Politically-Incorrect.net

The Al Sharpton Challenge

flyboy — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 20:58:36 +0000

Dear Al:

I was listening to some of the rhetoric surrounding the tragic shooting of Treyvon Martin. Much debate has related to Mr. Martin’s ensemble, which some say is emblematic of certain gangs or criminals.

While a case may certainly be made to support such suspicions (remember Jessie Jackson 03/10/1996) I was thinking of how wrong that would be, to judge a person solely on the basis of their attire. Similarly, it would be inappropriate to judge a person solely on the basis of their affiliations with groups such as ACLU (think Sean Hannity).

So Al, I’ll make a deal with you … I’ll concede that not everyone in a hoodie is a criminal, if you acknowledge that not everyone that flies a Confederate Flag is a bigot!

I am proud to be a non-hyphenated, God Fearing, patriotic American!

President Obama is Israel’s worst frenemy

rightwing1 — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 19:44:27 +0000

Woe is me. President Obama claims he is the best friend Israel ever had in the White House, yet doesn’t get any respect. This is no Rodney Dangerfield act. He is deadly serious.

“Every single commitment I have made to the state of Israel and its security, I have kept,” he told The Atlantic magazine. “Why is it that despite me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that they’ve had over the last three years, that there are still questions about that?”

The question deserves an honest answer, though the truth is not likely to cut through the fog of presidential self-pity. A man who compares himself to Lincoln, Gandhi, King, Mandela and FDR isn’t the sort to welcome disagreement.

Obama: There should be no doubt the US has Israel’s back

And that is the heart of his problem. Obama is certain he knows what’s good for Israel. Given his record and the Iranian threat, it’s an impossible sell.

He came into office thinking Israel was the obstacle to Middle East peace; three years later, his policies are producing more signs of war than peace. The Palestinians won’t negotiate for their own state because the president foolishly urged them to make a ban on Israeli settlements a precondition.

He was wrong from the git-go, and still is. But facts don’t stand a chance. As a Democrat who speaks to Obama about the Mideast told me, he has a “stubborn worldview.”

How stubborn will be revealed today and tomorrow during crucial meetings with Israeli leaders. The Iranian march to nukes will top the agenda, but Obama’s view on Iran is typical of how he sees the region and his role in it.

Stripped of nuance, the gist is that Israel and America are oppressors and Muslims are oppressed. He remains obsessed with the idea that all will be well if only we prove to Muslims that we’re not bigots.

The latest example is his apology to Afghans after our soldiers mistakenly burned the Koran. Six soldiers have been murdered in subsequent riots, yet he insists those involved in the burning face military charges.

His approach to Iran is similarly misguided. Despite its thugocracy, he refuses to accept that his policy of engagement has failed. The White House even says it sees Iran as a “rational actor,” and Obama told The Atlantic that military action against Iran could work to its advantage.

“At a time when there is not a lot of sympathy for Iran and its only real ally [Syria] is on the ropes, do we want a distraction in which suddenly Iran can portray itself as a victim?” he asked.

Huh?

This is Obama at his faculty-lounge worst. Trapped by his own prejudices and misreading of history and culture, he continues to suggest that Iran is open to persuasion if he can find the right words. It’s not. It’s an evil regime that tortures its people, kills American soldiers, sponsors terrorism and wants a nuclear bomb to use against Israel and to dominate Arab countries.

A friend who recently met with top Israeli officials says the bottom line they will explain to Obama is that there are two things no Israeli government can ever do. First, it cannot allow a mortal enemy to get a weapon of mass destruction or the ability to make one. Second, it cannot entrust its survival to a third party, including the United States.

The policy that flows from those principles is obvious. Israel will attack when it feels Iran is close to getting the bomb. And Israel is more likely to reach that conclusion sooner because it doesn’t trust Obama’s resolve or time line.

For his part, Obama will have to search someplace else for respect. Israel is too busy trying to survive.

Michael Goodwin is a Fox News contributor and New York Post columnist.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/05/president-obama-is-israels-worst-frenemy/#ixzz1oMqFf1y9

Message From a 21 Year Old Female

rightwing1 — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:02:15 +0000

This was written by a 21 year old female who gets it. It’s her future she’s worried about and this is how she feels about the social welfare big government state that she’s being forced to live in! These solutions are just common sense in her opinion.

