for “modifying” our rights under present conditions, I think we have started the inexorable slide into tyranny.Gene Daily
Definitions from now on, found in Webster’s Dictionary:
- Political Correctness: “Conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.”
- Political: “Relating to Government.”
- Correctness: “Agreeing with Truth and Facts.”
- Oxymoron: “A combination of contradictory words (such as Political Correctness).”
- Heaven: “A Spiritual State of everlasting communication withGod.”
- Hell: “The Realm of Satan in which the Damned suffereverlasting punishment and are eternally separated from God.”
So my first statement is: To Hell with Political Correctness!
Definitions from now on, found in Webster’s Dictionary:
- Islam/Islamic/Muslim: “The Muslim Culture built on Faith in ‘Allah’ as the Sole Deity and in Muhammad as his Prophet.”
- Terrorism: “The systematic use of intense fear, violence, and destruction to coerce a people or a government.”
- Koran/Quran: “The Sacred Book of Islam written by the ProphetMuhammad.”
So my second statement is: Since all attacks including 9/11 have been made by Muslims against American people using tools of terrorism, then they should be called ‘Muslim Terrorists’. Definitions from now on, found in Webster’s Dictionary:
- Islam Law/Sharia Law: “The set of Cultural and Civil Laws dictated by the Koran for use by Muslims.”
GOP concerns about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration at the highest levels of the Obama Administration recently got confirmation from an Egyptian magazine, Rose El-Youssef. The article, which was translated into English by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, named six influential Muslims within and without the Obama Administration who it said turned the White House “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.” The six named in the article are:
- Rashad Hussain, U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference
- Arif Alikhan, assistant secretary of Homeland Security for policy development
- Eboo Patel, President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships
- Mohammed Elibiary, Homeland Security Advisory Council
- Salam al-Marayati, co-founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council
- Imam Mohamed Magid, Islamic Society of North America president.
Last June, five Republican members of Congress raised the mainstream media’s hackles and alarmed the Left by sending a letter to Homeland Security and heads of other agencies raising questions about infiltration of the Obama Administration by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is an umbrella group for Islamist terrorist groups around the world that has called for restoration of the Muslim caliphate and ultimately global dominance. That letter was met with manufactured outrage and spin from the Left and RINOs in Congress, such as Sen. John McCain, who tried to spin the matter as a personal attack on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, whose family has undisputed ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Questions about her security clearance were only a small section of the letter, though it was almost all the mainstream media discussed. Republican congressman Louie Gohmert, one of the five signatories to the letter, has called for a full-scale investigation of Muslim Brotherhood influence, particularly in light of the Administration’s involvement in the “Arab Spring” uprisings across the Muslim world. Modern Progressivism/Marxist Communism:
A campaign for economic, political, and social reform called the Progressive movement wants increased government regulations of business and a series of tax reforms and increases. In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act and then in 1914, Congress set up the Federal Trade Commission to stop illegal Business practices. Political reforms at the Federal level include the 17th Amendment to the Constitution which provided for the Direct election by people of their US Senators. The Social Reformed Progressives supported the unions, safety laws, and improved living and working condition in the work place. The Progressive Party was formed officially in 1948, but the movement has now joined the Democrat Party.
Marx was the chief founder of two of the most powerful mass movements in history – Democratic Socialism and Revolutionary Communism. Marx was a German Social Philosopher who live in the 1800’s. Lenin was the leader that used Marx’s ideas to produce Marxism.
So my Third statement is: President Obama is a Modern Progressive who supports all Muslims including the Muslim Brotherhood (A Terrorist Group); therefore, President Obama supports terrorism. He should be impeached now. Allen Coburn
I am compelled to present the following article by Bill O'Reilly here. I find myself in agreement with Mr. O'Reilly less and less as time goes by. He is often focused on sideshow symptoms rather than root causes and cures. He is much too apt to deny truth until it becomes so obviously undeniable that no viable option remains.
But even when focused on more frivolous issues or ranting on some symptom of the decay, he is more often right than outright wrong. In the following piece he has put his finger on an issue that is (and I say this in all earnestness and with full conviction) destroying the nation. If the culture does not change, this nation has but one or two more generations before it is utterly and fundamentally changed forever.
