Bank of America: To Credit or not to Credit?
Published on March 7, 2007 by NewsByUs.Com
( http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=7427_0_1_75_M )

Recent revelations have brought to the forefront financial institutions, namely Bank of America Corp, among others, that have for some time now been implementing a banking policy which allows illegal aliens with no financial background nor the customary customer identification, such as a social security number, to attain checking accounts, and after a short probationary period, credit cards (NewsMax, Bank of America Offers, 2007). These banking policies have come under attack from illegal immigration opposition groups and there have been reports that legitimate Bank of America Corp customers may close their accounts as a sign of protest to what CNN’s Lou Dobbs called an “outrageous” credit card program (NewsMax, Bank of America Defends, 27, 2007). Border security advocate and potential presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo (R, Co) brings forth the most fundamental problem that irresponsible banking procedures create today. That is, potentially unrestricted money flow to a phantom population. Tancredo states, "After September 11th, we were told that money was the lifeblood of terrorists, and that we should do everything possible to block their access to financial resources," (NewsMax, Bank of America Defends, 25, 2007). Tancredo’s statement is prudent as it touches a component of the larger problem that has brought forth the rise in opposition to the actions of Bank of America. It would appear that with a minimal amount of logical application one can reasonably conclude that due to the nature of the war on terror, of which a component is the reality of potential terrorist cells within the country, to fail to identify people within our borders to which U.S. financial institutions are actively giving credit, is of a great danger to the country and shows an overabundance of bad judgment. However, for those of us that endorse the capitalistic free market system, we must investigate further before placing final judgment on financial institutions that simply incorporate unpopular if not unwise business decisions.

William Gheen, director of the National Illegal Immigration Boycott Coalition would touch upon the question that most fundamentally addresses the issue of how Bank of America Corp, and its equivalents should be handled. While lamenting his anger over the actions of Bank of America, actions which have sparked his group to collect over 11,000 petition signatures condemning their actions, Gheen in exasperation brings the most salient question to bear by saying, "What Bank of America is doing is illegal, or should be” (NewsMax, Bank of America Defends, 6, 2007). It is Gheen’s question to the legality of Bank of America’s banking procedures that I wish to address today. Is what the Bank of America doing illegal or simply a business choice that many within the country disagree with? To answer this question one has to go no further than section 326 of the Patriot Act. Section 326 of the Patriot Act obligates the Secretary of the Treasury to create and maintain uniform standards for all financial institutions which include banks, credit unions, security dealers, etc. The goal of section 326 is to deter illegal funds being transferred to terrorist organizations as well as to serve as a deterrent to many white collar crimes. Checking Accounts, credit card applications and altering existing credit card accounts fall under section 326 of the Patriot Act. Institutions now give notice of section 326 of the Patriot Act on all documents that pertain to these transactions.

All institutions are required to verify the identity of all patrons opening accounts as well as insure the maintenance and up keep of all records. Additionally, institutions are required to maintain the identity of patrons to a level that will allow identifications of those who may appear on any provided list of terrorist suspects or members of terrorist organizations (EPIC, 2001). The most common collected information by institutions includes name, date of birth, address, social security number, and drivers license (Merrimack, 2007). If patrons do not have a social security card, additional government documents are required and the patrons are then subjected to a higher level of scrutiny. Failure to seek, collect, and maintain identifying information on all customers by financial institutions is a violation of section 326 of the Patriot Act. In some financial institutions the mandates of section 326 are coined as the “Know Your Customer Rules”. Is there any question as to whether Bank of America really knows the customers that it gives credit to? I think the answer is that they definitely do not. It would appear that the opposition to the practices of Bank of America stated by Tancredo, Dobbs, and Gheen are not only morally and logically supported, but also legally valid.