This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco, TX, Nov 18, 2011

PUT ME IN CHARGE . . .

Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations. Then, we’ll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks?

You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your “home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good..”

Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self- esteem,” consider that it wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self-esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

AND While you are on Gov’t subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov’t welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.

Kim Jung Uno

rightwing1 — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 21:22:39 +0000

I am really concerned about North Korea’s appointment of the “dear leader”, Kim Jung Ill’s youngest son to be the new leader of North Korea– a nuclear power! After all, Kim Jung Un (pronounced Kim’s young-un?) had NO military experience whatsoever before daddy made him a four-star general in the military. This is a snot-nose twerp who has never accomplished anything in his life that that would even come close to military leadership: he hasn’t even so much as led a cub scout troop, let alone coached a sports team or commanded a military platoon. So, setting that aside, next they make him the “beloved leader” of the country. Terrific!!!

Oh, crap! I’m sorry. I just remembered that we did the same thing here, We took a community organizer who has never worn a uniform and made him Commander-in-Chief; a guy who has never led anything more than an ACORN demonstration and made him the leader of this country. Never mind.

T’was The Month Before Christmas

rightwing1 — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:03:10 +0000

Twas the month before Christmas
When all through our land,
Not a Christian was praying
Nor taking a stand.

See the PC Police had taken away
The reason for Christmas – no one could say.

The children were told by their schools not to sing
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.
It might hurt people’s feelings, the teachers would say
December 25th is just a ‘ Holiday ‘.

Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit
Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!
CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-Pod
Something was changing, something quite odd!

Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa
In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.
As Targets were hanging their trees upside down
At Lowe’s the word Christmas – was nowhere to be found.

At K-Mart and Staples and Penny’s and Sears
You won’t hear the word Christmas;
it won’t touch your ears.

Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty
Are words that were used to intimidate me.

Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen
On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton !
At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter
To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.

And we spoke not a word,
as they took away our faith
Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace

The true Gift of Christmas
was exchanged and discarded
The reason for the season,
stopped before it started.

So as you celebrate ‘Winter Break’ under your ‘Dream Tree’
Sipping your Starbucks, please listen to me.
Choose your words carefully,
choose what you say
Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS ,
not Happy Holiday !

Please, all Christians join together and wish everyone you meet MERRY CHRISTMAS !! Christ is The Reason’ for the Christ-mas Season!

Wall Street iMoochers

rightwing1 — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:39:51 +0000

Contrary to popular belief, many of my generation’s protesters didn’t know why they were protesting in the 60’s either. At least some thought they were protesting the war in Viet Nam, although that was only one aspect of a much larger picture. It was more about the largest demographic in the nation coming of age and flexing its new found political and social muscle to influence any kind of change. It was about pushing the envelope. Pushing the status quo.

LIBTARDS OF THE WEEK – THE UNWASHED WALL STREET IMOOCHER PROTESTERS, THIS ONE NAILS IT!

Thursday, October 17, 2011 The Circus Maximus of Useless Waste-oids is in full force on Wall Street. The Soros engineered, made-for-MSM tv event has recently gained strength by the called-up labor union thugs. The union thugs have plenty of time on their hands since their “leaders” have killed the goose that laid the golden egg that was once called US manufacturing. Now, the formerly overpaid wrench-turners can rub shoulders with Generation iMoocher idjits armed with iPhones, iPads and iPods from the iBank Accounts of their iParents. What an insult all these iMoochers are to Steve Jobs! He was a man of genius and production who worked and sacrificed to create products that made life more efficient and enjoyable.

This protest has created an unholy alliance of the unemployed union laborers that once worked for exorbitant, unsustainable wages and the Gen X moochers who are more than willing to do nothing in return for exorbitant, unsustainable welfare. Only in what was once America! What is laughable is none of the protesters really know what they’re protesting. They know it has to do with corporations, or banks, or the rich….or something….or somebody. That these unemployed, college graduates would join in cries to take wealth from the rich with a whale-like movie producer with a net worth of $50 million just adds to the entertainment!

This is a parade of life’s losers. Not the pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps types of Americans who built wealth rather than expecting it.

