Republicans rip the Fed after examiner tells Okla. bank to hide religious items

from TheHill.com by pschroeder@thehill.com (Peter Schroeder)


Republicans rip the Fed after examiner tells Okla. bank to hide religious items: "

The Federal Reserve quickly withdrew the order after two Okla. Republicans blasted the action as an 'assault on faith.'

"

War on Christmas: Fed Forces Oklahoma Bank To Remove Crosses, Bible Verse, "Merry Christmas" Buttons

from theblogprof by The blogprof


War on Christmas: Fed Forces Oklahoma Bank To Remove Crosses, Bible Verse, "Merry Christmas" Buttons: "Want to know the biggest irony in this story? 100% of the currency in every bank, including this one, is stamped with 'In God We Trust.' How is it that the fed is demanding the bank take down any mention of God? Should they file our national motto from all coins too? Cross it out on every dollar bill? From KOCO via drudge (click on pic for video report):

A small-town bank in Oklahoma said the Federal Reserve won’t let it keep religious signs and symbols on display.

Federal Reserve examiners come every four years to make sure banks are complying with a long list of regulations. The examiners came to Perkins last week. And the team from Kansas City deemed a Bible verse of the day, crosses on the teller’s counter and buttons that say 'Merry Christmas, God With Us.' were inappropriate. The Bible verse of the day on the bank's Internet site also had to be taken down.

“I don’t think there should be a problem with them displaying whatever religious symbols they want to display,” said Amy Weierman, a Perkins resident.

Specifically, the feds believed, the symbols violated the discouragement clause of Regulation B of the bank regulations. According to the clause, '...the use of words, symbols, models and other forms of communication ... express, imply or suggest a discriminatory preference or policy of exclusion.'

The feds interpret that to mean, for example, a Jew or Muslin or atheist may be offended and believe they may be discriminated against at this bank. It is an appearance of discrimination.

But customers Eyewitness News 5 talked to said they aren’t buying it.

“This is just ridiculous,” said bank customer Jim Nyles. “This whole thing is just ridiculous. We all have regulatory bodies that govern us. But this is too much.”

“I think that’s absurd,” said Chelsi Holser, a bank customer. “I don’t agree with it at all. They are taking Christ out of Christmas and life.”

Lawmakers went nuclear over the news: Lawmakers Call Out Bernanke After Feds Force Bank To Remove Crosses

U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe and U.S. Rep. Frank Lucas issued a joint letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Friday over what the two view as a “distressing interpretation of Federal Reserve Regulation B” concerning a bank in Perkins.

“This is an all-out assault on the faith, values and rights of the bank, its employees and the people of Perkins they serve,” Inhofe said. “It is absolutely ridiculous for the regulation to be interpreted this way, and it unduly discriminates against a person’s faith in Christ and their constitutionally protected freedom to publicly express that faith. It is simply another case of liberals in Washington overstepping their bounds and intruding in the lives of individuals. I expect the Federal Reserve to rectify this situation quickly.”

This isn't just a war on Christmas anymore. It's a war against Jesus. These bureaucrats want to mandate atheism not only in the public square, but the private one too. The Founding Fathers are turning in their graves at 50 RPMs. Our the government was set up in part to promote, but not establish, Christianity - the true religion. After all, the pilgrims sailed here for that very reason, no? It's worthy to note that Thomas Jefferson himself made federal money available for the building of churches and the printing of Bibles. By the way, where do our unalienable rights originate from exactly? We need only look at history:

"

Blame big government for your dirty dishes

from Beltway Confidential by Mark Hemingway


Blame big government for your dirty dishes: "It was not heavily advertised, but earlier this year dishwashing detergent makers reworked their formulas to comply with environmental regulations banning phosphates. NPR reports that consumers are starting to get very frustrated:


Sue Wright from Austin, Texas, says for months her cups and glasses have been coming out of her...

"

Backdoor Regulation Harming Consumers…Again!

from - Big Government by Lawrence Meyers


Backdoor Regulation Harming Consumers…Again!: "

Folks in need of cash often depend on a federal tax refund to help them through a tough time. Prior to this year, they might go to a tax preparer like H&R Block to get their returns completed. Since it might take several weeks to get a refund, H&R Block and many other tax preparation services would offer the client a loan against their federal tax refund. A bank would fund that loan, because the bank would have the refund signed over to it, and IRS refunds are guaranteed by the Federal Government.

