by Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
March 6, 2011

In the summer of 2008 as McCain and Obama were in the midst of their campaigns to capture the presidency, a series of events dramatically changed the focus of the campaign from Iraq to the economy. From that point on, Obama took the lead and eventually won the presidency. 

 
 

Now, a full two years later, the Pentagon has issued a reporton the series of events that led to the 2008 economic crash. Bill Gertz writes in the Washington Times:

Evidence outlined in a Pentagon contractor report suggests that financial subversion carried out by unknown parties, such as terrorists or hostile nations, contributed to the 2008 economic crash by covertly using vulnerabilities in the U.S. financial system

 
 

“There is sufficient justification to question whether outside forces triggered, capitalized upon or magnified the economic difficulties of 2008,” the report says

 
 

Notable for its’ absence is any suggestion that the economic events that arguably catapulted Obama into the White House may have originated in our own political system.

 
 

Consider: The economic house of cards started tumbling on June 26, 2008, when Senator Chuck Schumer leaked a memo questioning the solvency of IndyMac bank. This memo precipitated a run on IndyMac which led to its failure. Federal regulators pointedly cited U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., in explaining the bank’s failure. “The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York.”

 
 

As I wrote in February of 2009, this event, coupled with the Lehman Brothers collapse in September, marked the beginning of the current economic meltdown and provided the environment that enabled Barack Obama to focus on the economy instead of his position on Iraq – and, not incidentally, resulted in his election as President.

 
 

For the last two years, the media has neglected to connect the dots regarding the strange gyrations in our financial markets that started in the summer of 2008. After Schumer caused the run on IndyMac in June, the government moved in:

 
 

July 12, 2008: The federal government takes control of the $32 billion IndyMac Bank. *

* Six months later, Jan 2, 2009, a seven-member group of investors agreed to buy the remnants of failed lender IndyMac for $13.9 billion. Other investors included a fund controlled by billionaire George Soros’ Fund Management. 

Sept. 6, 2008: Fannie Mae begins its downward spiral, which will end with a crash in November. This crash was avoidable, as the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were identified in June of 2006, when 15 Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee introduced legislation to address the problem. Democrats, led by Barney Frank, killed the reform efforts.

 
 

Sept. 15, 2008: Obama and McCain are virtually tied in their race for the presidency. Out of no-where, in the space of less than 2 hours, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the U.S. to the tune of $550 billion. Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania said that if authorities had not closed the banks, $5.5 trillion would have been withdrawn from US banks, which would have caused the collapse of the US  within 24 hours.

This seminal event marked the ascendancy of Obama’s candidacy, and arguably resulted in his election as president. 

Fast forward to February of 2009:

 
 

The markets reacted to Obama’s proposal to bail-out mortgages and Senator Christopher Dodd’s talk of nationalizing banks by reaching 11-year lows.

 
 

Obama continues to stoke the fears of imminent crisis, actually using the word ‘crisis’ a total of 26 times in one speech.

Enter George Soros. The infamous one-worlder, billionaire George Soros adds his voice to the media doomsayers by opining that the world financial system has effectively disintegrated, adding that there is yet no prospect of near-term resolution to the crisis.* 

 
 

The series of ‘inadvertent errors’, deliberate obstruction, political shenanigans, behind the scenes manipulation of the money markets and non-stop calls for immediate infusions of taxpayer cash brought the U.S. to its knees by February 2009. And continues to this day. 

 
 

The newly issued Pentagon report, along with the media and our elected officials, seem intent on not connecting the dots, considering only foreign enemies as the possible cause of the financial meltdown:

 
 

Suspects include financial enemies in Middle Eastern states, Islamic terrorists, hostile members of the Chinese military, or government and organized crime groups in Russia, Venezuela or Iran. Chinese military officials.

 
 

This author believes there is enough information to at least consider that this crisis was manufactured for political gain. Right here at home.

