The Stress Tests Have Me Stressed

I couldn't be more irritated by the "stress tests".

I want to make sure I have this right. The federal government (all knowing) is going to assign a group of people to "project possible future economic stress" and determine if our banks are capitalized enough to deal with these imaginary conditions. Oh, and by the way, the government is retroactively going to apply these arbitrary outcomes to imaginary situations to how they will allow banks to repay the loans that the previous administration gave out.

This is the equivalent of getting a loan from a bank and then having the bank decide a year later that they are going to imagine what it would be like if you got fired from your job, then tell you that you need to have more money in your savings account in order to make more than your minimum payment to them.

If something like that were to happen to an individual from a bank it would be wrong and a clear indicator of corporate greed.

Well, while corporate greed is for money, government greed is for power. The stress tests are little more than a power grab by Geithner and Barry. To be fair, the banks were stupid for taking the TARP money in the first place. The money may have been offered by the Bush administration with benevolent intentions, but banks needed to have the foresight to see the socialist sharks circling the water. The gem of the industrial might of America is the auto industry and Barry controls two-thirds of that (thank God for Ford). Barry controls the gem of the insurance industry in AIG. With the stress tests, Barry is looking to take control of the gems of the financial industry, consumer banks. The hooks are fairly well in Citibank. The next big target is Bank of America.

Bank of America is the largest holder of home loans and credit cards. It is also the second largest holder of American deposit dollars and banks two-thirds of American households in some form or fashion. Now, it doesn't take a whiz kid to see how the stress test is a convenient way to take control of a whale like Bank of America. All you have to do is project the economy to worsen to a point that is so bad that the bank with the most exposure in home loans and credit cards would invariable come up short of capital. It does not matter if the bank is currently properly capitalized. You project the economy to get worse to a point that the bank needs to raise so much capital that you will do all but force them to have the government convert their preferred shares into common equity shares. Once you do that, you have control of arguably the most powerful bank in the world, and you definitely have control of the US economy.

If you are at all interested in social engineering (spreading the wealth) all you have to do now is take control of energy, education, and the media....

-The Banker

Excellent Tea Party Video and Message.

The following is a video of the Dallas Tax Day tea party I found on the web. Not only is the video good, but the video message is phenomenal. Please enjoy.

-The Rocker-

RE: Arlen Specter's New "Affiliation" Should Come as No Real Surprise

A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

Arlen Specter becoming a democrat on paper does little, if anything, in regards to the balance of power on the Hill. Much like Joseph Lieberman becoming an Independent did little to change the balance of power when he made the switch. Specter will vote the same as he always has, especially on major issues where a Senator is responsible more to his constituents than his party. If there is an effect it will be on small issues in which he is whipped into voting with the party.

The real significance of the move is that it means that Democrats are now completely responsible for what happens over the next few years. They will reap the rewards or take the blame. There is nowhere left to hide. Republicans can no longer be blamed for obstructing "progress". Democrats, and liberals by and large, will now live and die by the value of their own ideas.

Republicans should be excited about this idea. The last time that liberals had this much control was in 1978. It was a miserable failure and gave birth to the Reagan Revolution. With the success of the Tea Parties and Obama's falling approval rating, it is fairly likely that Republicans will gain seats in the House and Senate in 2010, at least until you look at the numbers.

The House is wide open and if the Republicans are to make an serious movement, then it will be in the House. The Senate is not nearly as favorable. There are likely to be 10 Senate seats that will be seriously contested. Only four of those seats belong to Democrats. Two of the seats belong to Harry Reid and Chris Dodd. As unpopular as those two are amongst conservatives, they will probably be re-elected in their home states of Nevada and Connecticut. The third seat is Burris in Illinois, and I don't see Republicans picking up that seat in Obama's backyard. The only seat that Republicans can reasonably pick up is the seat in Colorado, and only if Ryan Frazier stays an "it" guy.

The problem is that the six contested Republican seats could all possibly fall. There are open seats in Florida, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Ohio. Florida and Ohio are toss ups, but both states voted Obama and neither state has a real solid Republican candidate. New Hampshire is very blue and will likely vote in a Democrat, and the Democratic candidate in Missouri has a very well known and respected family name, Robin Carnahan (she is Secretary of State in MO, her dad was governor, her mom was a Senator, and her brother is a Congressman).

Other problem seats for Republicans are in Louisiana and North Carolina. The Republican Senator in Louisiana, David Vitter, will have an uphill fight due to his involvement in a sex scandal. Sen. Richard Burr (R) will have a tough time in North Carolina. North Carolina voted for Obama, ousted Elizabeth Dole (R) in the last election, and voted in a Democrat as governor.

While it may be conventional logic, and the hopes of Republicans, that Americans will tire of Democratic control of Capitol Hill and the White House and vote in Republicans in 2010, the breakdown of the actual races does not match up with the logic, at least in the Senate.

In order for Republicans to not lose even more control of the Senate in 2010, there is going to have to be a dramatic shift to the right by Americans. Democrats are going to have to fail, and that fail is going to have to be epic. So epic that it will cause a real political shift in currently blue states. Democrats are going to have to prove completely inept while in power to cause such a dramatic shift, much like they did in 1978 and 1979.

