Concealed Banking

Firearms are welcome at the Chappell Hill Bank in Texas.

The Chappell Hill Bank located just north of Houston may be the oldest continuously operated bank in America. It didn’t close on President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s bank holiday in 1933.

It’s been robbed five times in its 100-plus year history, most recently in March 20101. Bank President Ed Smith didn’t want it to happen again. To send this message to would-be robbers, he took down the “No Firearms” sign posted on the bank’s front and posted the new policy2 on the front door:

Lawful concealed carry permitted on these premises. Management recognizes the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as an unaliienable  right of all citizens. We support and encourage the carrying of licensed concealed weapons.

The policy applies to his tellers as well as customers. Seven women tellers are licensed to carry.

“No damn Yankee is going to tell us what to do,” Smith said. He means what he says. He had to stand up to regulators over the new policy. It’s not the first time he’s had to do so. An examiner once tried to get him to remove paintings of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson from the bank’s walls.

“You don’t know that (customer) Mrs. Middlebrooks doesn’t have a .38 in her purse right there,” Smith said. “And, if you try something nefarious in the bank, you might wind up in a horizontal position. Come in here, and you might leave feet first.”

The policy seems to work. The bank hasn’t been robbed since. A number of new customers have come on board in response to the policy.

Attribution: Bob Livingston

It’s Over, Obama Wins

 CBS: Obama Leads in Our D+13 Poll

by Mike Flynn

Anyone following the presidential campaign through the prism of media polls is doing themselves a serious disservice. Virtually every one of them uses a polling sample that is so heavily-skewed towards Democrats that it distorts the actual state of the campaign. Of course, that is a feature, not a bug of the polls. The polls are specifically designed to drive a narrative that Obama is surging and Romney is struggling. Increasingly, though, the polls are having to go to ridiculous efforts to support this meme. Friday’s CBS/New York Times poll, for example, uses a D+13 (13% more democrats polled) sample of registered voters. That’s registered, but not likely voters. This is absurd. 

In 2008, an historic election wave for Democrats, the electorate was D+7. In 2004, when George W. Bush won reelection, the electorate was evenly split. In other words, D+0. Repeat after me; the Democrat share of the electorate is not going to double this year. Given the well-noted enthusiasm edge for Republicans this year, the electorate is going to be far closer to the 2004 model than 2008. Any poll trying to replicate the 2008 is going to artificially inflate Obama’s support. 

CBS does apply a Likely Voter screen to the head-to-head match up. The LV sample is D+6, similar to the make up of the 08 election. In that, Obama leads Romney by just 3 points, 49-46. In the RV sample, which more than doubles the proportion of Democrats to D+13, Obama leads by 8 points, 51-43. See the simple relationship there? 

Let’s try a simple thought experiment. Imagine if, for a week, all media polls decided to use a sample that replicated the 2004 electorate–a D+0 model. Given the GOP’s enthusiasm edge–even the CBS poll found Republicans voters with a double-digit lead on enthusiasm for the election–the electorate is going to look a lot more like 2004 than 2008. Imagine how the narrative of the campaign would change. The CBS poll found Romney beating Obama among Independents by 11 points. With a balanced partisan sample, Romney would likely post consistent leads against Obama. 

A week of this and Politico would run out of fuel for its daily “Romney is struggling” theme. Which is why the media will never adjust its samples. This election, it isn’t so much about polling as propaganda. The polls are simply a tool being used by the media to try to depress GOP turnout and give a powerful lift to Obama’s obviously lackluster campaign. 

The polls confirm that the media aren’t really biased. Rather, they are active players for the other team.

We’re Getting Served by this CAFE

The Obama administration has rolled out its new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards — requirements that will eventually cost Americans as much as $11,000 more per car.

The new standards, which are opposed by Mitt Romney, would boost automobile fuel standards from 29.7 miles per gallon now to 35.5 in 2016, then to 54.5 in 2025.