Did you watch "The Bible" series? If you did not, you missed a unique opportunity to have scripture come alive and become more real than any number of Sunday School lessons, Bible School, or even (with few exceptions) sermons could offer. Yes, there were instances of theatrical "license". Yes, there were some "modern interpretations" sprinkled amongst the stories. But it was almost purely a faithful presentation of the Old Testament and New Testament scripture. Very moving, very thought-provoking, and very inspiring.
It was so powerful that both I and my wife, Terri, could not help but actually dream of the narratives for days after each installment and upon completion of the series. I know not everyone will find the series as gripping and moving; however, like Bill O'Reilly, I just don't understand the zombie thing. What I do understand is that it is a clear indicator of the values, principles, and belief system of our younger generation. And I do understand the clear implications this has for the future of this nation.
On Easter Sunday evening, a TV show about good and evil aired on the History Channel -- the final installment of "The Bible" miniseries in which Jesus is executed. AMC ran the season-ending episode of "The Walking Dead" -- the series where zombies try to eat the brains of human beings. One footnote: The world might have been a better place had the zombies preemptively gotten to the guy who thought up this series in the first place.
Anyway, the zombies won. They beat Jesus in the ratings, especially among viewers ages 18 to 49.
What lesson can be derived from Jesus losing to the walking dead? Well, it proves that about 12 million Americans want to see blood and gore. Wait -- there was plenty of that in the Bible's crucifixion scenes. Maybe the zombie viewers simply wanted cheap thrills. Yeah, that's it. Cheap thrills triumphed over a spiritual experience. Cannibalism beat baptism.
Base entertainment almost always beats highbrow stuff. But watching flesh-eating zombies on Easter does put a different spin on things, does it not? I mean, how soon can we digest dismemberment on television after eating our baked ham dinner? One hour? Two?
At least Jesus was in context. The New Testament says the son of God rose from the dead on Easter. The zombies rise from the dead whenever their makeup is finished.
Honestly, I have no idea what this zombie phenomenon is all about. Way back in the 1960s, I saw the first modern zombie movie: "Night of the Living Dead." Things were creeping along OK until a little girl turned into a zombie and tried to eat her mom. At that point, my entire group decided enough was enough, and we bolted out of the theater.
But today that scene would be tame. Now zombie kids will eat their entire families if given the opportunity. Depravity doesn't even begin to cover it. Apparently, we Americans have an unending appetite for gross behavior. Pun intended.
What must Jesus think? Here he is, being nailed to the cross by smirking Romans and getting trounced by TV zombies at the same time. The prince of peace preached that we all should love our neighbors as ourselves. I do not believe that Jesus would condone eating your neighbor even if you are dead.
Many folks who like this zombie business freely admit it's a low form of entertainment. "But so what?" they say. It's fun to envision yourself outsmarting zombies, blasting them to hell with shotguns and then escaping to some tattoo parlor. I guess that's fun in some precincts.
But not for me. I threw in with Jesus even though the guy who played him looked a bit like Spicoli in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High." Sure, I knew how the miniseries was going to end, but there are worse things you could do on Easter Sunday -- like watching man-eating zombies.
All I know is this: When Jesus appeared to the apostles after he died, thank God they did not have access to AMC.
I am on the Resolutions Committee of the Moore County Republican Party. Our Committee has prepared a number of resolutions to be submitted for adoption at the March 30 Moore County GOP Convention to be held at the Sandhills Community College.
One of our resolutions pertains to "Support for the U.S. Constitution
The process is in the midst of gathering feedback and input on our resolutions in preparation for the final Committee report at the Convention.
We received input from a very prominent "mover and shaker" here in Moore County which I would like to share with you along with my responses. I will not divulge the identity of my "antagonist". But, I believe the exchange of ideas might provoke serious considerations and critical thinking of others in Moore County -- both Republicans and Independents.
If any readers would care to share their thoughts and reactions to this short debate, I would be most interested.Bill Cochrane_____________________________Commentor:
"Everything looks good. However, please consider substituting the word 'unreasonable' for 'all' with regard to Constitution and regulations and law. For instance, free speech is always limited by libel, assembly is limited when it creates a violent riot. And we all agree that private persons should not have shoulder fired missiles. The true legal standard is 'compelling state interest' which is a higher test than 'unreasonable' but the former sounds too statist. Perhaps another phrase might be 'overreaching and unnecessary regulation and laws'."