Paul A. Ibbetson

References

Electronic Privacy Information Center [EPIC]. (2001). HR 3162 RDS: 107th Congress. Retrieved September 25, 2004, from http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

Merrimack Mortgage Company, Inc. (2007). USA Patriot Act of 2001,Section 326, Customer Identification and Disclosure. Retrieved October 6, 2006 from http://images.agentcenter.com/client/8/8/6/23688/Patriot_Act.pdf

NewsMax. (2007). Bank of America Offers Credit Cards to Illegals. Retrieved March 3, 2007, from http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/13/82621.shtml

NewsMax. (2007). Bank of America Defends Credit Cards for Illegals. Retrieved March 4, 2007, from http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/23/90226.shtml

Fish Stories: Changing the way we talk about the War on Terror
Published on August 25, 2006 by MichNews.com

I am a fisherman. I guess you could say that I was bitten by the “fishing bug” as a child and it never let go. If this has happened to you then you know that each year fishermen around the country get that special calling, almost like an internal instinct that kicks in, to break out the tackle and head to that special lake, pond, or river. For me, I’m called to the ponds of Kansas, locations which I will never disclose, where the bass are dark green, large, and feisty. I’m called to the water each year when the world starts turning green, you know, when the smell of cut grass hits your nose and the crickets and cicadas start playing their evening serenade. While my line seems to hit the water less and less each season, the undeniable yearly urge never diminishes.

One thing I learned early in my fishing career was the existence of the fish story. The fish story is created and continues to exist in any place where at least one lure is sold and two people meet. There are endless variations to the fish story but they often contain common elements which include the following: the perfect day, the perfect lure, the perfect placement, the perfect strike, the perfect fight, and the perfect landing of a lunker.

Let me say from the beginning that the fish story is not a lie, not exactly. The fish story is more accurately described as a glorified version of the truth. That is, there is most often not only an embellishment of the facts, but also an omission of certain details that make the story less appealing. For example, often it’s omitted that the perfect weather conditions for fishing only started after three hours of standing in the rain. The use of the perfect lure may exclude the fact that it was only tried after half the lures in the tackle box were on the bottom of the pond or permanent Christmas ornaments in the nearby trees. One of the worst things about the fish story is that it can never be repeated in practice; however, the sad thing is that we all try. Everybody wants the grand results as told in the fish story but we forget that we are following a very imperfect accounting of the facts. In the end, trying to emulate the fish story leaves most mosquito bitten, baitless, and angry.

There is obviously a world of difference between fishing and the war on terror; however, they both share one thing in common, an abundance of fish stories. These stories are created and reproduced by both the left and the right and all are counterproductive to the war effort. On the right, there is a tendency at times to avoid fully disclosing that the war on terror suffers from what all wars do, and that is an abundance of mistakes. More boots on the ground from the conflicts start probably would have been a better strategy. Not allowing the huge amount of post-conflict looting and infrastructure damage is but one more example of changes that would have probably been implemented if we could do things all over again. I’m not saying that there should be a daily self-chastising by the government but when the running account of the war purposely avoids the downsides to what is happening, you’re hearing a fish story.

While the right should be wary against creating fish stories, the left should be warned against demanding that the country live and conduct war in one. The left is notorious for demanding that every aspect of the war run within the perfect environment of the fish story or it’s time to get out! Meanwhile the actual fish story that the left constructs, and wishes the country follow is created not in an idyllic vision of how we win, but how we must inevitably lose. One of the fish stories that the left loves, which has to be seen as one of the “whoppers” surrounding the war on terror, are the various yarns that entail the line of thinking that if we just run from our enemies, they surely will not follow.


When we cut through the embellishments and the omissions, we are left with several facts that seem very different from the standard fish stories told by many on both the left and right. They include the following:

1. Mistakes have been, and will continue to be made in this war. To assume that a level of perfection will at some point be achieved is simply a fish story.
2. The U.S. military is a noble force that remains so even when a handful in the ranks falls from grace.
3. The war in Iraq is a worthy effort that serves the interest of American security as well as the furtherance of democracy.
4. It’s a war we can win or lose
5. For the war in Iraq to be successful, the Iraqis must step forward and defend their right to be free. We cannot do that for them.
6. Until the war on Iraq, and for that matter the war on terror is over, America will always be at its strongest when united in a common cause. Anyone who tells you that the caustic division over how to protect the nation is a positive thing is telling you the darkest of fish stories.

I sigh at times myself, along with a nation that is becoming war weary. It would be inaccurate to say that the country is weary of the need to secure the nation, but more weary of the loss of American soldiers that the television documents on a daily basis. Weary of a loss of normalcy that war brings to daily life. Most notably, Americans are weary of a lack of victory in this conflict. The concept of stalemates, deadlocks, and quagmires run completely counter to the American psyche. In short, America is a land of winners; anything short of victory is defeat. I feel that the U.S. is at a crossroads in the war on terror. We will either, reach down deep and get our second wind to continue what we started, or we will in fishing terms “cut bait”. I think that victory in Iraq is far too important for a wavering American resolve to be the factor that causes success in this highly volatile part of the world to be “the one that got away”. If Iraq is to become a free nation, a trophy on the mantle of democracy, it will be in part because the American people had the grit to weather the storms of doubt and despair that war always brings. The least any of us can do is speak the unvarnished truth about the challenge. The country would do well to have the fish stories end at the water’s edge.