 
 

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for conservative news site RightBias.com

She lives in South Carolina

Originally posted 2010-04-19 22:34:05. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

by Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
April 19, 2010

 

---

 

My liberal friend Pam and I are a perfect example of the class warfare currently being waged in America between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots.’ Also known as ‘the war against the rich,’ or, in a nutshell, socialism.
 
Though Pam and I are lifelong friends, we couldn’t be more different. Pam is the quintessential liberal, quick to espouse views that show America in a bad light. Sarah Palin is evil, Bush is bad and anyone (like myself) that doesn’t base their decisions on feelings is, well, just plain uncompassionate. End of story. I, on the other hand, am a traditional, conservative Christian.
 
Though conservatives have yet to be included under the leftist’s much vaunted ‘tolerance’ and ‘multicultural’ umbrellas, Pam has decided that she will tolerate her renegade friend, as long as that friend doesn’t publicly air any conservative views. Which is becoming a problem for our friendship.
 
Pam is the product of government schools and a culture that ignores merit in favor of any perceived underdog or victim. She is the proud owner of a Masters Degree, which, according to her, validates all of her leftist views – regardless of any facts to the contrary. And its not her fault that, at the ripe age of 57, she has yet to pay off the student loans that paid for her education.
 
Both Pam and I are the end result of the decisions we have made over the course of our lives. Pam’s choices have resulted in her absolute refusal to participate in capitalism, or our free market system. Instead, she survives on a government check, feeling it is her due. And like most who receive something for nothing, she hates the one whose largesse she has chosen to accept. Kinda like all those countries who get aid from America and hate us for it. Hey, no one likes to be acknowledged as being subservient.
 
Fortunately for Pam, her leftists illusions allow her to maintain the moral high ground. Unlike her capitalist friend, who has never asked for or received dime one from the government. I am considered one of the evil ‘rich.’ Pam graciously ignores this fact, at least until she needs another loan.
 
Pam maintains the romantic illusion of being a struggling, misunderstood artist. She exists on a higher plane than Joe Six pack and Susy Homemaker. She is ‘sensitive’ and totally in tune with Mother Earth, victims of capitalism, and all creature great and small. That my tax dollars allow her this freedom is one of those inconvenient facts that Pam has learned to compartmentalize. Meaning she has chosen to ignore (or demonize) any facts that don’t align with her vision of herself.
 
Like most leftists, Pam believes that life is a zero sum game. If someone has a big slice of the pie, that automatically  means that some poor unfortunate has to do with a smaller slice. And all rich people are only rich because they made their money off the backs of those less fortunate.
 
This mind set, while comforting, is not conducive to material success. Which is OK with Pam, as she has spent her whole life eschewing the almighty dollar, choosing instead to allow others, like her ‘rich’ friend and financially stable family members the favor of periodically bailing her out financially. Her only concession to reality.
 
Ever since Obama was elected president, my friendship with Pam has become strained. Though politics was never a part of our friendship in the past, it has now become a factor. Pam apparently feels that Obama’s socialist agenda is the best thing that ever happened to the Oppressive State of America. And since she knows that everyone feels this way, she has no qualms parroting the Dem’s sound bite of the day as fact.
 
Since I know Obama didn’t really cut taxes by $800 billion, it rankles somewhat that Pam believes it. Pam also believes that the government take over of the private sector is long overdue. And that Obama’s take over of the health care system is the only way to ensure social justice. 
 
I don’t blame Pam for her desire for social justice. After all, she just had both hips replaced, courtesy Uncle Sam. And she sees no reason why other misunderstood victims shouldn’t have access to the same free lunch. But her attitude is starting to rankle.
 
Though I am aware of the politically viable yet destructive effect of pitting one class of Americans against another class, I find I am becoming an active participant. I’m starting to resent my friend. I resent her cavalier, tax-payer funded attitude. I am starting to take umbrage at her assumption that her liberal views are the only valid views and any dissent or challenge to her world view is either racist and/or lacking in compassion.
 
