The Seattle-based Washington Mutual Bank is shut down by the FDIC. The Raiders from the last Great Depression, JP Morgan, Strike Again. Have you protected yourself?
As foretold in my last article Yes, West Virginia, There is a Banking, Housing, and Financial Crisis - FDIC Closes Ameribank, Washington Mutual failed Thursday, September 25 per this New York Times article. FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair stated that it was a rapidly deteriorating condition that forced the FDIC to move in before Friday. The failure of the $307 billion lender is the largest in American history.
JP Morgan Chase moved in and purchased the bank in a secret shotgun sale done at the cigar-smoke-filled betting saloon that passes for Washington DC these days. The move is definitely excellent news for the FDIC as JP Morgan Chase will absorb the $31 billion loss towards insuring the deposits that would have fell to the FDIC. A hit of this magnitude would have sunk the FDIC funds into the $10-15 billion range, a 75% drop since the start of 2008. We taxpayers can thank the lucky stars that JP Morgan Chase moved in, or can we? Keep your ears pealed for more details on the deal made by the Washington insiders with this bank. JP Morgan Chase devoured failed investment bank Bear Stearns in another shady dealing earlier this year. Here is Dr. Ellen Brown’s idea on what transpired there.
A few weeks ago we posted a story regarding a drug raid in Prince George’s County Maryland where the Mayor of Berwyn Heights had his two dogs shot and killed. Now, apparently there is no need for a drug raid to permit police to murder dogs. They just need to “show their teeth”. The lesson: Don’t smile at a police officer, you might get shot.
MOUNT OLIVE — It was just after 7 p.m. Thursday on West Main Street, a typically quiet stretch in Mount Olive. Sharon Kulers heard her Dalmatian barking outside, so she made her way to the back yard.
She saw a Mount Olive Police Department cruiser pull up to the house behind hers.
Then she noticed the shotgun in one of the officer’s hands, aimed at her neighbor’s 45-pound Labrador retriever.
“I said, ‘Please don’t shoot that dog. He won’t hurt you,’” Mrs. Kulers said.
The officer looked at her, then back at the dog.
A shot rang out — then, another.
“I said, ‘Why did you have to do that? You didn’t have to do that,’” Mrs. Kulers said. “He said, ‘It showed its teeth.’ He said, ‘We have a right to do this.‘”
Moments later, the same officer was dragging a plastic bag toward the road, the dog in it, witnesses said.
“That dog wouldn’t hurt a flea,” Mrs. Kulers said. “I know it is my word against theirs, but that dog was not being aggressive.”
Colby Mangum arrived home at 7:45 and was greeted by a note on her front door.
“It said, ‘Call the Mount Olive Police Department about your vicious dog,’” the 24-year-old Mount Olive College graduate said.
Let’s start with the deadly soda, because we definitely all need to work together to proactively hunt down dangerous felons like this. Let me paint the picture. It’s an easy one. We’ve all had parents, at least two, anyway. And some of us have even cared for them when they got sick. And most of us have had a soda or two in our lives. So this should be pretty easy to picture. Natalie Walters, a lady who routinely takes her father to the Boise Veterans Affairs Medical Center for treatment, also decided to callously take advantage of her right to travel, and regularly visited the cafeteria. Her routine was to refill her mug with Diet Coke for anywhere from $1 to $1.50, depending on the cashier at the time and his or her ability to accurately type in the right codes and digits on a keyboard. Well, imagine her surprise on Aug. 20, when Walters filled her mug with Diet Coke, [and] the clerk charged $3.80.
“I told her that cannot be right and asked to talk to the manager,” Walters said.
The manager told Walters the price is correct.
Walters decided she didn’t want to pay that much and offered to return the soda, she said. But the manager told her there was no way to accept the returned soda and Walters had to pay. Walters refused, and she said she was angry by this point, and she poured the soda onto the counter.
The manager banned Walters from the cafeteria.
But, wait, there’s more! A LOT more! Officials realized their debt to the safety of the community, and felt morally compelled to go through every piece of cafeteria and hospital videotape, tracking her insurgent movements, tracing her back to her ill father; going through his medical records; and justifiably upsetting him by interrupting him at his own dental appointment to let him know that Big Brother requested his daughter’s presence.
While watching Neil Cavuto rip apart Bill O’Reilly on The O’Reilly Factor, my blood pressure rose a few points when I heard Bill O’Reilly call for the government to “watch over” banks and businesses to make sure they’re not preying on unsuspecting innocent people. He ranted that “it was wrong for those banks to lend to people who can’t pay it back” and my my blood pressure shot through the roof. While in chat with a friend, I ranted: (slightly edited to remove cursing)
(12:32:26 AM) LibertarianMikeM:I get so (bleep)ing pissed off when liberals (and apparently also neocons like Bill O’Reilly) say that “it was wrong for those banks to lend to people who can’t pay it back” when in fact it was Clinton Administration (thanks to the Community Redevelopment Act in the late 60’s) who FORCED the banks to give out loans to “underprivileged” buyers. So the banks did what they were told even though it was a bad idea, and then when things went wrong, they blame the banks. WTF? (12:32:45 AM) LibertarianMikeM:Here in Baltimore, the exact thing is happening. Wells Fargo was coerced (by threat of being called racists) to make loans available to many people who didn’t have the means to pay back to the loans. Then the housing bubble burst, and people started defaulting on their loans causing this huge mess, and now the city is suing Wells Fargo for being “greedy” and handing out these loans. (12:32:58 AM) LibertarianMikeM:What a (bleeped) up situation!