But now, President Obama’s Nanny State is quashing these loans, forcing those folks into more expensive options.

Refund Anticipation Loans (RALs) have APR’s of around 100%, meaning that a $2,000 refund might cost the client $100 while waiting three weeks or so for their refund. Nanny Statists and ignorant consumer activist groups like the Consumer Federation of America decide that’s just too much to pay for a loan.

Because, after all, they need to decide for us.

Normally, when the tax return is finished, it is sent electronically to the IRS, which gives it a quick once-over to verify income, dependents, exemptions, and other basic facts. Then the IRS would provide a “debt indicator”, which would indicate to the prospective lending bank whether the client had outstanding back taxes due or other liens. If so, the bank would know not to make the loan. If the debt indicator were clear, then it electronically approves the return for a loan. The bank, knowing there is no risk, makes the loan.

However, the IRS will not provide the debt indicator this year.

Why? It’s what we call “backdoor regulation”.

No legislation is necessary.

No voting by the public is necessary.

The Obama Administration just does it because it can. Last I heard, this is more akin to a dictatorship than a democracy. Especially since nobody asked the IRS to “protect” the consumer.

Now, with a credit option removed, those in need of a loan will have to try other options. Guess what? All of those options are more expensive.

When — WHEN — will government learn the most basic economic principle of supply and demand? If you remove supply, demand does not vanish. Instead, people are forced into more expensive options. Honestly, did they forget about Prohibition?

Meanwhile, by removing this source of income for tax preparers, what do you think those businesses do? Do you think they hire more people since revenues are getting cut? Or do you think they cut staff?

"

Holiday Terror Warning Cites Car Bombs and Small Arms Attack

from American Power by Donald Douglas


Holiday Terror Warning Cites Car Bombs and Small Arms Attack: "At ABC News, 'Authorities Worry About Christmas Attack For 'Psychological Impact'.'

The news has been buzzing a bit about holiday travel threats. It's serious, but the car bombing angle is especially interesting. My bet is that we'll indeed see 'Mumbai-style' attacks in the U.S. at some point. The national security focus remains overwhelmingly on air travel, and the jihadi extremists will simply develop new approaches:

Federal law enforcement terror bulletins have become as much a part of the holiday season in the past decade as egg nog and department store Santas.

But this year, which ends amid a heightened concern over terror, is a little different. A Department of Homeland Security bulletin sent to law enforcement nationwide Thursday says that federal authorities worry terrorists will try to rattle Americans by attacking during the holidays, and lists concerns including car bombs, trucks ramming crowds and a Mumbai-style small arms attack.

'We are concerned these terrorists may seek to exploit the likely significant psychological impact of an attack targeting mass gatherings in large metropolitan areas during the 2010 holiday season, which has symbolic importance to many in the United States,' The 'Security Awareness for the Holiday Season' bulletin states.

The bulletin cites no specific threats for Christmas and New Year's, but makes clear that this year's enhanced concern is based on a persistent, evolving threat. The past 12 months brought multiple attempted attacks on U.S. targets, including the attempted Christmas Day underwear bombing of Northwest 253, Faisal Shahzad's failed Times Square car bomb, the 'printer bomb' cargo plane plot and a number of alleged would-be bombers caught in stings in Oregon and elsewhere.

"

TSA under fire after Muslim businessman boards flight with loaded handgun

from Atlas Shrugs by Pamela Geller


TSA under fire after Muslim businessman boards flight with loaded handgun: "

So, check this out. Enroute to DC this week, TSA pulls me aside, takes my carry-on bag apart and keeps my phone. I didn't realize it until I landed. They are getting it back to me, but that's not the point.

Americans continue to get harrassed and punished so as to insure that the jihadists are not offended or perceive that they are specifically targeted. Do not target jihadists. Nuns, that's cool. Muslims, no way. You know, more of that imaginary Muslim backlash to whip the infidels into submission with.

TSA should be disbanded. Another huge government agency with all fiscal consquences. Enough. They are out of control. Obama's civilian army. Take security private -- private does everything better.