Behind the Curtain: Revisiting Global Warming and the War on Terror
Published July 27, 2006 by the Canada Free Press

I recently wrote an article entitled Can Global Warming Cut Your Head Off, in which I looked at Al Gore’s apocalyptic theatrical release of An Inconvenient Truth. The focus of my article was to highlight the immediate dangers faced by the country from terrorism in contrast to the highly controversial and ever changing opinions on whether global warming exists, and if so, is it a man made phenomena? First, I would like to thank all the readers from around the world that read the article. The input I received was overwhelming in the form of both those who agreed with my assertions as well as the many that dug deep in their dictionaries for creative ways to show their disapproval. In the end, it seemed that a revisiting of the subject was necessary. Before I do that, let me forward some of the newest information on this catastrophe we call global warming. In a recent article, the following warnings are forwarded:

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production -- with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only ten years from now…The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it…

During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen a fraction of a degree—a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

My friends, while there is much more to this article, at this point I must admit to a little trickery. This article, full of scientific backing which also describes impending doom around the corner for the planet is real; however, it was written in Newsweek on April 28, 1975 by Peter Gwynne and entitled The Cooling World. Yes, this was one of many global scare stories that swept the nation in the 1970s about a fragile planet in crisis. If truth be told, I am sure that many reading the information in this article were shaking their heads in agreement until the point that the deception was made clear. Those readers may be a little upset now and I join them in this anger as no one likes to be tricked. That’s the point of this article. The difference between Al Gore and myself is that I will take you back stage behind the smoke and mirrors and show you how the tricks of the global warming trade are performed, tricks that are reported as the truth. Be prepared, because it is a different world behind the curtain. As well, I will address how Al Gore’s selective science on global warming has become a dangerous diversion from the clear and present danger the U.S. and world faces from international terrorism.

First, let me say that I am no more a scientist than Al Gore. I am a conservative thinker, and being so I am able to separate theory from reality and emotion from fact. This is a very important point as it’s often Al Gore’s undoing. For the ex vice-president, it would be nice, in theory, if the entire scientific community agreed with him that global warming were both human induced and catastrophic. It is such a nice thought, and coincidentally a great marketing tool, that he has adopted it as fact and he serves up this illusion to the American people daily. As early as 1992, Gore was touting that 98% of scientists agreed with him on the global warming issue. In reality, a survey of the American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society taken in the same year found that only 17% of scientists endorsed the greenhouse gas climate theory (Saunders, 2006). This great disparity between the number of scientists that Al Gore may wish believe in his apocalyptic view of the planet, and more importantly, the number he attempts to sell to the public have been, and remain a padded number. Here are a few modern day examples of scientists in the field who break with the great pied piper of doom: Colorado State University hurricane expert William Gray asserts that the earth will begin to cool sometime in the next 10 years, MIT’s climate scientist Robert Lindzen believes that cloud and water vapor will counteract greenhouse gas emissions, and the former director of the National Hurricane Center states that the global warming scare is akin to “a hoax” (Saunders, 2006). But, why worry about any number of naysayers when you can just let go and be carried away in the “awe” of the blockbuster global warming experience! Al Gore presents emotion evoking imagery not seen since the 2004 Hollywood release of The Day After Tomorrow. The ad posters for An Inconvenient Truth show a monstrous hurricane creeping from an industrial smokestack (Tracinski, 2006). These visuals are designed to spark not only the morbid curiosity of potential viewers, but in the end, Gore’s carefully crafted theatrical lesson of morality like those taught to viewers in classics such as “Frankenstein”. If you remember the old horror film, the story portrayed an uncontrollable man-made monster that roamed the countryside wreaking havoc. Of course, in the global warming scenario, all mankind must take the role of the misguided, if not evil, Dr. Frankenstein. Back in the real world, the scientific community is very divided about global warming and an increase in hurricane activity which begins Al Gore’s Hollywood sideshow. As well as the recent Washington Times survey of various top hurricane scientists that were divided in the issue, additional studies assert that when the recent increase in large scale (category 4-5) hurricanes in the Atlantic are balanced against the decrease of the same scale hurricanes in the Pacific, the overall increase is virtually zilch (Tracinski, 2006). If you are starting to loose your fear and self-loathing over global warming, more images of doom quickly fill the void. One especially unsettling visual image is a large tanker sitting stranded in an apparent desert in the once Aral Sea. Gore alludes to the fact that global warming has dried this Asian sea that was once the fourth largest in the world. Wow that’s scary! Conveniently, he forgets to tell viewers that three-quarters of the rivers that fed the sea were purposely diverted by the Soviet Union (Ponte & Morano, 2006). You see, like a good magic show, the water really hasn’t disappeared; it’s just backstage behind the curtain where you can’t see it. This same deception is replicated in photos of disappearing snow on an African mountain in which Gore grimly states that within a decade there will be no snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro (Ponte & Morano, 2006). Once again, Gore avoids scientific data that does not endorse his grim view of the state of the planet. Specifically, he omits the 2003 findings by the British science journal Nature that stated that the loss of snow collection on Mt. Kilimanjaro is really the product of deforestation (Ponte & Morano, 2006). These findings were validated in 2004 by the International Journal of Climatology and the Journal of Geophysical Research.