"I understand your point, and I am somewhat – somewhat – sympathetic to it. I have heard the arguments you make about 'limitations' on rights before. But in making these arguments, we have allowed the Left to control the language and presentation of the issue. I would much rather argue that our right of free speech, which the Constitution says is not to be infringed (that means the right is not to be lessened, limited, or undermined in any way). But my rights must not 'break your leg or pick your pocket'. If, in exercising my rights, I do harm to another, then I am accountable for that harm. So my rights are not 'limited' – they are constrained by my self-responsibility and by accountability for the consequences of my actions.
As a legal professional, I am certain you will recognize the above is not simply a rhetorical difference, it is a fundamental one. The moment we begin allowing the government to pass laws infringing on our sacred Bill of Rights, that moment we begin to surrender and erode Liberty itself. And that is just what we have done for decades now! And under the progressive invention of 'case law' and 'legal precedent', once you infringe here, well then, you can infringe there, too – all 'reasonable' and 'fair', of course. All 'good common sense' infringements for the 'greater good'.
So, we all agreed that libel was bad and so we passed a law against libel. And then against other types of speech.... And we still argue about just what constitutes libel and slander.... Has it ever really been settled? And so the progressive infringements began....
Now, your example of freedom of assembly is a bit different. Assembly is not yet unlawful – although the government often tries to discourage and limit it using excuses of permitting, sanitation requirements, security requirements, liability insurance, etc. – even to the point where they make it nearly impossible to have an assembly. You know I’m not wrong or prevaricating here.... Just look what good ole Guv Bev used to do whenever the Tea Party wanted to have an assembly in Raleigh. It was ridiculous. Just look what the good federales always do when FreedomWorks or Glenn Beck wants to have an assembly in Washington D.C. You can have an assembly; it’ll just bankrupt you now....
But we haven’t banned assembly yet. Have we infringed on the right? I think so! But we didn’t amend the Bill of Rights. No, we have a more sneaky way of getting around that pesky 'shall not be infringed' language, don’t we? I, for one, think it’s time to stop allowing this. If a riot is bad and you make laws against violent rioting, hold me accountable if I break those laws. Don’t infringe on my right of assembly under the presumption that my assembly could conceivably somehow might trigger a riot....
And I humbly, but strongly, disagree with you that private persons 'should not have shoulder fired missiles'. That way of thinking once again buys right into the agenda of the Left, and it is just plain wrong. When the Constitution was drafted and ratified, everyone understood that the muskets in private hands were the most modern 'military assault weapons' to be had. Citizens, farmers, private merchant ships could and did have cannons – the biggest, baddest, most advanced military weaponry of the time – equivalent in every way to those held by the standing army and navy. They could have these in any quantities that the private party could afford and wished to bear.
Indeed, Presidents Washington and Jefferson used private militia and hired seafaring privateers to fight against enemies on behalf of the federal government. They were every bit as well armed as the corresponding standing army and navy units. There was no intent on the part of the Framers to limit the right to bear arms – that’s why the Second Amendment says 'shall not be infringed'. Things stayed this way until the 20th century progressive movement, which managed to convince enough people that we stupid people just can’t be trusted with certain things and certain rights. So, in the name of 'good', 'reasonable', 'common sense', 'public safety' our Second Amendment rights really do need a bit of infringing.... And so, they did. And we have allowed it. Now after one progressive 'common sense' step after another after another... look where we find ourselves!
So, no, I do not agree – I never will agree – that I do not have the right to any arms I can afford and wish to bear. The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is not about protecting myself from a burglar, although that is a really good side benefit. No. The Second Amendment is about resisting and protecting against the rise of a tyrannical government. That is its purpose. And to do that, the People should be as well armed as the mercenaries which will be sent against the People by the Tyrant.
I decry that we have allowed the government to infringe ALL of our rights in spite of the Bill of Rights. And if those infringements were really what the People actually wanted, then the Constitution and Bill of Rights should have been properly amended through the process established for that very purpose. We have erred in allowing the legislators, the regulators, and the corrupted courts to infringe and invent false new authorities through 're-interpretation'. I am sick of it!