TSA under fire after Iranian-American businessman boards flight with loaded handgun Jihadwatch (hat tip Armaros)

Accidentally, of course. You know, I forget where I put my loaded handgun all the time. And it's just a coincidence that Farid Seif is Iranian, and that there are numerous reports of dry run-type activity in airports and on airplanes. This could just as well have happened to Mr. Smith. "TSA under fire after businessman boards international flight with loaded handgun," from the Daily Mail, December 17:

The effectiveness of security at U.S. ports is being questioned after a businessman accidentally travelled on a flight with a loaded handgun in his luggage.

Iranian-American Farid Seif was screened by Trasport [sic] Security Administration officials at Houston airport in Texas. His hand luggage was also X-rayed before he took off on his international flight.

It wasn't until Mr Seif arrived at his hotel several hours later that he realised that he had forgotten to unpack a loaded snub nose Glock pistol from his luggage before he embarked on his journey.

'It's just impossible to miss it, you know. I mean, this is not a small gun,' Mr Seif told ABC News.

'How can you miss it? You cannot miss it.'...

"

Royal Flush: Obamas Snubbed, Not invited to Prince William's wedding

from Atlas Shrugs by Pamela Geller


Royal Flush: Obamas Snubbed, Not invited to Prince William's wedding: "

They didn't invite Obama; perhaps the Winston Churchill bust that Obama rejected and returned to England will be go in his stead. And the wedding party can dance to the ipod Bam gave to the Queen -- do they dance to O-speeches in the muthuhland? Just askin .............

Reagan and Thatcher are spinning in their graves.

Alienate our closest ally. Way to go, O.

His failures mount, foreign and domestic.

Obamas not wanted at Royal Wedding Daily Mail (hat tip Blum)

• American President left off the guest list as it is not a 'state occasion'


• Royal couple eager to ask ordinary citizens to attend rather than VIPs
  


• Heads of State who may attend include Nicolas Sarkozy and wife Carla Bruni

President Obama and his wife Michelle will not be invited to Prince William's wedding next year.

Because Prince William is not yet heir to the throne, his wedding to Kate Middleton is not classed as a ‘state occasion’ – and the couple feel under no pressure to fill the 2,000-strong guest list with heads of state, the Mail understands.

They are more eager to ask ordinary citizens and charity workers than foreign dignitaries and VIPs to what will be the first royal ‘people’s wedding’, courtiers suggested.

A handful of heads of state are likely to be invited in line with previous royal weddings, possibly including France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy and his wife Carla Bruni.

Uninvited: Royal sources have revealed that President Obama and his wife Michelle are not going to be invited to the Royal wedding as it is not classed as a state occasion

But the decision to exclude the American premier and his wife Michelle from the celebrations marks a break from tradition.

Prince Charles and Princess Diana invited then-American president Ronald Reagan and his wife Nancy to their 1981 ceremony – though she came alone because the president was too ill to travel following an assassination attempt on him.

A senior courtier said: ‘It is certainly not the case that all foreign heads of state will be excluded. The guest list is still being drawn up and could change, but as things stand it’s right (to say Mr Obama will not be invited).’

A St James’s Palace spokesman said: ‘The wedding will not be a formal state occasion since Prince William is neither the sovereign nor the heir to the throne.’

The decision is an example of William’s single-minded desire to hold the first ever ‘people’s wedding’ by packing the pews with members of the public who have worked with his 21 charities.

'The People's wedding': William and Kate's courtiers have said they are more keen to invite volunteers and charity workers than VIPs to their wedding at Westminster Abbey on April 29

And as William and Kate continue to thrash out the plans for Westminster Abbey on April 29, they are understood to be looking towards the Queen and Prince Philip’s austere 1947 nuptials as a template.

With a post-war Government facing huge cuts, the then Chancellor Hugh Dalton said only the decorations in Whitehall and outside the palace could be funded by the taxpayer.

And the Archbishop of York compared the wedding to that of a commoner ‘married this afternoon in some small country church’.

Conscious of the credit crunch and rising unemployment rates, William has vowed to have a wedding that is not as ‘ostentatious’ as his parents’ St Paul’s Cathedral ceremony, with 3,500 guests.

But the couple still want to encourage a ‘street party’ atmosphere to sweep the country – and Kate’s dress is expected to cost considerably more than Princess Elizabeth’s £1,200 gown, partly paid for with 300 rationing coupons.