“These fuel standards represent the single most important step we’ve ever taken to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” President Barack Obama said.

“It’ll strengthen our nation’s energy security, it’s good for middle-class families, and it will help create an economy built to last.”

CAFE requires automakers to calculate average fuel economy for all the cars in their fleets. That means large vans and SUVs that get poor mileage must be offset by high-mpg sedans, electric cars and hybrids.

But a new report by the Republican House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform cited emails showing that the CAFE agreements were negotiated behind closed doors with a small group of automakers, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.

Referring to the tens of billions of dollars in automaker bailout money spent by the Obama administration, the report stated that “the administration’s investment in GM and Chrysler gave it great leverage to force the companies to improve fuel economy without regard to cost.”

Consumers, however, are likely to regard cost. According to the Center for Automotive Research, the price of a car will increase by $4,000 to $11,000 by 2025 compared to 2008 prices.

As a result, fewer people will buy new cars and the automobile industry will suffer, while prices for used cars are likely to rise.

“Fuel-saving technologies are anything but a bargain unless the price of gasoline is far higher than it is now,” says economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of “Regulating to Disaster: How Green Jobs Policies Are Damaging America’s Economy.” She also served in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush

“In Europe, where gasoline prices range from $7.25 to $8 per gallon, people buy small, fuel-efficient cars. But this is because of fuel prices, not CAFE standards.”

The standards will affect safety as well, because lighter cars are more dangerous in collisions. A survey of more than 1,000 engineers by Ward’s Automotive concluded that “stringent fuel economy requirements like those set for 2025 will be impossible to meet without sacrificing the safety of the vehicles.”

Furchtgott-Roth points out that with the higher car prices, Americans will keep their old cars longer, and old cars generally produce more tailpipe emissions.

“If energy security is the rationale for CAFE standards, America needs to increase production of domestic oil, gas, and coal, invest in more refinery capacity, and build nuclear power plants,” she adds.

“These are major components of Romney’s energy plan, yet the Obama administration has been noticeably slow on all these.”

Attribution: NewsMax

New Golf Rules

New Golf  handicap rules are as follows:

– Below 10: will have their green fees increased by 35%.
– Between 11 and 18: will see no increase in green fees.
– Above 18: will have their greens fees waived and will receive a $20 check each time they play.

The term “gimmie” will be changed to “entitlement” and will be applied as follows:
– Handicaps below 10 get no entitlements.
– Handicaps from 11 to 17 receive entitlements for up to putter length putts.
– Handicaps above 18, if your ball is on green, no need to putt, just pick it up.

These entitlements are intended to bring about fairness and, most importantly, equality in scoring.

In addition, a Player will be limited to a maximum of one birdie or six pars in any given 18-hole round. Any excess must be given to those fellow players who have not yet scored a birdie or par.

Only after all players have received a birdie or par from the player actually making the birdie or par, can that player begin to count his pars and birdies again .

The current USGA handicap system will be used for the above purposes, but the term “net score” will be available only for scoring those players with handicaps of 18 and above.

This is intended to “re-distribute” the success of winning by making sure that in all competitions every Player above an 18 handicap will post only “net score” against every other player’s “gross score.”

These new Rules are intended to CHANGE the game of golf. Golf must be about Fairness. It should have nothing to do with ability, hard work, practice, and responsibility. This is the “Right thing to do.”

So please remember; if you shot a round of golf under par, you didn’t shoot it yourself. Some one else built that course, and someone else cut the grass so that you could play on it. Someone else built the clubs and the cart.

Attribution: Greg

Fed’s QE3 ‘Detachment from Reality’

Welcome to the U.S.W., The United States of Weimar. Hope you brought your wheelbarrow. You’re going to need it. After QE3 kicks in and the Fed starts printing money like there’s no tomorrow, the dollar won’t be worth spit.

from: World Net Daily; Rep. Ron Paul on the Fed

A member of Congress who has been pushing for more transparency, including an audit, of the Federal Reserve for years, says the announcement Friday that the quasi-governmental agency is going to print more money to try to help the U.S. economy isn’t surprising.

