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 2010-02-16 22:09:34. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

by Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
February 12, 2010

---

Joseph Romero, a 6 year-old Arizona boy, was diagnosed as transgender last October and is beginning his/her transition to becoming a female. When he/she reaches the age of 12, he will be given female hormones containing estrogen and plans to undergo surgery when she is an adult in order to become a full woman.

Originally posted 2010-06-01 21:31:16. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

by Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
June 1, 2010

The contuing love affair the left has with Barack Obama bears a striking similarity to my short-lived marriage with my now ex-husband.
 
Like Obama, my ex-husband, who I’ll call Sam (not his real name) was a blank slate upon whom I projected all my hopes and dreams. Only in hind-sight did I realize that my perceptions and expectations were a product of my own imagination, with little connection to reality.
 
Obama burst onto the national scene out of no-where. Millions of Americans naturally assumed that a man running for the highest office in the land had undergone the necessary vetting and was of high character. Since Obama had the official approval of the media, he was accepted, without question or investigation, by fully half of all Americans.
 
Likewise, I accepted without question that Sam was worthy of both my trust and respect. Being a judge, I assumed Sam had been vetted and been found worthy. He had society’s approval, having been given the right to add "The Honorable" to his name. I accepted Sam’s label as fact, without question. And counted myself lucky to have found a man of such high character.
 
During the course of our marriage, I was loath to acknowledge any facts that were at variance with the image I constructed of Sam. (Just as millions of Obama voters still do.) I had invested my hopes and dreams, trust and respect into this image, and any facts to the contrary were ignored. Even when Sam started showing signs of ‘The God Complex’ and began abusing the trust of his judicial office.
 
On one occasion, Sam awarded $500,000 in a case that he had previously informed me was worth only $50,000. When I asked him why, Sam said, "Because L… asked me to." L… was the plaintiff’s lawyer and Sam’s good buddy.
 
On one level, I knew Sam was wrong to do this. I was then faced with a choice of having my dreams shattered by an ugly reality or continuing to fool myself. I opted to compartmentalize. As in, ignore any evidence that didn’t accord with my earlier perceptions.
 
I had made Sam into a white knight, a hero, a man I could respect. To maintain that illusion, I routinely started ignoring the increasing indicators that maybe I had been wrong to do so. I ignored the growing disconnect between his words and his actions. I just couldn’t bear to have my dreams shattered. Much like the many devotees of Obama whose carefully constructed image of Obama would be shattered if they acknowledged Obama’s many imperfections, that are just now becoming apparent.

Very few men remain unchanged when given power over other men. When everyone laughs at all your jokes, pretty soon you convince yourself you are pretty funny. When surrounded 24/7 by yes men and the trappings of power, its only natural to start thinking you’re superior to others, that the rules that govern ordinary men don’t apply. This happened to Sam, just as it is happening to Obama.
 
It is true that power corrupts most men. It was also true, in my case, that Sam’s increased arrogance and his flouting of the law became secondary to my need to maintain my illusions. To admit that Sam was a mere mortal, a flawed mortal, was unthinkable. What did that say about me? That would mean that I was pretty stupid. That would mean acknowledging my naivete and gullibility. I chose not to do that.
 
After three years of marriage, Sam tired of me. With 20/20 hindsight, I realize he did me a favor, but that didn’t lessen the pain of divorce. It took another five years before I was able to admit and accept that Sam had never been worthy of my respect. I realized that my love for him was based more on my need to see the world the way I envisioned it instead of the way it really was.
 
I only hope it doesn’t take that long for Obama’s supporters to realize the same thing. Granted, reality is painful, but in today’s dangerous world, illusions are a luxury America can ill afford.
 

---

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

 

 

Recommended related reading:

Alter Regrets ‘We Didn’t Show Up’ for Obama
G.O.P. Sees a Way to Revive Healthcare Debate
Obama’s Approval Drops, Despite Gestures
Obama, the Thin-Skinned President
MARK TAPSCOTT: Will journalists wake up in time?

 

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 2010-12-12 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)