In the early part of the Twentieth Century this movement caught on and came eventually to control the apparatus of both the Democrat and Republican parties.  Any assertion to the contrary is patently false.  Of those individuals most influential in the advancement of the Progressive agenda, the most popular names that come to mind are Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, William Jennings Bryan, Thomas Dewey, etc.  Lesser known are those who thought and wrote extensively on how to institutionalize and perpetuate the cause, to normalize it and thus allow it to overcome, overwhelm and entirely pervert the original system as designed by the Framers.

Indeed to this very day we all suffer the effects of this treasonous plot and, in fact, as mentioned above the movement is presently and most rapidly approaching it’s apex, for over the last eight years a great deal of advancement was made in terms of establishing the final foundation from which would spring a transformation in government never anticipated, much less intended, by the Framers of our Constitution, by which the rights of the citizens of this republic would cease to be as they had been, and the balance of power would shift to the federal government as it usurps those rights and claims its own right as supreme arbiter of the rights of the people, citing the interest of national security.  Now, what we have observed since the new administration has assumed power is the implementation of the final stages of advancing this statist agenda with blinding speed and appropriate distraction to turn the attention of those less savvy away from what is really happening.  While employing such benevolent-sounding terms as “social justice,” “economic justice,” and “common good,” the progressives have and continue to imply a desire to “help those less fortunate.”  However, the inevitable result that they intentionally hide from and deny is that the means they have decided to employ in order to achieve such lofty-sounding goals as economic and social “justice,” those means being government authority and force, are wholly incompatible with what is perhaps the most important and vital premise upon which this republic was founded, that being equality of opportunity.  In sum, where the Framers of the Constitution sought to establish conditions to promote and perpetuate equality of opportunity, these “progressives” of both major political parties seek to replace that original intent with an equality of outcome.

 Indeed, the sad truth of the matter is that for at least the last hundred years of our history, the truth of our national history and the proper role of government has been intentionally obfuscated by those in power so that they might remain in power.  Crises are intentionally created and managed for maximum benefit to the ruling party, the tactic of fear mongering is shamelessly employed in an attempt frighten the masses into compliance, to coerce them to cede their God given rights to a government promising security and stability.  It would be most prudent for all citizens to remember the words of Benjamin Franklin, who once stated that a people who are willing cede their liberty for the promise of security deserve neither and will lose both.

One need not be the most astute student of history, politics and economics to seek and find the truth. One need only approach this quest with honesty and as open a mind as one can muster given the context in which this information has been heretofore presented to the public over the course of the last hundred years.  Interestingly, upon studying pertinent and largely omitted factual information one will quickly realize that the actual historical facts do not agree with the claims of politicians and other government officials, with the presentations and interpretations offered by most influential and mainstream news media, and certainly not with much of what passes for acceptable curriculum in government schools and in universities throughout the country. 

It is no small thing to make such an assertion, to declare that the modern American political system, economic system and a substantial portion of the news-media is based upon a lie; a lie well known and understood by those who perpetuate it and manipulate it to their advantage and to the detriment of this republic.  The lie itself is rooted in a political movement whose objective has always been Statism: that is, the elevation of the rights and authority of the State superceding and ultimately usurping the rights of the individual.  In the case of our republic, the process is manifesting itself by “giving” rights to the State, specifically the federal government, while simultaneously and necessarily abrogating the rights of individuals.  The transfer of power is transformed from a “bottom-up” system of popular representation to a “top-down” system of administration (czars, anyone?) according to the design originally devised by the early American Progressives, most notably Wilson, the Roosevelts, Goodman, Croly, Beard and Dewey.

 The lie itself is the very history of this nation, political and economic, as it is now popularly explained, understood and accepted.  As outrageous as this claim may seem on the surface, I expect that the reader will find the documentary evidence as powerful and irrefutable as I did, simply because it is true.

Now that the election is over and the American people have spoken, the task for the Right becomes at first obvious. That first task, ultimately, is to find and define itself – and to do so as expeditiously as is practicable. This much is obvious. What is not so obvious, of course, is how this all-important task will be or ought to be accomplished – if at all. 

