Naked Liberty » Nancy Morgan

Was The Economic Crisis Manufactured?

Editor — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 03:30:39 +0000

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

My Liberal Friend

Editor — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:06:03 +0000

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.

Why I Became a Conservative

Editor — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:05:55 +0000

Originally posted 2009-10-07 21:50:24. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

by Nancy Morgan

RightBias.com

October 1, 2009

In early 1992, I heard five words that were to drastically alter the course of my life. H. Ross Perot was on TV. He held up a toilet seat and said “The government paid $700.00 for this toilet seat.” He then stated, “And this is public knowledge.” Huh?

Perot then went on to outline more fascinating nuggets of information I had absolutely no knowledge of. He pulled out charts and graphs and proceeded to inform me of a world of facts to which I had never been exposed.

Having long prided myself on being informed, I decided to educate myself on all this “public knowledge.” What I found appalled and angered me. And changed my life forever.

For the first time in my life, I picked up a National Review magazine and started reading. I moved on to the Washington Times, American Spectator and various other conservative publications I had never been aware of before. The more I read, the angrier I got.

I had always assumed that if something was on TV or in the newspapers, it was correct. I always assumed that our elected officials knew better than I how to address the problems of our nation. I always assumed that my friends’ opinions were more valid and informed than mine. I was 39 years old and just finding out how incredibly naive I was.

Having lived in Los Angeles since my teens, I was never exposed to any other than the liberal point of view. I made the mistake of assuming it was the only valid view, just as millions of other Americans still do.

I had adopted the views of the herd, assuming that since everyone felt that way, it was the right way to feel. Besides, I was too busy living my life to spend the time necessary to form my own views independently of my peers. I had taken the easy way out, accepting and spouting the currently fashionable talking points as my own. And patting myself on the back for being informed and knowledgeable. Ouch.

After reveling in government approved and politically correct self esteem for so many years, the descent into humility was painful. How naive was I to have blindly accepted so many premises without question? How ignorant was I to have advocated certain positions based on face value and cheap sound bites? How stupid was I to have allowed others to manipulate and exploit my ignorance? The answer: Pretty darn stupid.

The anger I felt stemmed from finally realizing that no matter how thin the pancake, there are always two sides. And I had only been exposed to one. That didn’t set right. I felt I had been lied to my whole life. I responded by making it my mission to inform everyone I knew of the astonishing revelations I was finding on a daily basis. That was another big mistake.

I assumed everyone in my world would be just as appalled as I to find that things were not as they seemed. I studied, I amassed facts, I quoted sources, and I lectured. And I got yet another lesson in humility. Instead of applauding my efforts, my family, my friends, my husband and my co-workers sent me to the woodshed.

I soon realized that my facts took a back seat to their emotions. I found that the conservative point of view had been judged invalid years before I became aware of it. The case was already closed. Hadn’t I heard?

I persisted. “But how can you dispute these facts?” I railed. I quickly found out. Liberals demolished my factual arguments by demonizing me, thus relieving themselves of the need to entertain or debate any facts that challenged their world view.

Being stubborn as well as stupid, I continued my quest to inform one and all of the error of their way of thinking. With predictable results. Soon, everyone in my world informed me that there must be something wrong with me. Eventually, I started to believe them, and finally decided to keep my opinions to myself.

I tried. For three years, I consciously tried to keep my mouth shut. I tried to go along to get along. I failed. Long story short: I lost my husband. I no longer speak with my feminist mother and my liberal siblings.

Having continued to read voraciously about all things conservative, I was exposed to the role Christianity played in our country’s founding. After further research and soul searching, I eventually became a Christian. Learning to have faith in Christ enabled me to have faith in myself – and faith in my traditional and conservative views.

Eight years after my epiphany, and 33 years after moving to Los Angeles, I sold my home and business. I said good-bye to the few friends and family I still had, and left Los Angeles for good. I knew there had to be a place in the world where I could be myself without ticking everyone off.

After a lot of searching, I finally found it. Its called Murrells Inlet, South Carolina. Here in this little fishing village, I have found peace and happiness. I can identify myself as a conservative without having to go stand in the corner. Here in South Carolina, I am normal. I am also the luckiest of women.