Nor is it smart, said U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.

“No one is surprised by the Fed’s action today to inject even more money into the economy through additional asset purchases. The Fed’s only solution for every problem is to print more money and provide more liquidity,” Paul said.

“Mr. Bernanke and Fed governors appear not to understand that our current economic malaise resulted directly because of the excessive credit the Fed already pumped into the system.”

The Federal Reserve said today it is launching its third attempt to revive the U.S. economy, once again by printing more money.

According to a report in CNN, this edition of the program will involve having the government buy $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities per month – with no set end date.

There is a petition process set up to urge members of Congress to act on plans to audit the Fed.

The report says the central bank’s objective is to keep interest rates low, and thus trigger more spending and more hiring.

The Fed has been trying to impact the economy just about since Barack Obama took over the White House, but its usual tool – lowering interest rates – is ineffective now since those rates have been approaching zero for most of that time.

“For all of its vaunted policy tools, the Fed now finds itself repeating the same basic action over and over in an attempt to prime the economy with more debt and credit,” Paul said. “But this latest decision to provide more quantitative easing will only prolong our economic stagnation, corrupt market signals, and encourage even more misallocation and malinvestment of resources.

“Rather than stimulating a real recovery by focusing on a strong dollar and market interest rates, the Fed’s announcement today shows a disastrous detachment from reality on the part of our central bank. Any further quantitative easing from the Fed, in whatever form, will only make our next economic crash that much more serious,” he warned.

There are answers to your questions about the complicated Federal Reserve issue in “End the Fed,” “No More National Debt” and “The Case Against the Fed.”

Paul for years has advocated a full audit of the Federal Reserve, which routinely shrouds its actions in secrecy. Just this week, the U.S. House on a 327-98 vote adopted a bill that would set an audit process in motion.

It now is going to the Senate, where Sen. Harry Reid previously has been receptive to the idea, although there’s no word whether he’ll take time for it now.

Paul  argued that the Federal Reserve simply is illegal. Some of his concerns have revolved around Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which assigns to Congress the right to coin money.

There is no mention in the Constitution of a central bank, and it wasn’t until the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 that the Fed was created. (Thanks a lot, Woodrow Wilson)

Paul previously has said, “Throughout its nearly 100-year history, the Federal Reserve has presided over the near-complete destruction of the United States dollar. Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95 percent of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy.”

And he’s proposed repeatedly the idea of auditing the Fed to determine exactly what it has been doing and then begin making corrections. With a book titled “End the Fed,” he’s made no secret of his ultimate goal.

That the Fed is at least partly to blame for the financial problems that have developed in the U.S. seems not to be in dispute.

It was longtime Federal Reserve chairman Ben. S. Bernanke who admitted as much.

Bernanke said it was the Fed that caused the Great Depression, the worldwide economic downturn that persisted from 1929 until about 1939. It was the longest and worst depression ever experienced by the industrialized Western world. While originating in the U.S., it ended up causing drastic declines in output, severe unemployment and acute deflation in virtually every country on earth. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “the Great Depression ranks second only to the Civil War as the gravest crisis in American history.”

At a Nov. 8, 2002, conference to honor economist Milton Friedman’s 90th birthday, Bernanke, then a Federal Reserve governor, gave a speech at Friedman’s old home base, the University of Chicago.

After citing how Friedman and a co-author documented the Fed’s continual contraction of the money supply during the Depression and its aftermath – and the subsequent abandonment of the gold standard by many nations in order to stop the devastating monetary contraction – Bernanke added:

Before the creation of the Federal Reserve, Friedman and [Anna] Schwartz noted, bank panics were typically handled by banks themselves – for example, through urban consortiums of private banks called clearinghouses. If a run on one or more banks in a city began, the clearinghouse might declare a suspension of payments, meaning that, temporarily, deposits would not be convertible into cash. Larger, stronger banks would then take the lead, first, in determining that the banks under attack were in fact fundamentally solvent, and second, in lending cash to those banks that needed to meet withdrawals. Though not an entirely satisfactory solution – the suspension of payments for several weeks was a significant hardship for the public – the system of suspension of payments usually prevented local banking panics from spreading or persisting. Large, solvent banks had an incentive to participate in curing panics because they knew that an unchecked panic might ultimately threaten their own deposits.