To the question of whether this can even be accomplished, whether or not a new conservatism can be first, defined, and second, molded into a cohesive movement solid enough to accomplish what it must, that being nothing less than arresting the rise of tyranny and arbitrary government through the advancement of government-imposed socialism, I would submit that it can only be accomplished outside of the duopolistic hegemony of the current mainstream party system. The cause of the new conservatism must be begun and advanced wholly and entirely apart from the Republican Party. More pointedly, the new conservatism must be held as sacred and kept secure from contamination by the Republican Party, because for the foreseeable future, that Party, even if it survives its current implosion, will continue to be entirely void of true conservatism and, as such, poison to any true conservative movement that has the unfortunate occasion to be defined as affiliate with it. 

To succeed, the new conservatism must find a home where it is wanted – outside the mainstream of politics and nonsensical parties – in the realm of what we recognize as third parties, such as Libertarian, Constitution, Conservative, etc. Indeed, it would be most beneficial to the larger movement to have members and activists within all of these third parties taking responsible and active roles in defining the path and goals of the new conservatism, for healthy debate amongst the various legitimate schools of conservative thought and discussion and proper understanding of the significance of the varying trends and norms from the various parts of the nation will be essential to the success of such a movement. That much is, or at least ought to be, obvious.

What is also obvious is that in its infancy this new conservatism and the war it wages will be largely a war of words, that is, words employed to convey and explicitly define ideas both for our side as well as for the opposition. Thus, it is essential in this war of words to not be the one defined by the rods of the other, but to first define the other employing those words that best convey the message intended.

To that end, I would suggest a definition of this new conservatism: that socio-economic and socio-political thought which is analogous to the classical liberalism of such great minds as Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Jay, von Mises, Hayek, Hume, Locke, Bastiat, Montesquieu, etc. I suggest this particular definition for, while it is necessary to divest ourselves of any connection whatsoever to the “nouveaux” or simply “faux” conservatism currently embraced by the Republican Party and its surrogates, it is just as necessary – if not even more so - to define how the opposition is intended by us to be perceived. I do not intend to suggest that any sort of deliberate deception be employed to that effect; on the contrary, I submit that the language and terminology employed be selectively vetted so as to best convey truth, for if it is truth that is the very essence of what we wish convey to the general populous, then if we should employ duplicity and deception to as to achieve our end, then the truth becomes that we are no more righteous than those who would oppress us, and thus the intended affect is obviously lost. It must be, then, that this war or words be fought from the very beginning with the overtly expressed desire and intent to shine ever brightly the light of truth so as to expose the darkness of the authoritarian form of socialism that surely awaits us given the current trend toward “change” at any cost. If the people will not accept truth and still choose willfully to subject themselves to tyranny, only then ought other, more questionable methods and tactics be employed.

Having stated that, then, and keeping in line with professing the truth of the current political climate, my conclusion and suggestion is to redefine the Progressive Left not as they would define themselves (the Progressive Left) but as what they are: new-socialists. To be sure, they are not “progressive” in any sense of the word, with the possible exception of the fact that their “newness” is found in bringing socialism to the United States for the first time. They are, in fact, “regressive,” falling back to the worn rhetoric and failed socialism of past ages – all of which has ruined the respective societies that have embraced such ideas. They cannot be called “liberal” because true “liberalism” is found in the newness of the great minds listed above. 

“Liberalism,” in the classical sense, is analogous to the advancement of new ideas and the promotion of Liberty. It goes without saying that the present self-proclaimed “Progressives” are anything but open to dialogue and advancement of new ideas. Therefore it is all the more fitting to tag them with the most appropriate label and effectively chain them to the erroneous ideology they embrace as their truth, and which is wholly and entirely antithetical to the principles upon which our Constitution is founded: The Democrat Party ought now be termed the “Neo-Socialist Left,” with all the negative connotations of regressivism inherent in such language.

To be sure, those of us advancing the New Conservatism should not shy away from defining the Neo-Socialist Left as such but should immediately adopt such terminology and employ it to the benefit of our cause. Likewise, we should not resist embracing new or, for that matter, old language to clearly define our ideas. Therefore we should not be ashamed to employ such terminology as “Classical Liberalism” or a “Liberalism of the Classical School” in conjunction with the use of the word “conservatism” to that the desired perception be projected. Indeed, the words themselves attest to the truth we seek to convey. Thus, it is our present duty to properly employ them to our desired end.