A royal aide said: ‘It will be done properly and well, but not in an ostentatious and lavish manner. This time is more analogous with 1947. In 1981 a lot more people were invited to the wedding. The route to St Paul’s was also longer than it is to the Abbey. It was undeniably a bigger wedding.’

Nancy Reagan attended the wedding of Prince Charles and Diana in her husband's absence in 1981 and also received an invite to Prince Andrew's 1986 wedding to Sarah Ferguson - despite that not being a state occasion

A St James’s Palace spokesman said: ‘The couple will be drawing on inspiration from elements of the 1947 and 1981 weddings – there are obvious similarities to both. They want to strike the right balance between intimacy and providing an occasion that can be enjoyed by everyone.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339315/President-Obama-snubbed-sources-reveal-invited-Prince-Williams-wedding.html#ixzz18PJY5HjB

Huge thanks to the Royals for saving the beleaugred American taxpayer untold millions in Obama travel and entourage costs, not to mention all those teleprompters. I heard they get their own plane. Like the press :)

"

Obama's War on Non-Muslim Religions: Feds Force Oklahoma Bank To Remove Crosses, Bible Verse

from Atlas Shrugs by Pamela Geller


Obama's War on Non-Muslim Religions: Feds Force Oklahoma Bank To Remove Crosses, Bible Verse: "

A small, private bank in Oklahoma has been forced by Federal reserve officials to remove Bible verses and crosses from its Christmas displays as well as the verse which has long served as the bank's motto because the scripture references might offend Muslims and Jews.

How dare they throw the Jews in there. Total lie. The Jews have never complained - and they Jews have lived and thrived in America for centuries. They have no right to use the Jews (victims of over a millinium of Islamic antisemitism) to advance Islamic supremacism. There is a Jewish star on the back of the dollar bill. A proud Jew helped to finance the American revolution. Haym Solomon (or Salomon) (1740 – January 6, 1785) was a Polish Jew who immigrated to New York during the period of the American Revolution, and who became a prime financier of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War against Great Britain.

American has enjoyed centuries of Judeo-Christian harmony. This war on Christianity has nothing to do with the Jews and everything to do with the left's hatred of certain religions and their abject submission to Islamic supremacism.

This is a ridiculous violation of the bank's right to free speech. If you don't like their motto or decorations, take your business elsewhere. I am offended by the Sharia compliant finance which is endorsed by the FDIC and which supports jihad while prohibiting investment in whole American business sectors.

Sharia finance is a violation of seperation of mosque and state. Sharia compliant finance is endorsed by the FDIC. We must all complain and have all inferences to Islamic law removed from Sharia fiannce which is impossible because the the whole concept is based on Islamic law. It is a total double standard. Why we are submitting to Islamic supremacism?

Feds Force Okla. Bank To Remove Crosses, Bible Verse KOCO hat tip Daniell B

Federal Examiners Say Religious Decoration Inappropriate

PERKINS, Okla. -- A small-town bank in Oklahoma said the Federal Reserve won’t let it keep religious signs and symbols on display.

Federal Reserve examiners come every four years to make sure banks are complying with a long list of regulations. The examiners came to Perkins last week. And the team from Kansas City deemed a Bible verse of the day, crosses on the teller’s counter and buttons that say "Merry Christmas, God With Us." were inappropriate. The Bible verse of the day on the bank's Internet site also had to be taken down.“I don’t think there should be a problem with them displaying whatever religious symbols they want to display,” said Amy Weierman, a Perkins resident.

Specifically, the feds believed, the symbols violated the discouragement clause of Regulation B of the bank regulations. According to the clause, "...the use of words, symbols, models and other forms of communication ... express, imply or suggest a discriminatory preference or policy of exclusion."The feds interpret that to mean, for example, a Jew or Muslim or atheist may be offended and believe they may be discriminated against at this bank. It is an appearance of discrimination.But customers Eyewitness News 5 talked to said they aren’t buying it.“This is just ridiculous,” said bank customer Jim Nyles. “This whole thing is just ridiculous. We all have regulatory bodies that govern us. But this is too much.”“I think that’s absurd,” said Chelsi Holser, a bank customer. “I don’t agree with it at all. They are taking Christ out of Christmas and life.”The bank is quietly fighting for a clearer interpretation of the clause. Officials have contacted their two U.S. legislators, Rep. Frank Lucas and Sen. Jim Inhofe, and the Oklahoma Bankers Association to help.