I’m starting to resent the fact that people like myself, dirty little capitalists, are required to support deadbeats who have decided to live off the system. All the while, spitting in the eye of those that provide the means. (Sorry, Pam.)
 
Having been allowed the luxury of basing her life on feelings instead of being forced to make a living, Pam now takes great offense should I dare mention any of these inconvenient realities. She will allow no dissent. Our friendship has become political.

Pam wastes no time analyzing my weekly articles as being motivated solely by hate and ‘lacking in compassion.’ She has adopted the proven tactic of continually forcing me to proving a negative. And I just don’t want to do that anymore, especially since I have lost respect for her.
 
With great regret, I realize Pam has become like so many of her fellow leftists. Willing to defend to the death leftists opinions (that are formed by others) and dismissing out of hand any facts to the contrary. If I don’t agree with her, why, there must be something wrong with me. This attitude is not conducive to friendship.
 
Lifelong friendships that have weathered the test of time are rare and should be cherished. That our current political climate has ended this friendship is regrettable. But this case is not unique. Across the nation, friends are pitted against friends, families are dividing along partisan lines and Americans are being encouraged to resent anyone percieved as having more than their (fair)share of the pie.
 
I fear this will continue and become more pervasive under our current president. Raising the distinct possibility of America’s downfall coming from within. The ‘have nots’ and victims are consolidating their premier position at the public trough, forcing others to pay for their ever evolving version of social justice. And considering that fully half of Americans now pay no federal income taxes yet still vote, the chances of changing this through the ballot box are becoming slimmer.
 
I already miss Pam. Our friendship was very important to me and I am saddened that today’s political climate makes it impossible for good friends to agree to disagree. But if the choice is between actively enabling her views by keeping silent or fighting to keep America from turning into a nation of useful idiots, I’ll choose the latter. Without regret.

 

---

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
 
Article has been published with the author’s permission. 

 

Originally posted 2010-11-14 21:11:29. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

by Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
November 8, 2010

After living in California for 33 years, I finally decided to leave. I sold my business and my home and relocated to South Carolina.

I moved to California when I was 17. Like most of my fellow residents, I was busy living my life. I gave very little thought to politics, assuming that politicians knew best how to run the state. I wasn’t even aware of the difference between Republicans and Democrats. I would always vote, but with 20/20 hindsight, I see how my votes were manipulated and influenced by the overwhelmingly liberal media.

Until age 36, I pretty much followed the party line, believing what I saw on the news and read in the papers. I figured the ‘experts’ knew better than I, and was relieved not to have to form my own opinions. I relied on group thought, which is, or was, extremely pervasive in the Los Angeles area.

I remember hearing a talk show host describe how a school board in Torrance was successful in defeating a Christian candidate and remember feeling glad that there were others out there working to keep radical influences away from our children. I never questioned the premise that Christians were considered radical.

I adopted as fact the headlines I saw on the news. I was busy living my life. It wasn’t until 1992 that I became aware that I had only been exposed to one side of the story. I was not even aware that there was a conservative point of view.

In 1992, Ross Perot was on TV holding up a toilet seat. Perot said the Air Force had paid something like $700.00 for that toilet seat. He then said the 5 words that changed my life forever. “And this is public knowledge.”

Huh? I decided to check out his claim. And I found that, yes, that information was public knowledge. Only problem was, the media in Los Angeles had never reported it. Just as they never reported any other than the liberal point of view.

After some searching, I latched onto National Review Magazine and the Washington Times. What I found when reading those publications made my blood boil. There was a whole school of thought out there that I had never been exposed to. The conservative point of view. And I found I agreed with their premises.

No matter how thin the pancake, there are always two sides. For 22 years, I had only been exposed to one side of the story. And I came to find that side I had been exposed to was far different from what I had been led to believe. Shame on me.

I assumed that my husband, family and friends would be just as angry as I when I informed them of my new insights. I quickly found out that, then, as now, they were totally opposed to hearing any facts that challenged their long held views.