Watching the news last night I was disturbed by the image of video showing Barack Obama HOLDING AND KISSING BABIES.  I was appalled, to say the least.  I wonder if those mothers would have let him hold their babies if they were open to hearing the truth about Barack Obama's monstrous stance on abortion and infanticide?  One wonders if these people understand that if any these babies were born (early) due to an abortion that didn't work out as intended, Obama's position would be to let them die - or to kill them and finish the job, so to speak.  This man is evil.  His success on the campaign trail this year has been due as much to the economy falling apart and his competitor being a tired old man as is has been due to Obama's running a campaign rife with corruption on a scale I have never seen before.  He has repeatedly lied about his positions on virtually every issue, most notably abortion, infanticide and redistribution of wealth through government intervention.  He has orchestrated a cover-up of his entire life with the exceptions of the brief snippets he has decided to share with the public.  His birth, medical, university and some private records along with many of those of his wife - most notably her thesis on "Blackness" in America (a black rage against white folks from what I understand) have all been ordered sealed until after the November 4 election.  Would such arrogance and secrecy be tolerated by any white, male, conservative candidate? Of course not.

Back to abortion and infanticide.  Here are my thoughts on this subject for whatever it is worth:

Abortion is a holocaust.  It is murder.  It is unconscionable and inherently unjust under ANY circumstances.  We all know that when cells begin multiplying and growing they are doing so under the guidance and instruction of the human DNA blueprint so wisely planned out by God.  We all know that these cells are human - that this is a baby.  We all know that when something grows and reproduces and multiplies that is can do so only because it is alive - were it not alive and living it would not be able to grow or reproduce, correct? 

Abortion is the merciless killing of an innocent unborn child by either literally ripping the child apart limb by little limb, burning it to death in a caustic chemical-saline mix, inducing early labor to birth the child early and leaving the helpless infant to die without assistance or comfort, or by almost completely delivering the baby, leaving the head inside the mother while the murderer HOLDS THE BABY'S FEET, TURNS THE BABY OVER AND PLUNGES SCISSORS INTO THE BACK OF IT'S NECK, THEN APPLIES A VACUUM TO SUCK THE BABY'S BRAIN OUT.  No one method is any more evil than the others.  Murder is murder, plain and simple, and in my own very judgmental, politically-incorrect, far-right-wing-conservative-conspiratorial assessment, there is a very special place in hell reserved for such as those who could hold the feet of an infant and plunge scissors into it's neck with the premeditated intent of killing such innocent life.  There, I've said it.

It is unconscionable that a civilized society would not merely acquiesce to such barbarity, but elevate it to the noble status of law - and the Law of the Land, at that.  It is, to my feeble mind, inconceivable that such atrocities could be given legitimate and protected legal status in a republic whose Constitution is supposedly firmly rooted in the promotion and protection of Liberty, to which the protection of life is indeed essential.  When one is deprived of life one is not afforded Liberty.   As President, Barack Obama would deprive millions upon millions more babies of their lives by gleefully signing the Freedom of Choice Act into law, which would purportedly override any and every restriction on any abortion procedure at any stage of a pregnancy.  This is not merely un-American, it is something out of Nazi Germany - in fact, that is essentially how the Nazis were able to lead up to the implementation of their "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem." 

Abortion-on-demand through the third trimester over several years numbed and desensitized the masses to the horrors of what the Nazi regime had planned.  It lead to partial-birth abortion, euthanizing the mentally retarded and physically deformed children to "spare them the difficulties of life," and ultimately to millions of innocent people being killed because the government didn't like them.  The Soviets employed the same policy, as do the Communist Chinese at present.  If you don't think such horrors can happen here just go to YouTube and watch a partial-birth abortion.  If you were to watch such a thing and be wholly un-phased by witnessing an innocent life brutally taken by such barbaric means, I would suggest that there is very likely a special place in hell reserved for you right next to the guy who killed the baby.  Maybe you could even share a drink with Hitler and Himmler - but just remember that even as head of the SS Heinrich Himmler collapsed and threw up in convulsions after witnessing a mass execution by firing squad at one of his favorite death camps.

Do I think it could happen - that abortion-on-demand could lead to people like you and I being separated from our families, and led off to prison camps to be executed?  My answer is that I don't know.  I don't know about a lot of things these days.  But I do know that I am a Christian.  And I do know that a President Obama would not like the things that I believe.  And I do know that he has no regard for human life, that he is a liar, that he has employed a corrupt and thuggish organization to steal an election, and that most people know absolutely nothing of substance about this man because he refuses to unseal pertinent information to be vetted. I also know where he stands on my right to bear arms and the rest of the Constitution, for that matter: 

"But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."  Like kill you in the womb. 