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

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

A Government Bailout for the Media? (usnews.com)
Has political ideology finally gone too far? (blue-dot-blues.blogspot.com)
100 charged in US and Egypt over phishing scam (telegraph.co.uk)
Judge to Rule on Bail in Taping of ESPN’s Andrews (abcnews.go.com)
F.B.I. Arrests Dozens for ‘Phishing’ ID Theft Scheme (nytimes.com)
This Saturday: Jonathan Gold’s Union Station Cocktail Party – A Cocktailian Gathering of the Shakerati (laist.com)

Gender: Optional

Editor — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:05:53 +0000

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.

In the UK last September, a 12 year-old boy turned up at school as a girl. Over the summer holidays his parents changed his name to a female one and allowed him to don female garb and wear his hair in pigtails. The youngster is now preparing to undergo hormone treatment and surgery – and could become the world’s youngest sex-swap patient in the coming years. His school has graciously provided him/her a separate toilet and changing room.

Here in the U.S., the IRS ruled earlier this month that a Massachusetts woman should be allowed to deduct the costs of her sex-change operation. And in Portland, Oregon, there is a move afoot to have the city pay for the sex-change operations of any employees that decide they are unhappy with their gender.

Hollywood is firmly on board, as they plan a new film about the world’s first post-operative transsexual, starring heavyweights Nicole Kidman and Gwyneth Paltrow.

Over in Italy, the first prison for transsexuals is now open for business.

These cases represent the tip of the iceburg in the growing movement to make gender optional. When coupled with increasingly successful campaign to legitimize same sex unions via gay marriage, the result is an all out assault on the centuries old concepts of family and marriage.

Consider: On September 4, 1969, California Governor Ronald Reagan signed into law the nation’s first no-fault divorce law. California legislators made the case for no-fault divorce with the valid argument that no-fault divorce would remedy some very desperate situations. A woman who desired a family married to a man in an insane asylum, for example. Who wouldn’t want to make her case an exception? Who wouldn’t allow this woman legal divorce from a marriage that had ceased functioning? No-fault divorce was enacted to address these untenable situations. It was intended to address the exception, but instead, quickly became the rule.

No-fault divorce quickly spread across the United States. By 1985, all states had enacted no-fault divorce legislation except for New York. This policy, enacted in good faith, weakened the concept of family to the point where divorce is now the norm, not the exception.

A case can be made that the push to redefine gender roles and broaden marriage to include gays also has the potential of becoming the new norm. And while the very few legitimate cases of genuine gender confusion are indeed heart wrenching, the re-structuring of our society to accommodate them will very likely result in the destruction of traditional family and marriage.

Traditional families are the bedrock upon which our culture and society are based. And marriage is the glue that binds these families together. With twin assaults from the left on these institutions, America is facing the very real possibility of a radical reformation. A reformation that is based on the needs of a few at the expense of the majority. A reformation that has the potential to destroy two of America’s most basic and trusted institutions.

The left is unrelenting in its desire to redefine society. Billing themselves as champions of the oppressed, the left has made significant progress in labeling anyone who disagrees with their agenda as being motivated by hate and ignorance. Genuine objections based on faith, history, common sense and morality are ignored as the left focuses the debate on the plight of the ‘victim.’ It is a successful, proven political strategy. After all, as David Horowitz points out, “The appeal to help the underdog and defend the victims resonates with all Americans.”

The left has attained the moral high ground in this cultural battle. And they will continue to maintain it as long as the focus is on the supposed ‘victims’ and not on some very basic questions that are being left out of the equation. Namely: At what cost?

Do the feelings of the minority of gays and transsexuals trump the rights of the majority of heterosexuals? Do the feelings of 6 year-old Joseph Romero, oops, Josie Romero warrant blurring the gender roles of all citizens? Do the desires of gay couples to attain social legitimacy warrant the destruction through redefinition of the centuries old tradition of marriage? And finally, who will pay the very real costs when these social experiments fail?

These are questions that need to be addressed before the left succeeds in fashioning their brave new world. A world that caters to the feelings of the few at the expense of everyone else. A world where fealty to God and family would be replaced by political correctness and transient social experiments. A world where traditional family and marriage are considered moot and America turns into one country under men instead of God.

Pandora’s Box has been opened. It remains to be seen if we can close it. Drip, drip, drip.

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

Article published with the author’s permission

Latest test for church, state (timesunion.com)
Divorce Rate Higher in States that Ban Gay Marriage (politicalwire.com)
Gwyneth Paltrow Joins Nicole Kidman in ‘The Danish Girl’ (cinematical.com)
12 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal (thisrand.com)
Quote of the Day: Ted Olson on “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage” (themoderatevoice.com)

Obama And My Ex-Husband

Editor — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:05:42 +0000

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