And 'compelling state interest' is, indeed, a statist concept and an excuse used by big government rogues to shred the Constitution. As for the word 'unreasonable', I must ask: "Who is to decide what is ‘unreasonable’?" Are we going to leave that up to the same 'evolution' of case precedence in the courts? Are we going to let the same corrupted Congress or Administration define and redefine that word for us to suit their own desires? Who will be the arbiter of 'reasonableness' and 'unreasonableness'?
What bothers me about your suggestion is that it accepts the notion that our government CAN at its own discretion infringe my God-given rights in the name of someone’s idea of 'reasonableness'. That gives them a 'blank check'."
Most of 20th Century Constitutional law was concerned with expansion of civil liberties in light of making the Bill of Rights applicable to the States... This included deciding that one could publish an ad critical of an Alabama Sheriff. Often the Court got it wrong such as when it found new rights like a "right to privacy".
But, by overturning state laws like the Illinois law which prevented a Nazi march,the Court mostly spent the 20th Century expanding free speech and overruling state laws which limited peaceable assembly. All this was based upon ignoring the limitation the founders placed upon the first amendment and using the 14th Amendment to make that rifling. It can be argued that the last founding father was John A Bingham, the author of the 14th Amendment whose goal it was to bind the Bill of Rights to the States.
It took about 100 years of Supreme Court decisions to accomplish this.
Something to think about.
"I’m glad that we agree on much. However, alas! I differ again in my views on the 20th century 'expansion of civil liberties'. Certainly that statement is true with regard to civil rights of blacks and the persecution they faced (primarily from the Democrat Party) following the War Between the States. The Fourteenth Amendment was put into place to overcome those gross injustices.
Interesting to note, however, that the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified through the Constitutional amendment and ratification process – not through legal caveat in the courts or legislative/administrative end runs around the Constitution.
Where I disagree with your view of history is that, yes, the courts – up to and including the Supreme Court – proceeded to weaken and erode federalism. The states were meant to have powers not granted to the federal government. The federal government was never meant to steal those powers and authorities from the states. If I didn’t like the laws and governance of my current state, I could move to another. But the courts and other branches of the federal government have conspired to destroy federalism and build an all-powerful central state government. They bribed short-sighted state and local governments through grants and favors to accept rules and strings which gradually transferred power to the central government. All this transfer of power and authority – in the guise and pretense of making us 'freer' and 'safer' and 'more efficient', accomplished quite the opposite.
I do not agree that the courts had our best interests as their true motive. That hundred years of which you speak was the hundred years of progressivism, beginning with Teddy Roosevelt and his Bullmoose Party, ripening with WW and FDR, and culminating in the sorry likes of Jimmy Carter and Barry Soetoro. This court-ordered erosion of the Constitution and federalism only abetted the progressives in the other federal branches in their quest for total power. It was and is an abomination which has brought our nation to the brink of totalitarianism, at which we find ourselves today.
Yes, I agree, the courts and federal government 'ignored the (Constitutional) limitation the founders placed' – indeed learned to disregard all the Constitutional limitations with the help of the corrupt courts – interpreting the 'Commerce Clause' and now, with Justice Roberts’ twisted and perverted reinterpretations, particularly of the Sixteenth Amendment, the 'taxing authority' – to do virtually ANYTHING they want.
I owe the courts no gratitude. The 'progress' of which you speak was toward tyranny."
I've listened to Brent Bozell for quite some time, and he's always an entertaining and thought provoking commentator. But this time he really shines and has a message that I, for one, pray that the Republican Party both hears and heeds.
He says that there is a new "clarion call" for a "Return to Greatness". I say he is correct in his assessments, sound in his advice, and inspiring to true conservatives.
If we want to fix the Party and reinvigorate its members, attract the independents, and win back our culture and nation, this, fellow Republicans, is the way to do it!
1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Walmart every hour of
2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!
3. Walmart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day
(March 17th) than Target sells all year.
4. Walmart is bigger than Home Depot+Kroger+Target+
5. Walmart employs 1.6 million people, is the world's largest private employer, and most speak English.
6. Walmart is the largest company in the history of the world.
7. Walmart now sells more food than Kroger and Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only fifteen
8. During this same period, 31 big supermarket chains sought bankruptcy.
9. Walmart now sells more food than any other store in the world.
10. Walmart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had
five years ago.
11. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at Walmart stores. (Earth's population is
approximately 6.5 Billion.)
12. 90% of all Americans live within fifteen miles of a Walmart.
You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying the ground work for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run Walmart to fix the economy. This should be read and understood by all Americans -- Democrats, Republicans, EVERYONE!!
To President Obama and all 535 voting members of the Congress. It is now obvious that the majority of you are corrupt morons:
a. The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.
b. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.
c. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.
d. The War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated
each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.
e. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.
f. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.
g. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to
16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year, and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32
years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.
You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while over spending our tax dollars.
AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM??
I used to scorn the draft evaders who fled to Canada. We used to amiably deride the Canadians for their socialistic government and direction. The disputes between Quebec and the rest of Canada over "Frenchness" -- the importance of language and cultural identity -- seemed so quaint and amusing....
Now, I don't even recognize my country. Now we have a government that is more than socialistic -- bent on totalitarian control and truly oppressive despotism -- such that Canada even at the height of its flirtation with socialism now seems tame by comparison. And Canada has awakened to the errors of European decadence and the fall of this nation. They have reversed their course, at least for the present, and they have reversed the decline of their economy and influence.
It remains to be seen whether the relentless corrosion of their culture by Liberal Progressives will utlimately seal them to the same fate as the rest of the Western World.
Others are looking to emigrate to Costa Rica, Panama, or New Zealand (New Zealanders don't want us!). When the SHTF, I think I'm going north to Canada. Especially if they hold to the enlightened governing philosophy demonstrated by the following video. O Canada!
It's got a ring of truth to it!Bill Cochrane
A story this week
on WRAL announced that Gov. Pat McCrory will seek federal funds to help the state "partner" in constructing "offshore energy" -- that's liberalspeak for "windfarms". Our liberal Republican Governor has, for many, many years, been involved up to his neck in progressive radical environmentalist and U.N. causes, organizations and projects. Even though he ran as a pretend conservative, it's really hard for an old zebra to change his stripes....
Windmill technology is finally becoming recognized for the wildly wasteful and impractical boondoggle that it really is. In the past, wind farms have tied up enormous amounts of otherwise productive farmland or worse, denuded timberland. Even genuine environmentalists who are actually concerned about the environment and not massive control agendas, are opposed to wind farms because they kill so many birds, they introduce noise that disrupts the wildlife and natural environment, they destroy habitat and natural beauty, and so on. More energy is expended in the production of equipment, construction of the wind farm, and recurring maintenance than will ever be produced. More toxic waste is produced and released during the production of these windmills and the massive battery installations which must accompany them than will be saved through the operational life cycle.
Drive up the Appalachian chain and you will find example after example of abandoned or mothballed windfarms dotted along the ridges. Why? Because each wind mill generator must be given a massive overhaul every five years. There are huge stresses on the bearings and arms of these monsters. The batteries will begin to weaken and fail after ten years or so of operation, and must thereafter soon be replaced. This is why you will typically see a wind farm operate for roughly five or six years and then go mothballed. The "green energy" firm has taken taxpayer subsidy to build the pink elephant, and then that firm milks the profits until the massive maintenance bills start pouring in. Once the cream has been skimmed at taxpayer expense, the firm abandons the now worthless "investment" and applies for a new grant on a new project. It's all a scam where some get rich or richer off our "collective" tax contributions.
It also happened extensively in the ethanol boondoggle.
These are simply the whimsical fantasies of naive minds -- or the corrupt connivance of nefarious men.
Well, if you think recurring maintenance costs are severe and impractical for a wind farm in the mountains, desert, or plains -- just wait until you see the wear and tear on wind mills constructed over salt water and subject to severe oceanic storms. This harebrained scheme won't last half as long. Just ask any homeowner on the coast how rough the sea environment is on his house, auto, and exposed equipment.
But common sense means nothing to liberal pseudo-environmentalists. Gov. Pat loves big projects like "rapid rail" and "green energy" boondoggles. Gov. Pat is just slightly less progressive than was his Democrat opponent. He is Democrat-lite. He was "the lesser of two evils" all over again.
And this mess demonstrates how much we need to reform the Republican Party. It has become nearly identical so often to the Democrat-Socialist "New" Party. I wish Gov. Pat would wise up, but he probably won't.