I don't know a lot of things, but I do know I will be purchasing non-perishable items, outdoor clothing, and that I will be frequenting gun shows looking to make acquisitions.  Do I think horrors can happen here?  I don't know, but if our next President loads the Supreme Court with justices who interpret the Constitution as being fluid, living an devolving with the times, that tells me we don't really have one and that I should be prepared.

Below is a link to a video I found through New Advent.  It is a little long, but very much worth watching.  It is not graphic or violent - simply words - Obama's own words, images and music.  There is a picture of a deceased baby at the very end of the video, but it is intact - the result of a saline induced abortion.

http://www.onetruemedia.com/shared?p=7030bd098cca768e72d111&skin_id=701&utm_source=otm&utm_medium=text_url

This video should be widely distributed - especially to Obama supporters.  It is very tactfully done, as much as a video on such a topic can be done tastefully.  They cannot deny the truth - and they cannot say they never knew....

Or, would he prefer to remain in the Democrat majority of the Senate come January 20? Or maybe he’s even sending out feelers for a Cabinet post in an Obama Administration… It is getting hard to tell. In fact one could possibly argue that he doesn’t really want it. After all, how many opportunities has McCain had to call into question Obama’s stealth past, his socialist and terrorist connections, his complete and very obvious lack of any academic work that might offer even a minute view into that the man is really thinking and how he views the world – and he has passed nearly all of them by until last week. Indeed, even going on the attack for Senator McCain seem to mean letting you running mate do the dirty work. It is not an abnormal thing to have the candidate at the top of the ticket try to remain above the fray and appear more “statesman-like” while their running mate goes for the jugular. 

Here’s where I have a problem with McCain’s alleged strategy: he’s not going for the jugular and I don’t think he will. Worse, I believe it’s not that he wouldn’t, it’s that he believes he shouldn’t. Senator McCain, a career navy man who has more than served his fair share of time in combat and the living hell of North Vietnamese POW camp, no doubt understands very well the essence of combat. Whether the combat is military or political the goal of combat is victory, and one achieves victory in only one of two ways: one forces the enemy to surrender, or one destroys and terminates the enemy. 

Given the stakes in this election and the fact that they have just been raised immeasurably higher by the recent government actions to nationalize massive segments of the private economy, which McCain himself supports, one would think the Senator would be fighting as hard as he can to destroy and terminate the enemy rather than simply try to force him to capitulate and surrender, and this most especially so given the fact that Obama is undoubtedly the most dangerous man ever to position himself for a takeover of the US Government. I say takeover, rather than “seek election” because in seeking election one does not employ miscreants to engage in vote fraud on a massive scale, nor does one celebrate little children being forced to sing propaganda songs about “hope and change,” nor does one remain conspicuously silent on the subject of youths dressed in fatigues performing paramilitary drills in public schools while shouting out Obama’s plans for “change.”

The thing I am finding truly disturbing is that right now he appears to be fighting for neither capitulation nor destruction of the enemy. In fact, just within the last couple of days Senator McCain has actively defended Obama. His admonished his own supporters for demanding he hit Obama harder over his connection to terrorist William Ayers, and then called Senator Barack Obama an inherently good and decent man who loves and believes in America.

Senator, I beg to differ wit your assessment of Mr. Obama, and here’s why:

1. Inherently good and decent men do not enable infanticide;

2. Inherently good and decent men do not remain silent when their supporters threaten to bring criminal charges against anyone who speaks ill of The One;

3. Inherently good and decent men do not remain silent when children are being exploited for political purposes;

4. Inherently good and decent men to not go out of their way to hide their past;

 5. Inherently good and decent men to not remain silent when children are indoctrinated into politically extremist views by those who are entrusted with their care and education’

6. Inherently good and decent men would not have spent 20 years in a racist, anti-American “church” listening to their pastor incite hate in the name of Christ;

7. Inherently good and decent men would admit to their past associations with extremist groups like ACORN, would admit to the roles they served, and denounce attempts to win an election by fraud;

8. Inherently good and decent men do no associate with admitted and unrepentant terrorists;

9. Inherently good and decent men would denounce their endorsements by Marxist and socialist groups, as well as foreign terror organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah;

10. Inherently good and decent men would not actively try to subvert the foreign policy of the sitting President (however misguided he may be…);