"

New Data Counters Half-Baked Claims of Food Safety Crisis

from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. by Diane Katz


New Data Counters Half-Baked Claims of Food Safety Crisis: "

The incidence rate of food-borne illness in the United States is dramatically lower than previously estimated, according to findings reported Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The new data thoroughly refute the misleading claims of alarmists advocating for vastly expanding federal regulation of the food supply.

According to the new research published in the current edition of the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, some 16 percent of Americans experience some form of food-borne illness annually—compared to the previous estimate of 25 percent. Best of all, the new analysis has lowered the number of deaths related to food-borne illness from 5,000 a year to 3,000 annually—a difference of 40 percent.

The previous figures cited by the CDC originated from estimates compiled in 1999. The new figures, employing data from 2000 to 2008 and better statistical methods, represent “the most accurate picture yet” of food-borne illness, agency officials said.

All of which is very good news for us all. It also is particularly useful to counter the misinformation enveloping pending legislation that would grant the Food and Drug Administration control over virtually all aspects of food production, from farm to table.

The most recent incarnation of the food regulation measure has cleared the House. Its fate in the Senate is shaky, however. It had been tucked within the 1,924-page, $1.27 trillion omnibus spending bill, but that’s been abandoned by Senate leadership. Whether it is taken up in another form before Congress recesses remains to be seen.

Proponents contend that the costly regulatory scheme is based on “science.” But as the new CDC figures indicate, there’s nothing scientific about the presumption that regulatory action is needed to stem a supposed food safety crisis. In reality, beefing up the FDA’s powers would increase the size of government, increase paperwork and red tape, and increase food costs. But it wouldn’t increase food safety.

?

"

Guest Blogger: White House Should Not Duck Its Responsibility to Shield the United States

from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. by Scott Erickson


Guest Blogger: White House Should Not Duck Its Responsibility to Shield the United States: "

“Duck and Cover” has been replaced by its 21st-century incarnation: “Shield Yourself.” This no doubt marks the zenith of the Obama Administration’s nuclear preparedness plan (sarcasm intended), as outlined in a recent government report detailing the methods for increasing survivability rates in the case of a nuclear blast.

Unfortunately, such trivialities belie the dangerous path upon which America inexorably moves, one marked by unpredictable adversaries whose nuclear ambitions outpace America’s defensive maneuvers.

Instead of stating the obvious, such as staying indoors in the event of a nuclear explosion, the Obama Administration would be well served to adopt a more literal, macro interpretation of their new slogan. Instead of abandoning much of the progress made in missile defense during the Bush Administration, President Obama should readopt a posture of aggressive missile defense deployment.

To be certain, the President’s pending treaty known as New START, currently awaiting Senate deliberation and approval, undermines America’s missile defense capabilities by restricting its implementation. It further allows for the maintenance of a disproportionate Russian advantage in tactical nuclear arms. As cited by the Heritage Foundation, “The Russian advantage poses a significant challenge for the U.S. in maintaining a credible extended deterrence policy for the benefit of its allies.”

President Obama should demand full funding for missile defense objectives and endeavor to provide the continental United States with blanket coverage against nuclear attacks from rogue regimes. Our missile defense objectives should also extend to our friends and allies throughout the world and provide robust coverage in the event that a nuclear-armed adversary makes use of weapons of mass destruction.

Tensions in the Yellow Sea and instability throughout the Middle East foster an international environment that increasingly threatens U.S. interests both at home and abroad. The Obama Administration can do far more in protecting the American homeland by decisively taking proactive steps to increasing our defensive capabilities, not undermining our national security efforts through rhetorical hokum.

The views expressed by guest bloggers on the Foundry do not necessarily reflect the views of the Heritage Foundation.

Scott Erickson has worked in the field of law enforcement for the past decade and holds both his B.S. and M.S. in Criminal Justice Studies. He is a contributor to The Daily Caller and writes on myriad political, national security, and counterterrorism issues. His blog can be found at www.scottgerickson.com.

"