The question is why so much deception? Will there be a disclosure at the end of the show where Gore explains all the tricks to the crowd. There is little doubt that in the realm of the environmental scaremongers, Gore is the mayor of Crazy Town and he wants to sell you all a little piece of real estate within the city limits. However, the timing of his renewed crusade has further underpinnings that reflect directly on the War on Terror and the state of mind of liberals today. Al Gore is a prime example of liberal’s inability to embrace national defense policy even when the stakes are at their highest. Las Vegas comedian Julia Gorin gets it right when she says “While the hawks among us worry about preventing the Armageddon that’s coming, our modern-day hippies just want to make sure the planet is pristine when it does. In fact, the more menacing terrorism becomes, the more some people seem to worry about the weather” (Gorin, 3, 2006). Gorin concludes her thoughts with a question a lot of us ask by saying, “Why are these people so worried about the environment, anyway? It’s not like they’re living on this planet” (Gorin, 4, 2006).

The problem is that we all, liberal and conservative, stand to suffer dire consequences from a lack of a unified effort to fight the growing threat of terrorism. I would be the last to say that someone should take away Al Gore’s right to play weather hawk in a world that cries out for war hawks; however, I am hopeful that people will see behind the smoke and mirrors of An Inconvenient Truth and focus their attention on the survival of this country. Al Gore has given this weak worn-out planet less than 10 years before the planet is completely terminal (Will, 2005). Very conveniently this would give just enough time for the American people to place Gore into the white house and allow his visionary intellect and magical skill to reverse the sins of man through the power of the presidency. Will we see another Gore ticket for president? It is most certain that he will not conjure up another joint effort with Senator Joe Lieberman. Lieberman, the Senator from Connecticut, is currently a pariah in the Democratic Party for his strong stand on the war on terror. Sorry Joe, you just don’t have the right set of priorities. In the end, the level of public acceptance for Gore’s global warming quest may have a direct impact on a potential 2008 presidential bid. If this turns out to be true, the American people have the unique opportunity to strike two blows for “sanity” in one fell swoop. So as the enemy’s missiles fly near our allies in Japan, and fall on the homes of Israel, I ask you where should our priorities be? As terrorist plots are uncovered on a regular basis on U.S. soil, where will we focus our efforts for the future? Will we unite to fight the immediate threat of terrorism, or shall we allow ourselves to continue to be mesmerized by Al Gore’s magic show, when we truly know what is happening behind the curtain.

References

Gorin, J. (2006). Global warbling. Retrieved July 15, 2006, from http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0714/p20s01-ussc.htm

Gwynne, P. (1975). The cooling planet. Retrieved July 16, 2006, from http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential12/april_28__1975_newsweek___the_cool

Ponte, L., & Morano, M. (2006, July). Global warming controversy: Legitímate threat or hot air? NewsMax, 8,7, 16-30.

Saunders, D. (2006). Global warming fever. Retrieved on July 16, 2006, from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/13/EDGDOILMDO1.DTL&ty

Tracinski, R. (2006). Al Gore is a brave truth teller? Retrieved on July 12, 2006, from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/the_truth_is_inconvenient.html