11. Inherently good and decent men would not subvert the Constitution at every opportunity;

12. Inherently good and decent men would not subvert their own nation’s sovereignty to a world body like the UN;

13. Inherently good and decent men speak plainly about what they believe and what they want to do;

14. Inherently good and decent men do not actively sanction the suppression of free speech;

15. Inherently good and decent men do not devalue human life to the equivalent of a “mistake”;

16. Inherently good and decent men do not engage in corrupt activity and then point fingers at others;

17. Inherently good and decent men would admit to past mistakes and ask forgiveness;

18. Inherently good and decent men do not play the “race-card”;

19. Inherently decent men do not incite race-riots through their surrogates;

20. Inherently good and decent men would speak the truth.

There is nothing good and decent about Barack Obama. He is a monster who enabled infanticide simply so he could continue to rake in campaign money and support from Planned Parenthood. He was an “academic” yet never published any professional work, only is self-crafted and spun autobiography. He has denied associations anyone with an internet connection can validate that he had, he refuses to answer questions on almost every facet of his life’s story, and he received not merely a free pass but the adulation and love of the smitten masses who have been waiting for “the One.” History shows time and again when a man come out of nowhere and ascends to high office without vetting and proper examination, the consequences can be most severe. And now with the perfect storm brewing economically, socio-politically, and culturally, we have in Obama the most extreme and dangerous ideological zealot every to seek the Presidency, and a man who has employed masterfully the teaching of his master, Saul Alinsky – deceit on a massive scale, because one cannot divulge who they really are lest they be rejected. Hence the necessity of pretending to be like everyone else; to lie, cheat and steal, to employ thuggish threats and corruption, and to deny everything with a smile while playing the “race-card.” 

The fact is that we no more about Sarah Palin’s 17 year of daughter’s pregnancy and Sarah’s newborn son Trigg than we do about Obama. But John McCain believes he is a good and decent man. The man who as President would utterly destroy what is left of capitalism and liberty in this country is a “good and decent man?” 

While I had been a “fence-sitter” or a “nose-holder,” in less than lukewarm support of this ticket, with this statement coming from a man who portents to be a conservative and a maverick, I can stand it no longer, because with such a statement McCain has as much as openly admitted that he will not rock the boat in Washington, he will not cross the line that counts, he will not be a real maverick when it comes to truly standing up for what is right. And most disappointingly of all, in admonishing his supporters he makes it clear that he will not go for the jugular and fight to terminate Obama’s chances at the White House with the arsenal he has available to him. He will not use all the weaponry at his disposal to bring this combat to a victorious conclusion for the American people. He will not put his country first – for fear of offending fence-sitting Democrats and perhaps losing their support. At this point, in my own opinion, the only reason McCain can call himself a maverick is because he has fought conservatives every inch of the way. 

Like many others out there, I can take a lot and compromise to a point. My line in the sand has been crossed. And, I am now more than ever convinced that if this republic is to survive as a free society, it will be because the third parties run the Democrats and Republicans out of town and make the Constitution the law of the land once again. Anything less will be un-survivable after an Obama Presidency. Continued capitulation to Obama’s Chicago socialist propaganda machine is merely a policy of appeasement that will only serve to undermine the cause of the right. I am now convinced that McCain does not have it in him to fight Obama to the death, so to speak. We all know the MSM is in the bad for Obama, and that Obama is a vey intelligent man with a massive underground extremist organization determined to hand him the Presidency licitly or illicitly – by any means necessary. 

And now we know that the GOP leadership will roll over and cut the best deal it can with these traitorous thugs while leaving the rest of us with false hope. I will not be fooled. I know the GOP cannot be trusted any more than the Democrats. If the future of this republic is in any way to resemble the glories of her past days, the only viable way to set this course is through independent candidates, third parties and merciless phone and email assaults on Capitol Hill. I, for one and for what it is worth, will be throwing myself into third party activism and campaigning. If I had money I’d be throwing that too. It is far better to begin and end the revolution with the ballot rather than with the shedding of blood which should be avoided at all costs, although I am not at all convinced that the government, especially under Obama, would be able resist the temptation to fire the first shot. May God help us in our righteous cause of Liberty.

For me, from my Catholic Christian perspective, it is an obligation to illuminate the unspeakable evils enabled by men and women of Obama’s ilk, yet all too sadly such discussion of the truth fall on deaf ears even in many Christian circles. This truth is ugly and must be told and acknowledged. What is perhaps most disturbing to me is that as Americans so many profess to be Christians, believers in the salvation of humanity bought by the price of the Blood of Christ, yet so many of these self-professed believers also either actively sanction the unjustifiable slaughter of the innocent unborn in their own mother’s wombs or they take the politically correct approach and claim that it would be wrong to “impose” their moral beliefs on others. I submit that such a weak excuse will not win the favor of the Almighty when at judgment the tens of millions of holy innocents fill the Holy Courts and ask, “Why?”