Long story short, I became a pariah. Conservative views were simply not tolerated back in the 90′s in Los Angeles. When I persisted in voicing my opinions, most of my relationships suffered. My husband left me and my family made clear that there must be something wrong with me. I got tired of the raised eyebrows and condescending smiles. I realized nothing I said would penetrate. The frustration drove me to anger, which pretty much nixed any chance I had of influencing others to my new point of view.

For 8 years, the only place I could be myself was when I covered conservative gatherings. Finally, a stray news item had a catalytic effect on me. I found that 7th graders in San Francisco were being taught how to fist. (A homosexual practice – enough said) Under the guise of teaching tolerance, my tax dollars were being used to fund a week-end ‘health’ fair that brainwashed children into believing that the gay lifestyle was normal – merely a lifestyle choice. That was the last straw.

I took off on a cross country trip, seeking a place where I could be myself and where my tax dollars wouldn’t be continually funding policies with which I fundamentally disagreed. I finally decided on South Carolina. I sold my business and home and left California for good.

I miss many things about California. But after last Tuesday’s election, I realize that living in California is no longer an option for me.

The blatant media malfeasance, the lack of intellectual diversity and the continuing reign of liberal politicians guarantees that California will remain mired in failed liberal policies for the foreseeable future. And I will not condone paying the taxes the state insists upon when I know the money will be spent on promoting a largely discredited liberal agenda. That’s not the America I want to live in.

Since 2002, several of my friends have also left California for good. Studies show that the only increase in population in California right now are immigrants. Which begs the question: Who will be paying the taxes required to fund the utopian agenda put in place by far-left liberals? And how long can California continue to ignore reality before the whole state comes crashing down?

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it’s possible Governor-elect Moonbeam can solve the state’s fiscal crisis. Just because he’s a lifetime member of the far left doesn’t mean he can’t change his stripes and usher in the reforms California so desperately needs. By golly, I just saw a pig fly right by my window!

---

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for conservative news site RightBias.com

Article posted with the author’s permission.

Related articles

• “Gloria Allred Should Be Disbarred” and related posts (noisyroom.net)
• It’s about freedom, Meathead (dakotavoice.com)
• Canada Free Press Mailout: Waiting for the King’s Return By Judi McLeod, etc. (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Conservative intellectuals kowtow to the Tea Party. (slate.com)
• California here we come – Eureka California, CA (travelpod.com)
• Stolen Without a Gun: On the Left’s Hijacking of Liberalism (blogcritics.org)

Originally posted 2009-11-03 22:24:33. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

by Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
November 3, 2009
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In the summer of 2008, then presidential candidate Barack Obama delivered  a historic campaign speech in Germany. With the Berlin Wall as a back drop, Obama proudly informed the masses that he was not there as a candidate, but as “…a fellow citizen of the world.”
 
The crowd went crazy and the world rejoiced. Finally, the United States was ready to join the community of man. 
 
In what former U.S. ambassador to the UN John Bolton calls our first post-American President, Obama has bestowed instant cachet on the growing ranks of Americans who revel in the thought of being the first in their own social set to be considered cutting edge ‘citizens of the world.’ Especially since joining this community of global citizens confers upon them automatic (albeit, unearned) virtue, along with instant and unassailable moral stature. 
 
For those of you who just aren’t with it, (like Christians, conservatives and a few Republicans) here are the latest, up to the minute, details on how to gain inclusion in this trendy and politically correct group.
 
To become a ‘citizen of the world,’ you must first and foremost declare your support for the disenfranchised. Preferably in front of a camera in a very public forum. Just pick a group of victims upon whom you will bestow your empathy and support. The only caveat being that they reside in underdeveloped countries ruled by misunderstood men of good will like Uganda, or Cuba, or Somalia, or…well, you get my drift. Oh, and make sure everyone understands that these victims are only victims because of George W. Bush and/or America.