It was in large part to improve the management of banking panics that the Federal Reserve was created in 1913. However, as Friedman and Schwartz discuss in some detail, in the early 1930s the Federal Reserve did not serve that function. The problem within the Fed was largely doctrinal: Fed officials appeared to subscribe to Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon’s infamous “liquidationist” thesis, that weeding out “weak” banks was a harsh but necessary prerequisite to the recovery of the banking system. Moreover, most of the failing banks were small banks (as opposed to what we would now call money-center banks) and not members of the Federal Reserve System. Thus the Fed saw no particular need to try to stem the panics. At the same time, the large banks – which would have intervened before the founding of the Fed – felt that protecting their smaller brethren was no longer their responsibility. Indeed, since the large banks felt confident that the Fed would protect them if necessary, the weeding out of small competitors was a positive good, from their point of view.

In short, according to Friedman and Schwartz, because of institutional changes and misguided doctrines, the banking panics of the Great Contraction were much more severe and widespread than would have normally occurred during a downturn. …

History records that in 1913 President Woodrow Wilson approved the Federal Reserve Act but later reflected that his actions “unwittingly ruined my country.”

Wilson said that since the U.S. system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few, “we have become … one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world.”

Joke of the Day

A policeman brought four boys before a judge.

“They were causing an awful lot of commotion at the zoo, your Honor,” he said.

“Boys,” said the judge sternly, “I never like to hear reports of juvenile delinquency.

Now I want each of you to tell me your name and what you were doing wrong.”

“My name is George,” said the first boy, “and I threw rabbit into the lion pen.”

“My name is Pete,” said the second boy, “and I threw rabbit into the lion pen.”

“My name is Mike,” said the third boy, “and I threw rabbit into the lion pen.”

“My name is Rabbit,” said the fourth boy.

They Said We Were Safer

The Huffington Post, just last week (Sept. 8, 2012), wrote the following glowing article about how Barack “George Patton” Obama has kept his flock safe from terror.

Lolita C. Blador of the Huff Post writes, “As Americans debate whether they are better off now than they were four years ago, there is a similar question with a somewhat easier answer: Are you safer now than you were when President Barack Obama took office? By most measures, the answer is yes.”

“…Americans have stopped fretting daily about a possible attack or stockpiling duct tape and water…”

“While the threat of a terrorist attack has not disappeared, the combined military, intelligence, diplomatic and financial efforts to hobble al-Qaida and its affiliates have escalated over the past four years and paid off. Terrorist leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are dead and their networks in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia disrupted.”

“…Obama pursued a more aggressive drone campaign to target terrorist leaders, broadening efforts to help at-risk nations bolster their own defenses, and put in place plans to end the war in Iraq and bring troops out of Afghanistan.”

“As a result, terrorism worries have taken a back seat to the nation’s economic woes. Unlike previous elections, national security is not a big campaign issue this year.”

Phil Mudd, a senior research fellow at the nonpartisan New America Foundation said, “But I would say today that al-Qaidaism is on the decline. By any balance, the number of places where people want to come after us has declined in the past four years.”

James Lewis, with the Center for Strategic and International Studies claimed, “through diplomatic efforts by the Obama administration that level of fear has been tamped down. The global perception of the U.S. is better.”

Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council stated, “The U.S. is absolutely safer now than four years ago.”

We were apparently so safe, the U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo.

Yes!! You read that correctly. The Ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson “did not permit U.S. Marine guards to carry live ammunition,” according to multiple reports on U.S. Marine Corps blogs spotted by Nightwatch. “She neutralized any U.S. military capability that was dedicated to preserve her life and protect the US Embassy.”