Indeed, for those who profess belief in God in general and in Christ as Savior in particular there cannot be any validity found in what we Catholics term the “cafeteria” approach where one accepts all the warm-and-fuzzy sentiments and rewards of Christianity while rejecting either tacitly or outright the difficult moral stances required in order to obtain even the possibility of attaining such rewards.

To say that Americans have become complacent in their faith is an understatement, for it is increasingly clear that many do not see the inherent and irrefutable connection between the moral evils being perpetrated in this country and our collective woes as a nation. To pass such things off as merely coincidental is not only naïve but deadly – both to one’s soul and to our republic. I readily confess that I am no theologian; however, to deny the correlation between, say, the tens of millions of abortions that have been allowed to take place on American soil – something we know as Christians is inherently evil and unjustifiable under any condition or pretext – and the idea that disobedience to God by the continuing perpetration of grave moral evils will ultimately result in the loss of His grace to sustain us is completely and utterly stupid, not to mention hypocritical. When we turn our collective backs on God and His Commandments as a nation should it be any surprise, then, that He withdraws His grace and leaves us to our own devices in our imperfect and fallen condition, subject to our own concupiscence to fend for ourselves? It is any wonder that the more prideful we become as a nation the less guidance and assistance we can expect from our humble and living God? 

If we are to regain our footing and return our nation to prosperity it is necessary to acknowledge God and His commandments, to honor them, and to collectively repent of the evils that go on within our boarders. Darkness cannot withstand the light of Truth, and it is indeed His Truth that will once again set us free from slavery to sin. We can illuminate the darkness by speaking the truth and here is a good place to start: actions have consequences in the eyes of God, for Jesus tells us as much throughout the Gospels. Remember the wheat and the chaff?   Let us not mince words, then.

While Washington DC is certainly no stranger to political dirty tricks and mountains of lies used to bamboozle the American people into thinking that these criminals are actually “working hard” for us and our families, the ramifications of the current smoke and mirrors games being played by House Democrats under the dubious leadership (if it could be termed as such) of Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank regarding HR 3997 is unprecedented.   It is not so much unprecedented because the methods employed, but because of the seriousness of the blatant unconstitutionality of the issue. Thankfully the measure was defeated. Disturbingly, it came to the floor for a vote in the first place.

True, Congress has been passing overtly unconstitutional legislation for a long, long time now, however the consequences of passing this piece of legislation in terms of what it means for the future of our economy, our political system, our government and out individual lives is not simply your everyday run-of-the-mill unconstitutional piece of legislation. It is treason. And now the traitors, Pelosi, Frank, Rangel and the rest of the Capital Hill Gang are patting themselves on the back, lauding their actions in getting this bill to the floor of the House as heroic. Frank, Rangel and Barbara Lee all made similar comments to the effect that because the American people simply cannot begin to understand the true gravity of the current economic situation and thus are mostly opposed to passage of this bill, we the people will never be able appreciate the actions they are currently taking to save us, our economy, our jobs, and indeed, the world. What a heavy, lonely and thankless burden that must be to bear.

Stunningly, while urging their colleagues to support this unconstitutional monstrosity many of these representatives loudly proclaimed their unwavering support for this bill while literally waving their pocket Constitutions in the air. These were indeed rather puzzling moments. It would have been nice if these bastions of the democratic process had actually read the Constitution at some point in their political careers, because if they had done so perhaps we might not be in quite the dire predicament we are. Perhaps then they would have realized that at least half of the legislation that moves through the House is unconstitutional for many reasons, not the least of which is the tendency of the Congress to enact legislation that reaches beyond its Constitutionally imposed constraints, like chartering government sponsored entities such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae or even appropriating $700 billion to bail out the financial sector of the economy.

And, as if the treasonous activity of this Congress were not in and of itself enough, consider the ineptitude of action and leadership that allowed for this situation to arise. As far as accepting the fair share of blame for the current financial crisis, both parties are at the very least complicit, and certain individuals in both parties ought to be investigated and tried for criminal negligence. Consider the fact that repeated warnings from economists, treasury, Fed officials and mortgage industry insiders were consistently ignored by those on committees that should have seen this coming and whose members were raking in PAC and lobbyist money from the very institutions they were charged with overseeing.