These are the results of years of destruction of traditional American values. These kids grew up playing soccer where no team was allowed to lose, else someone’s feelings may be hurt. They were schooled on leftist doctrine that told them America was evil and corrupt. They were not allowed to fail or, again, their wittle self-esteems may be damaged. They were given cars, fine clothes, fancy electronics, etc. because their parents wanted them to have everything they didn’t have growing up. They went to expensive colleges and selected majors such as poetry and African-American Studies that have zero value in the real world. Now that they realize they are worthless bands of pathetic parasites, their only recourse is to steal more money from the dwindling producers in America.

These douche bag losers call themselves the 99%. They’re more like the 48% of Americans who have received some sort of government (i.e. taxpayer) benefits in the first quarter of 2010. While not 99%, they are still a significant percentage.

Who would ever thought that half of America would become moochers on the other half? The unwashed, middle-class, socialist brats who blocked the Brooklyn Bridge the other day certainly have no problem with the concept. They didn’t block themselves. They have nowhere to be. They blocked the working producers on their way home from work to care for their families. You know, responsibility. The welfare moochers blocked those who pay their welfare benefits! A simple “thank you” might have sufficed.

Give Who a Break?

rightwing1 — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:57:21 +0000

Did you read that commie bitch Kathleen Parker last week? She referred to Rick Perry as “George W. Perry” … She was cancelled on an MSNBC (or was it CNN, or who cares?) show with Elliot Spitzer … What does that tell ya?

Why is Fox News beating the crap out of CNN and MSNBC? Simple – It’s because the illiterate morons that elected obama watch Captain Kangaroo in their pajamas all day, eating Coco Puffs and Fruit Loops … They don’t watch news and do not even know what the issues of any campaign are. During Howard Stern’s 2009 street interviews, obama supporters claimed to support him in part because Sarah Palin was his running mate. Ah, don’t get me started …

It’s the Economy Stupid

rightwing1 — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 19:53:40 +0000

So, Obama and his left wing chorus want to blame the Tea Party for trying to inject an ounce of fiscal responsibility into the madness that he refers to as the budget deal.

Someone had to do it. Tea Party or the Whig Party, at some point, someone has to take a stand and start trying to reel in this leviathan of the sea.

White House Insider: Obama Hesitated – Panetta Issued Order to Kill Osama Bin Laden

rightwing1 — Fri, 06 May 2011 14:09:25 +0000

“What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound.”

Note: This update came some 24 hours after our longtime Washington D.C. Insider first outlined shocking details of an Obama administration having been “overruled” by senior military and intelligence officials leading up to the successful attack against terrorist Osama Bin Laden. What follows is further clarification of Insider’s insights surrounding that event.
_______

Q: You stated that President Obama was “overruled” by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound. Was that accurate?

A: I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.” There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president.

I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama. Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position. This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton. She was livid over the president’s failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such. As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts. One, that the military action could fail and harm the president’s already weakened standing with both the American public and the world. Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East.

Q: What changed the president’s position and enabled the attack against Osama Bin Laden to proceed?

A: Nothing changed with the president’s opinion – he continued to avoid having one. Every time military and intelligence officials appeared to make progress in forming a position, Jarrett would intervene and the stalling would begin again. Hillary started the ball really rolling as far as pressuring Obama began, but it was Panetta and Petraeus who ultimately pushed Obama to finally act – sort of. Panetta was receiving significant reports from both his direct CIA sources, as well as Petraeus-originating Intel. Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack. Panetta reported back to the president that a bombing of the compound would result in successful killing of Osama Bin Laden, and little risk to American lives. Initially, as he had done before, the president indicated a willingness to act. But once again, Jarrett intervened, convincing the president that innocent Pakistani lives could be lost in such a bombing attack, and Obama would be left attempting to explain Panetta’s failed policy. Again Obama hesitated – this time openly delaying further meetings to discuss the issue with Panetta. A brief meeting was held at this time with other officials, including Secretary Gates and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but Gates, like Panetta, was unable to push the president to act. It was at this time that Gates indicated to certain Pentagon officials that he may resign earlier than originally indicated – he was that frustrated. Both Panetta and Clinton convinced him to stay on and see the operation through.

What happened from there is what was described by me as a “masterful manipulation” by Leon Panetta. Panetta indicated to Obama that leaks regarding knowledge of Osama Bin Laden’s location were certain to get out sooner rather than later, and action must be taken by the administration or the public backlash to the president’s inaction would be “…significant to the point of political debilitation.” It was at that time that Obama stated an on-ground campaign would be far more acceptable to him than a bombing raid. This was intended as a stalling tactic, and it had originated from Jarrett. Such a campaign would take both time, and present a far greater risk of failure.