Next, you must ardently advocate the spending of other people’s money in order to help these poor victims. If you’re one of the fortunate ‘non-rich,’ (meaning your income is under $250,000 and/or you receive a government check every month) then a straight party line vote for the Democrats, frequent letters to the editor and a catchy bumper sticker are strongly recommended. In addition, you must make yourself available for the occasional photo-op or rally, and vocalize your support for all of Obama’s policies to every-one you know. (T-shirts are a very cool way to do this)
 
If you’re unfortunate enough and greedy enough to have an annual income over $250,000, your membership entrance requirements are a bit more stringent. The good news is, you can skip right over victims and concentrate on vital issues like global warming or the evils of capitalism.
 
For all you rich guys out there, its recommended that you use whatever influence you have to advocate for whichever policy Obama is currently trying to foist on the American public. Bumper stickers won’t do it, guys. You need to atone big time.
 
Not to worry, just contact DNC.org and they will give you a list of organizations you should  support. And since you’ve made all that money on the backs of the poor, social justice requires that you give back some of your own money, instead of merely advocating the expenditure of other people’s money.
 
A list of approved recipient groups will be provided free of charge. It is recommended that you give early and often. ACORN is the most needy cause as of this writing. But whatever group you decide to donate your bucks to, rest assured, Obama is in the process of making those donations tax deductible.
 
If you happen to be filthy rich and/or an elected official or head of a union, different rules apply. In order to be considered a citizen of the world, all you have to do is believe (faking belief is totally OK) in Obama’s vision of utopia. You must believe, or at least profess to believe, that world peace is possible, that the earth is melting, that diplomacy trumps war and that America is the cause of all the world’s problems. Other that that, the only real requirement is a constant and sustained effort to ensure that global governance trumps American sovereignty.
 
Hat-tip: it wouldn’t hurt if you make known that yours was one of the Swiss bank accounts the Obama administration recently forced the Swiss to disclose. That alone will ensure you are recognized by the right people.
 
There you have it, fellow comrades. If you have followed the above steps, we want to officially welcome you as a new ‘citizen of the world.’ Take a load off. You are now eligible to engage in global groupthink, which means that you will never again be forced to make any moral, financial or life decisions on your own. More membership perks are already in the works, and you guys will be the first to benefit! Kumbaya.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina

Article has been published with the author’s permission

 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Has Obama met the hopes of the world?(guardian.co.uk)
• Obama’s year of vitriol and rebuff at home, deadlock abroad. Not a bad start at all | Jonathan Freedland(guardian.co.uk)
• Letter From Washington: A Culture of Business as Usual(nytimes.com)
• Another Self-Inflicted Wound(powerlineblog.com)
• He’s Still No-Drama Obama(usnews.com)
• Divided Republicans hope for big victories in Virginia, New Jersey(cnn.com)
• John Hannah’s Tone-Deaf Political Strategy(themoderatevoice.com)
• “Obama and today’s elections” and related posts(publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com)
• “Bill Owens, Doug Hoffman, New York Congressional Race Live, Winner” and related posts(rightpundits.com)
• Job-Creation Panel Leery of Spending(online.wsj.com)
• By visiting our war dead, Obama passes Dover test(americablog.com)

Originally posted 2010-12-12 21:34:46. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

by Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
December 12, 2010

---

Political correctness is loosely defined as “avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.”

In other words, millions of Americans have willingly allowed themselves to be placed in the losing position of continually being forced to prove a negative. “I’m not a racist,” “I’m not homophobic,” “I’m not a greedy capitalist”…ad nauseum.

Political correctness is a hugely successful campaign that has effectively altered traditional standards of behavior in order to advance the political agenda of mostly left-leaning groups. From gay rights, to feminism to open borders, PC rules dictate that you conform with the prevailing group-think at the risk of social ostracism.

The amazing thing about PC is that no-one has yet fought back against the complete idiocy and transparent manipulation that is its very essence.

Until now.

I have decided to quit enabling useful idiots by continuing to mouth the politically correct group thoughts that threaten to snuff out opposing opinions under the guise of tolerance and compassion. I never voted for these idiotic rules. I never agreed to them. And I refuse to abide by them.