Consider the outright corruption and the implied threats of enforcement action against lenders who weren’t as enthusiastic over providing “affordable housing” as the progressives in Congress and the Clinton White House. Consider the outright fraud employed at Freddie and Fannie to boost numbers and activate executive bonuses. Consider the fact that Congress ignored all these things and that a certain Senator from Illinois hired two of these former executives, Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, as advisors on his Presidential campaign. 

Consider the outright lies told to the American People by the Democrat Leadership late last week and throughout the weekend. How many times did that call a press conference to inform America that they had a deal when nothing could have been farther from the truth? How many times did they appear on national television blaming the House GOP for holding out and obstructing progress? The very idea that such was the case is one big obscene in-your-face lie told to the people, because the Democrats needed the GOP to be on board with the bill so that they could save face. And what, exactly, did the House Republicans reject en-masse? For starters, how about 20% of that $700 billion being appropriated to ACORN? Remember that group? They’re the ones facing legal action throughout the country for engaging in voter fraud on a massive scale. 

Consider also the voluminous amount of information gleaned by one committee in one hearing by two witnesses, Paulson and Bernanke, who basically told them all that they had better appropriate $700 billion to the exclusive authority and oversight of the Secretary of the Treasury or the entire economy would collapse. One would think that given the enormity of the issue and the amount of the request that more hearings would be warranted and sought. Perhaps they may want to interview one of the 200 economists and three Nobel Laureates who adamantly opposed such draconian government intervention advocating instead the position that such measures may be attractive as a false and temporary fix, but will do far more harm than good in the end. In part, these economists argue the following:

1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers’ expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.

2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.

3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.

Incredibly, wholly omitted from the debate of this proposed monstrosity is the fact that this bill itself wholly, incontrovertibly and undeniably unconstitutional.   There is little mention of the fact that it would be green light for a de facto implementation of socialism by a legislature that has no such authority to give to a Treasury that is likewise restricted from so engaging in the private market.

The only sensible solution to this problem to do what the government has been trying to avoid for the last several years though use of Fed over-manipulation of interests rates and printing too much money to inject into the national monetary system. That sensible solution is to simply let the market heal itself. It will be painful, but not nearly as painful as taking such deliberate steps toward socialism and pretending that the government is going to make money on the deal and be able to privatize those companies again. Seizing banks and financial institutions and then brokering off their assets to the stronger banks is a temporary quick-fix that will have to be dealt with at some point, and the best way to deal with what is fast becoming the new landscape on Wall Street is to break up some of these banks. If having seven or eight big banks holding trillions in bad debt, how is it better when the number of banks is artificially reduced to three, J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and Citigroup, with the Fed promising to print billions of more dollars to flood the system with liquid cash and further hurt the dollar?

Liquidation hurts and people and institutions will suffer, but the alternative is far more dangerous in both the short and long term. For the White House and leaders on Capitol Hill to continue to panic the people and the market with alarmist rhetoric that, unless they act quickly, a global economic catastrophe is imminent when they do not know that this is truly the case is inherently dishonest. But what is worse, for them to have the audacity to wave the Constitution in their hands and proclaim that they are defending both it and our liberty by subverting the founding document of this nation and illegally usurping what of right belongs to the people is more than dishonest, it is treason.

Thanks be to God! The House of Representatives just killed HR 3997, defeating the bill 226 Nays to 207 in favor. Democrats voted 141 in favor and 9 opposed, while Republicans voted 65 in favor and 133 opposed. Members debated the merits and consequences of the bill all morning before taking a final vote around 1:30. A simple majority of 218 was needed to either pass or kill the bill. It is unknown at this time when further talks about a government bailout will resume.

Though the votes were not strictly along party lines, many of the floor speeches were. Rep Ron Paul spoke out passionately against the bill, reasserting the points he has been making for the last several years regarding the Fed over-manipulating the economy and creating artificial conditions that were unsustainable and damaging to the dollar, concluding that passage of this bill will do far worse damage in the long term. Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) earlier referred to the bill as a “crap sandwich” but implored his colleagues to vote in favor.