While I’m sure there were some cases of overly-zealous loan officers taking advantage of the “good times” at the height of the bubble, it cannot be denied that many banks were coerced into handing out questionable loans against their will. They were forced by legislators to go against their own policies in the name of “social progress”. Then when all the foreclosures came, nobody seemed to remember it was the government’s intervention that cause the problem in the first place. It’s oh so convenient to blame the “greedy” bankers.
But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street’s most revered institutions.
Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but “predatory.”
Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the ’90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.
Nevertheless, the media constantly repeats the lies and the drooling masses suck it all up. Then all these unconstitutional bailouts, and we’re way over our heads in debt. There’s no doubt in my mind that the only possible end result of all of this is economic collapse.
It is now time to rate the vice presidential candidates on the Paul-O-Meter. We start with John McCain’s VP pick Sarah Palin. The perfect strategic pick for McCain, Palin has little history. She’s been Governor of Alaska for less than two years, but now that McCain’s handlers are pulling Palin’s puppet strings it is difficult to see a difference between the two.
Here we examine Palin on 20 issues to see how she stacks up to Ron Paul. Hopefully this will help some see the lips through the lipstick.
Ron Paul and Ralph Nader had a sit down today with Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s The Situation Room regarding Paul’s big announcement today. As Wolf Blitzer says some may say they “are the ultimate odd couple.” I agree. When one half of Nader’s policies are in direct conflict with the other half I’m not sure he is any better than John McCain or Barack Obama. Ron Paul focuses on the areas of agreement and pushes forward even at the risk of his own party shunning him even more than they already have. Perhaps he feels he has nothing to lose at this point. Watch them discuss it below.
Although Ron flounders a little at the end there, he pretty much sums it up in a way that I think a lot of us have never fully considered: 16% of the country votes for one candidate, and the rest of us, the true majority, are all left feeling like “the minority”. Footage below, including what we can and need to do about it:
Gary Johnson, the former Governor of New Mexico speaks about his own record at Ron Paul’s Rally For The Republic. If I had my pick for a Ron Paul Republican to run in 2012 Johnson is the guy. Jesse Ventura is a great choice, but he has too much “baggage” as I see it. Watch the video of Johnson below and see if you agree. It is in two parts.
Bob Barr is interviewed at length by Chip Wood in The New American. It is probably the best interview that I’ve read with the Libertarian candidate. Many topics are covered and as usual Barr answers the questions in a direct fashion. His answer regarding changing positions is probably the most sincere I’ve heard him speak on the subject. Below is the section I enjoyed the most, but the entire interview is truly a great read.
TNA: Let’s shift from international issues to a major domestic topic, taxation. Many conservatives are in favor of a flat tax or a national sales tax, the so-called “fair tax.” Meanwhile, Senator Obama wants to increase taxes on the oil companies and wealthy investors. What is the Libertarian Party’s position on the federal income tax?
Barr: Simple. We believe it is an inappropriate, overly oppressive, way-too-complex way to provide necessary funds for the government to carry out its appropriate and necessary activities. We want to abolish the income tax and repeal the 16th Amendment.
As president, the first thing I would do is to dramatically reduce federal spending. That’s first and foremost. If we don’t start reducing spending, then whatever system of taxation we have is going to require too much of the people’s money.
Once we’ve begun to cut spending, I would move dramatically to reform our system of taxation. I would call for the repeal of the 16th Amendment, which allows the federal government to have a progressive income tax. Then we can move toward a much fairer system of taxation. That might be a national sales tax, a version of the fair tax, or something else. But first we must cut spending.
TNA: Earlier you mentioned abolishing the Department of Education. Are there any other federal departments that you want to get rid of? Not reduce. Not streamline. Not make more efficient. But eliminate entirely?
Barr: There are any number of them. As president, I would institute a commission to examine every agency, office, and department of the federal government and to ask, “What is the constitutional justification of that activity — that is, where in the Constitution is it authorized?”
Next, I would require a very clear description of the necessary function that it is carrying out. In other words, what is it doing that cannot better be performed by state or local government, even if there is a constitutional justification for that agency, office, or department?
And thirdly, I would demand to see a cost-benefit study done for each and every such activity, to make certain that the benefits we are getting outweigh the cost.
Such a study would provide the blueprint for a prioritization of those agencies, departments, and offices that could be dramatically scaled back, and in many instances eliminated entirely. For example, I think that the Department of Education would be at the top of that list. I suspect the Department of Commerce would be way up there. I’d be surprised if we couldn’t eliminate the Department of Energy and the Department of Homeland Security as well. Whatever legitimate and necessary functions those two Cabinet offices perform could be handled much better (and much cheaper) by smaller agencies and offices.
Liberty Maven