I will not let others dictate manners to me. I was brought up to be respectful of others and to live by the Golden Rule. In other words, I have good manners. So why should I allow others to impose their “manners” on me? Especially when their “manners” only apply to favored groups.

Conservative women can be called whores, and the Virgin Mary can be covered in dung and called art, but God forbid anyone acknowledge that many blacks have willingly let themselves be enslaved to the government entitlement system. Or that some people will always be poor because they are just plain stupid and lazy – and subsidizing them with my tax dollars only encourages more stupid and lazy behavior. The majority of them have chosen to rely on others for their existence – but that doesn’t mean I must grant them “oppressed” status.

Acquiescing to political correctness only serves to enable it. And I will no longer enable arbitrary rules whose main goals serve only to contradict traditional values and undermine American and individual exceptionalism.

Here are a few basic facts. America is the greatest country the world has ever known. We have equality of opportunity, not outcome. Respect must be earned, not granted, and promoting self-esteem is just a subtle message that it’s OK and even desirable to be selfish.

Most politically correct “elites” who purport to speak for you have been educated way beyond their intelligence. Life isn’t fair and everyone is not equal. If any of your “rights” are paid for by others, they not rights, they are entitlements. And redefining words to make them politically correct does not change the underlying reality. A rose is a rose and a jerk is a jerk.

Shakespeare once said, “There is no right or wrong, only the definition that makes it so.” I have decided that I will no longer allow politically correct idiots with a vested agenda to define my words for me. I am not willing to adopt someone else’s definition of right and wrong at the expense of my own.

With a black man in the White House, I have also decided that I will no longer lower my voice when discussing race. And since I graduated from high school long ago, I’ve decided that I will never refer to words by their first letter. Those that refer to “the n word” or “the p word” are  people who have willingly allowed others to set the rules. They are sheep who have acquiesced to group-think in a vain attempt to appear “with-it.”

From now on, I will call a lie a lie, not a misstatement. Just because many people lie does not make it right. And I will not allow my opinions to be called judgments. I will not allow debate to be redefined as argument, and I most certainly will not have anyone tell me that my point of view is invalid unless they can prove it.

Instead, I will do as Thomas Sowell does when faced with politically correct statements made by self-righteous busy bodies. I will ask myself these four questions that will determine the validity of any statement:

1. At what cost?
2. Compared to what?
3. According to whom?
4. What hard evidence do you have?

By Sowell’s standard, pretty much every politically correct statement and/or idea doesn’t pass this simple test. All the main shibboleths of the left are shown to be lacking in both substance and foundation if put to this test. But political correctness demands that you not question crucial assumptions for fear of being branded stupid. How stupid is that?

If you’re content to allow others to define you, by all means, keep playing by the politically correct rules. If you’re OK with allowing others to manipulate your sentiments to achieve their own agendas, feel free.

If, however, you value individual freedom and common sense over group-think, maybe it’s time you joined me in starting to fight back against all this PC nonsense. It’s easy. Just say no.

---

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for conservative news site RightBias.comShe lives in South Carolina

Related articles

• Political Correctness In American Policy (samuelatgilgal.wordpress.com)
• Sunday Stats: Is America Too Politically Correct? (delamagente.wordpress.com)
• A Politically Incorrect Defense of Political Correctness (bluelinchpin.wordpress.com)
• Indiana Man Selling “Racist Soaps” Doesn’t Have Time For “You Politically Correct People” [Video] (deadspin.com)
• Offensive Political Correctness (socyberty.com)
• Political Correctness and the Thought Police (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• SCOTT JOHNSON: Revolt Against The TSA: “The TSA It is bound by a form of political correctness tha… (pajamasmedia.com)
• Has The World Become Too Politically Correct? (socyberty.com)
• Bill O’Reilly Knows Why Americans Are Fed Up: Too Much Political Correctness (mediaite.com)