I’m sure she figured diplomacy would always be more effective than bullets.

As I’ve stated many times, diplomacy never has and never will work. Especially when dealing with an enemy that doesn’t mind dying, or at least encourages others to die for them. 

What makes this tragedy even worse is that it may have been prevented.

Sources have recently come forth, claiming the U.S. State Department knew of the potential for attacks up to 48 hours prior to 9-11.  They evidently did nothing about it. They took no precautions, no heightened security.

The threat was apparently not specific to any location.   Well, you say, if that’s the case, how could anyone be held responsible? Do you how many consulates and embassies we must have? How can one blame the Obama administration for such a vague threat?

Easy! Here’s how. The State Department receives notice of a threat on consulates and embassies. The threat is of  possible terrorist attacks corresponding to the 9-11 anniversary. The State Department alerts the The White House. The White House looks at the embassies around the globe. They then ask themselves where a terror threat is most eminent or more likely to occur. Then, by deductive reasoning, they eliminate all but those in suspected terror hotspots.

So the embassies in Barbados and Fiji are probably safe, where as the ones in, say Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Syria, etc. are more at risk.

The Commander-in-Chief would then bid David Letterman adieu, leave the campaign trail, rush back to the White House and send out orders to beef up security at those embassies deemed high risk. He might even order that they be issued ammunition.

I’m not saying that these attacks and subsequent deaths could have been prevented or even lessened. Yes I am. I’m saying exactly that. These poor souls were not even given a fighting chance. That’s the real tragedy here.

With this information of prior notification coming to light, might this be the reason the Administration and the cheer squad in the media keep harping on the dopey YouTube video as the sole cause of mayhem, when any reasonable person knows it had nothing to do with it? Of course it is!

If the mainstream media actually did their job and reported that the Obama State Department had prior notice and didn’t act, there would be hell to pay. If this happened during a Romney administration, you know they would shouting it from the tree tops.

Attribution: PJ Media, Huff Po, Daily Mail

You’ve Won A Bomb

They’re the bane of everyone’s life. But beware the fate of one Colorado man who encountered perhaps the world’s worst telemarketer – when he phoned and threatened to blow up his house.

The unnamed man got the menacing call on Thursday evening at his home in the city of Greeley, in Weld County.

At first the caller told him he had won some money, to which he responded that he wasn’t interested and hung up the phone.

 
Extreme reaction: After the man hung up the telemarketer phoned him back and threatened to blow up his house

He thought that would be the end of it but the salesman called back almost immediately, this time turning nasty.

‘I’ve placed a bomb in your house,’ he told the man through a thick accent, leading him to believe the call might be coming from abroad.

The man hung up once more and made a call of his own, to the police, telling the operator about the alarming threat.

Police arrived and evacuated surrounding houses while they searched the man’s home for signs of explosives, taking them to a nearby fire station and town hall.

Officers scoured the property but found nothing, determining that the call had been a hoax.

Sgt Tim Schwartz of the Weld County Sheriff’s Office said they are trying to track down the mystery caller, adding that the bizarre threat was ‘completely out of the ordinary’.

 
The man was at his home in Greeley, Colorado, when he got the call‘I don’t know how to explain it,’ he said. ‘They’re just pretty pushy I guess.’

As evacuated residents returned to their homes one, Elaine Stanchfield, told the Denver Channel: ‘It was like Oh my God! A bomb threat.’

She said people are sick of getting harassed by persistent phone calls but that she couldn’t believe what had happened.

‘I personally think that telemarketers are a big pain because they constantly call you even when you ask them not to,’ she said.

‘But to go to those lengths to actually threaten someone is just ridiculous.’
Deputies fear it may be next to impossible to track down the telemarketer but if they do they will issue an arrest warrant.

If it turns out the call came from outside the U.S the FBI will be alerted.