Oh yeah, Republicans also have to find a charasmatic leader. Luckily, the last time Democrats were in total control, Republicans found that leader.

-The Banker

Arlen Specter's New "Affiliation" Should Come as No Real Surprise.

So if you've been paying attention to the news today, you may have noticed that Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) has switched his affiliation from Republican to Democrat (so I guess now D-PA). This is important because assuming that Al Franken takes the Senate seat in Minnesota (which he most likely will), it gives Democrats at 60 person majority, and makes them filibuster proof.

There are a few ways to look at this sort of thing. The first way is to realize that this won't change Specter's voting record. He probably would have voted with the Democrats anyway, as it has been his common philosophy. I've been angry as Specter for quite some time, as he doesn't typically act like someone from his party. He is a moderate, a Repube-lican, if you will. He is one of these people that leans sharply to the left, yet for some reason or another, claims an affiliation with the Republican party. While Republicans everywhere should be angry at Arlen Specter for this decision, it's important for the party that we realize it's a good idea to oust these sort of people from the party anyway. Specter (along with Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins) makes his agenda clear as day. Therefore, it is good for the Republicans as a party that we do away with the "moderates" and replace them instead with people who look more towards our ideals. Arlen Specter is not a Republican. He does not act like a Republican. He does not vote like a Republican. He would probably vote with the Democrats anyway.

That being said, the truth remains that Republicans should not only be angry, but fired up. With this supermajority in Congress we (as Americans) should be scared. The leftists are going to try to push every single piece of liberal legislation that has ever come to light. Therefore, what we look at here is a loss of liberty, a loss of freedom, bigger government control, government owned healthcare, and all of the like. Esssentially, here's what we have going on: a soft tyranny headed by the Obama administration, and a bunch of leftists controlling Congress. It's not a pretty thing. However, given the current state of affairs, there's nothing that can be done about it at this time. Therefore, what the Republican party needs to do is concentrate on having sharp people run for the 2010 Senate and House elections, and we need stronger candidates in the 2012 Presidential election. This year, we ran a bumbling old man (J Mac), and a strong woman who was unfortunately an easy target for the Obama loving lib media (Sarah Palin). While I do like Palin, I think the Republican party needs some strong backbone in there. Mark my words: run her in 2012, and we will lose the election. Keep in mind, I like Sarah Palin...a lot. But the Republican party really needs to get it together.


So yes, Arlen Specter changed sides. Screw him. He's a piece of trash, has been a piece of trash, and will continue to be a piece of trash. He is irrelevant. What Republicans need to do is get their act together. We have to stop being so soft skinned. I know plenty of well educated people out there. It should be easy to defend the things that we stand for (or are supposed to stand for): smaller government, a broader emphasis on personal liberty, national security, and tax issues that do not screw hard working Americans over (ie - a "progressive" tax or those proposed by the liberals - which are not fair, and do not ever work). The Republican party needs to return to the values upon which it should have been embracing the entire time. We've done it to ourselves, and need to return back to it. The Republicans should learn their lesson - they ran like Republicans in 2004, and immediately started acting like Democrats once they got into office. They expanded the government and turned their backs on some of these founding principles.

It is time to take back what should be rightfully ours in 2010. So good riddance, Arlen Specter. We hope you nothing but a loss in 2010. You're a worthless, bumbling, old man. I will raise my middle finger in the air, and laugh at your disgrace. For the rest of you real Americans out there, let's take this chance to sit back, contemplate, and understand what must be done in order to revilatize the party. Let's start running the right candidates, and start embracing the ideals that we should stand for in the first place. Let this be a lesson to us all. Go listen to some Reagan speeches and listen to what a real leader sounds like. Read the Constitution. Embrace liberty. Embrace freedom. Let's bring it back in 2010.We must take the leftists out.

-The Rocker-

100 Days of Change

How do you like your change America?

A recent Rasmussen Poll indicates that you are split about that question. According to the poll from Rasmussen, Barrack Obama has an approval rating of 55% and a disapproval of 44%. Which is to say that he has polarized the nation.

President Obama deserves all of the credit in the world to President Obama for sticking to his principles. He has clearly been more concerned with his agenda for what he considers a better nation than he has with building political equity in order to remain in office. I don't think that anyone can credibly doubt the leadership or the conviction of the leader of the free world. Barrack Obama is an excellent leader.

The $64,000 question, or trillion dollar question in this case, that is the point of contention is decisive. Where is President Obama leading us? President Obama has been nothing short of the radical liberal that he was accused of being during the presidential campaign. The amazing thing about his time in office so far has been how liberal he has been on a consistent basis. It is this consistency that has caused his first 100 days to be so polarizing.

Each action he has taken will be viewed by those that share his ideology as an great accomplishment. At the same time, those actions will be viewed as attacks on the fundamental principles of America by those of a different ideology.

His pro-abortion action of reversing the Mexico City act, which allows tax dollars to be used to fund foreign abortions, is a victory for liberals and a abomination to conservatives. The same can be said for his decision to allow federal funding for the creation of new embryotic stem cells.