The president had been instructed by Jarrett to inform Mr., Panetta that he would have sole discretion to act against the Osama Bin Laden compound. Jarrett believed this would further delay Panetta from acting, as the responsibility for failure would then fall almost entirely on him. What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound. Basically, the whole damn operation was already ready to go – including the specific team support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being given notice. Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault. This information reached either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates first (likely via military contacts directly associated with the impending mission) who then informed the other. Those two then met with Panetta, who informed each of them he had been given the authority by the president to proceed with a mission if the opportunity presented itself. Both Gates and Clinton warned Panetta of the implications of that authority – namely he was possibly being made into a scapegoat.

Panetta admitted that possibility, but felt the opportunity to get Bin Laden outweighed that risk. During that meeting, Hillary Clinton was first to pledge her full support for Panetta, indicating she would defend him if necessary. Similar support was then followed by Gates. The following day, and with Panetta’s permission, Clinton met in private with Bill Daley and urged him to get the president’s full and open approval of the Panetta plan. Daley agreed such approval would be of great benefit to the action, and instructed Clinton to delay proceeding until he had secured that approval. Daley contacted Clinton within hours of their meeting indicating Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval. Daley then informed Clinton that he too would fully support Panetta in his actions, even if it meant disclosing the president’s indecision to the American public should that action fail to produce a successful conclusion. Clinton took that message back to Panetta and the CIA director initiated the 48 hour engagement order. At this point, the President of the United States was not informed of the engagement order – it did not originate from him, and for several hours after the order had been given and the special ops forces were preparing for action into Pakistan from their position in Afghanistan, Daley successfully kept Obama and Jarrett insulated from that order.

All You Need To Know About Bank Balance-Sheet Fraud

Ratchet — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:46:47 +0000

All You Need To Know About Bank Balance-Sheet Fraud

The Market Ticker <http://market-ticker.denninger.net/>
Posted by Karl Denninger

<http://market-ticker.denninger.net/authors/2-Karl-Denninger>

I am constantly amused by those people who claim there is some vast “conspiracy” in this country when it comes to banks, balance sheets, and fraudulent lending and accounting. There is no conspiracy.

It is, in fact, “in your face” fraud.

The FDIC does us the courtesy of explaining it virtually every Friday night, right on their web page. <http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2010/index.html>I am simply going to take last night’s bank closures, which numbered four. One of them has no “deposit insurance fund” estimated loss available, because they didn’t find someone to take the assets – they’re just mailing checks. But the other three do.Waterford Bank, Germantown MD <http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2010/pr10045.html> : $155.6 million in assets, $156.4 in insured deposits. They were “underwater” by $800,000, right? Wrong: Estimated loss, $51 million. That is, the assets of $155.6 million were overvalued by approximately 30% at the time of seizure.Bank of Illinois, Normal IL <http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2010/pr10044.html> : $211.7 million in assets, $198.5 million in deposits. They were “underwater” by $13.2 million (which is why they were seized), right? Wrong: Estimated loss $53.7 million. That is, the the assets of $211.7 million were overvalued by more than 25% at the time of seizure.Sun American Bank, Boca Raton FL <

http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2010/pr10043.html> : $535.7 million in assets (so they claimed anyway), $443.5 million in total deposits. Heh, why did you seize them – they have more assets than liabilities? Oh wait: Estimated loss: $103.8 million, so the actual assets are worth $443.5 – $103.8, or $339.7 million. That is, the assets of $535.7 million were overvalued by a whopping 37% at the time of seizure.This isn’t new, by the way. In August of 2009 <http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1352-We-Need-RTC-II-NOW.html> I went through Colonial Bank’s failure based on BB&T’s presentation to its shareholders on the “merger” – and gift it was given by the FDIC. It too showed that Colonial had been carrying assets on their books at a ridiculous 37% above where BB&T ultimately marked them as a whole.
Folks, your bank is being assessed deposit insurance premiums to pay for these losses. You are paying these losses through increased fees and interest expense on your credit cards and all other manner of borrowing.You are paying for outrageous, pernicious and endemic balance sheet fraud.
There is no conspiracy. It is right under your nose. One of these three banks, based on their balance sheet, wasn’t even underwater – it was “to the good” by nearly $100 million dollars.The balance sheet was a flat, bald-faced lie.
You want to sit for this?
Why should you?
Now let’s ask the inconvenient question:

Are the big banks – specifically, Citibank, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and JP Morgan – all similarly overvaluing their assets?
Why should we believe they are not? You can go through more than a year’s worth of FDIC bank seizure information and in essentially every single case you will find that overvaluations of somewhere from 20-50% have in fact occurred, yet not one indictment for book-cooking has issued.
So let’s be generous and assume that the “big banks” are over-valuing their assets by 25% – the lower end of the range of what the FDIC says is, through actual experience, what’s going on, and add it all up.
Bank of America <http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=6877358-19747-27030&type=sect&dcn=0001193125-09-227720> shows $2.25 trillion in assets.
Citibank <http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=6877451-520470-529580&type=sect&dcn=0001047469-09-009754> shows $1.89 trillion in assets.
JP Morgan/Chase <http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=6879652-404464-409199&type=sect&dcn=0000950123-09-060099> shows $2.04 trillion in assets.
And Wells Fargo <http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=6443748-615551-618684&type=sect&dcn=0000950134-09-003967> shows $1.31 trillion in assets.
This totals $7.49 trillion smackers.The FDIC’s experience with seizing banks thus far suggests quite strongly that all four of these entities are lying about these valuations, and that were they to be seized the loss embedded in them (and for which you, the taxpayer would be responsible) is somewhere between $1.49 and $2.99 trillion dollars.Incidentally, neither the FDIC or Treasury happens to have either $1.49 or $2.99 trillion laying around, and it is highly questionable if they could raise it, should that become necessary.

Now of course neither you or I can prove this is correct. However, we can look at the FDIC’s own published bank closing statements, and derive from them a pattern stretching back more than a year now that has disclosed that in essentially each and every case the banks in question have overvalued their assets by anywhere from 20-40%, and that as of the day of the seizure such an overvaluation was in fact a continuing and ongoing practice.

Back in the beginning of 2009 we had people argue that “mark to market” was invalid – that in fact the market-based pricing losses that were being claimed were ridiculous and would never happen. One of the claimants was the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle, which said that the $300 million in mark-to-market losses would not actually happen – that the real loss was only going to be $12 million dollars.

FHLB Seattle recently filed suit <http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/2005-Clap-Clap-Weil-and-The-Mark-To-Market-Scam.html> against the bundlers of this trash, claiming, surprise-surprise, that the real loss is not $12 million, not $300 million, but $311 million – on that bundle of trash alone. In all they are seeking $2 billion in damages.We have now learned, a year into this “experiment” with mark-to-model promulgated at gunpoint by Congress that:
The banks indeed have been lying about asset valuation and the proof comes in the form of the FDIC seizures, which in essentially case have documented massive and outrageous overvaluation of assets on bank balance sheets.The claimed “mark to model” losses, which were tiny compared to the market-price losses, were in fact fictions, to the point that the poster child of the “mark to model” argument is now suing the purveyors of the instruments supposedly not to be marked to the market for losses that exceed what the market-based loss was back in March of 2009.

If you wish to argue that the economy and banking system are recovering their health, you must deal with this. If indeed large bank balance sheets are concealing a deficiency of somewhere between $1.5 and $3 trillion in losses not only will the economy and lending environment not recover it can’t as the large banks all know the truth.

I believe this is why those very same banks are hoarding cash. I believe they know that at some point in the future – a point not under their control – the truth may come out and if it does an instantaneous run would occur – not just on their bank, but on all banks. Such an event could be defended against only with a huge cash hoard – a hoard that, if they lend out said cash, would not be available to them.

The Federal Reserve knows this too. I believe this is why there is nearly $1 trillion of “excess reserves” sitting at The Fed <http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/NFORBRES> , up from nearly zero prior to the crisis – it is these large banks’ “backstop” against a potential run should the truth of their balance sheets reach public conscience.The political and regulatory bottom line is simple: As I have repeatedly maintained for nearly three years, we now have the facts from our own government agencies, most particularly the FDIC: The banks have been and still are cooking their books in a manner that intentionally overstates their asset valuations – an act that is exactly identical to that which brought down ENRON.