His Stimulus package is considered to be a wise move by liberals that will save the economy. Conservatives view it as an expansion of government, a waste of tax dollars, and a great burden to the future.

Liberals consider his foreign policy decisions have been right on with the emphasis on improved relations with our enemies. Conservatives are enraged that our president would be glad handing the likes of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-il, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

There is his stance on the Missile Shield, Israel-Iran, Gitmo, taxes, universal health care, cap and trade, the federal budget, immigration, auto bailouts, government interference of banks and auto companies, free trade, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and his general outlook of America's impact on the world for the last 50 years.

On the issues above, liberals think he is a genius and conservatives think he is an idiot. It is not about one side or another being stupid, brainwashed by FoxNews, or drinking the Kool-Aid. It is simply that liberals and conservatives disagree on the fundamental values of our nation. When you have a president that is an extreme liberal, liberals are going to think he is the savior, and vice-versa.

At the end of the day we have a very liberal president. Liberals will think that he is great for it. Conservatives will think he is terrible for it. Thus we have a polarizing president and a divided nation.

The two big questions remaining are:

If Obama remains this liberal for the next year and a half, will there be more liberals or conservatives voting in the mid-term elections?

If Obama remains this liberal for the next three years, will there be more liberals or conservatives voting in 2012?

Only time will tell.

-The Banker

The Obama Drones Continue to Amaze Me.

So Barry exchanges a handshake with dictator Hugo Chavez and may have a budding bromance with him. (Stupid move, Barry). What's unreal about this is that Chavez is extremely anti-American and literally blames America for the entire problems of the world. So instead of being a man about it, Barry is continually bowing down the socialists, communists, and dictators - as if America's really the problem here. Give me a break, Barry.

Do you know what Hugo Chavez sees in Barack Obama?

It's not hope. It's not change. It's naivete. It's weakness.

So anyway, Chavez hands Obama a blatantly anti-American book, titled "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent" by Eduardo Galeano. Obama (being the doofus that he is and a man with terrible knowledge of foreign policy) accepts the book and has a little handshake and everything is kosher.

Let's get one thing clear: Chavez is not the type of person we should be shaking hands or accepting gifts from. This might be easy for Barry O because (big surprise) he might share some of the same anti-American, anti individual liberty sentiments as Chavez. For the rest of us, this should be seen as shameful.

Now, on to the title of this blog. The best part about this is that the Obama drones run to Amazon and start picking up the book. These people have no shame, and certainly cannot think for themselves. If Barry does it, it must be spectacular! Cut me a break. The modern liberal has lost the ability to think for him/herself (of course, we're not even sure if they were ever able to do that in the first place). Truth be told - there may not be many pictures in the book, so half of these morons who bought the book probably won't ever be interested enough to read it anyway.

The icing on the cake? Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto still sits higher on the best seller list than the little anti-American musings in Obama's hands.

Take that, you drones. Common sense, personal freedom, liberty, and the principles that this country was founded upon will always overtake your leftist agenda at the end of the day.

-The Rocker-

Lessons from our Founders

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

There are a couple of big points that need to be remembered by the American people.

First, all men are created equal. We have the right idea about equality when it comes to race, gender, and ethnicity. However when it comes to equality based on socioeconomic status, EPIC FAIL. If the US Government were to pass legislation that determined that women had to pay more in taxes than men or that Hispanics had to pay more in taxes than everyone else, there would rightfully be massive protests and outrage. Yet our government has determined that it is acceptable to enforce discriminatory tax policies against wealthy Americans. The justification is that they only make up 5% of Americans. I just wanted to make sure I understand this logic. It is okay to discriminate as long as you discriminate against the minority, in this case the wealthy. Ask yourself this simple question, does the government have to right to discriminate against the minority for the benefit of the majority? The fact that all men are created equal would answer the question in the negative.

Second, we have the right to pursue happiness, but we do not have the right to happiness. The lesson of this is that we have the right to equality of opportunity and not the equality of outcome. People do not have a right to a job. People do not have a right to a standard of living. People do not have a right to homeownership. People have the right to pursue those things. People have the right to live, the right to be free, and the right to use the combination of those two rights to pursue whatever makes them happy as long as it does not conflict to another person's right to live or be free. No one has the right to be happy only the right to try to be happy. That being said, no one has the right to any certain level of income, they only have the right to use their life, freedom, and opportunities to make as much income as they can within the law. If that means that executives make far more than laborers, then that is fine, there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is the government robbing the executives from their right to pursue happiness even when the pursuit of that happiness does not interfere with anybody else's rights.

Third, the government derives its power from Americans. Americans do not derive our power from the government. In the political food chain, Americans are at the top of the pecking order. We must not forget that. We do have the ability to stop the government from doing the things that we do not want them to do. We can protest. We can remove them from office by popular vote. In 2010, we are re-electing THE ENTIRE CONGRESS. If the government will not obey the will of the governed, then we replace the government, piece by piece, through peaceful elections. It is the great thing about being an American.

One final point,

...whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.

-The Banker