Maxine Waters rambled on about Martin Luther King and poor disadvantaged inner city folks, and George Bush and Republicans. Waters also loudly proclaimed her unwavering support for this bill while waving her pocket Constitution in the air. Someone should reminder her and her colleagues to actually READ that Constitution sometime. Someone should also remind Ms. Waters that she forgot to mention Dick Cheney and Halliburton – we all know they are the ones responsible for this debacle. They were probably the ones who really killed all those “deals” Dodd and Pelosi kept announcing over the weekend. Perhaps Ms. Waters could hold hearings on the matter? 

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) had a bunch of things to say, but no one could understand him.

My favorite remarks came from Charlie Rangel (D-NY) blamed Bush and lamented over the poor who will not be able to buy a house. Then he asked, “Where are all the small –government conservatives today?” Well Congressman, apparently 227 of them were present.

It is somewhat comforting when conservatives find their backbone and stave off the advent of socialism in the United States for another day. Thanks be to God.

Congress to debate passage of $700 billion “Taxpayer Bailout Economic Stimulus Act of 2008.” OK, maybe that’s not entirely true, but they should consider it. After all, it certainly can’t be worse than what is already being proposed, right? Just consider that with the unprecedented government intervention and unlawful appropriations of the public monies we have endured over the last couple of weeks to bailout several private financial institutions and lenders that failed because of poor, if not corrupt business practices and an overabundance of government meddling in the private sector, the best idea our friends in Washington DC can come up with to solve this ever-growing financial crisis is a $700 billion bailout package to save the companies that screwed us over in the first place. 

If nothing else, this just goes to show how really out of touch with reality the Washington elite are. And it is why I am proposing an alternative to this $700 billion monstrosity, one that will actually prove a benefit to the economy and the taxpayer.

So, what is this solution to calm the perfect storm presently ravaging our economy? It is a “bailout” for the taxpayers to the tune of $700 billion.   The original “plan” really wasn’t my idea. I first saw it posted on a fellow Townhall blogger’s site, which he titled “A Tongue in Cheek Plan for Fixing the Economy.” He gave the credit to a “Mr. T. J. Birkenmeier, A Creative Guy & Citizen of the Republic.” I liked it and thought about it and felt there was room for improvement. I asked the blogger if I could repost this and he said yes. But, after thinking about this proposal and doing a bit of research I have come up with a slightly different version of this plan. I will keep it simple, because there is no need to complicate it.

According to the IRS 138,893,908 individual tax returns were filed for FY 2007, but for the sake of simplicity lets round that up to 140 million.

The “Taxpayer Bailout Economic Stimulus Act of 2008” will would consist of a one-time $700 billion refund being sent in equal amounts back to all eligible citizens. Period. No fancy formulas or breakdowns of this tax rate or that tax rate - everyone who gets a check gets the same amount, plain and simple. So, what that essentially means is that every person who filed a 2007 individual tax return (form 1040) will receive a one-time lump-sum payout of $5,000 to do with what they please. That’s it. Easy, right?

There would be one catch. Before getting their checks all eligible recipients would have to read the Constitution of the United States, Milton Friedman’s “Capitalism and Freedom,” as well as “Economic Freedom and Interventionism” and “Liberalism: A Socio-Economic Exposition” by Ludwig von Mises. For those who are unfamiliar and bristled at the title of the last book by Mises, it refers to the Classic or Traditional Liberalism of the kind espoused by the Founding fathers of our nation. The bill would mandate the reading and testing of these works in the public school systems at least twice between beginning middle school and graduating high school. It would eliminate federal withholding for “income” tax purposes and all capital gains for a minimum of two years. It would also require that the Fed seek approval from Congress prior to printing any money, and that it report to Congress on a bi-monthly basis the estimated amount of liquid cash in the national monetary system.

Eligible recipients would then log on to a special and secure government website and, after creating their account by entering their unique taxpayer ID and coded password, take one online test each on the Constitution as well as on each book, and a final cumulative test on the general economic principles espoused within these great works as well as a comprehensive analysis on the Constitutional limitations on government. Immediately upon passing all the tests the recipient’s check would be mailed or electronically deposited, if so desired. This would ensure that all recipients had a solid foundation for understanding at the very least, the basic principles of liberty, free market economics, fiscal responsibility of the individual and government, that the proper respective roles of government and individual citizens in a free republic.

Such a proposal would be far more beneficial to the economy and to the republic than would the current government plan, if for no other reason than that the $700 billion government plan is far too expensive for its intended purpose and is also very, very stupid. But, given how we ended up in this mess, what should we expect from a government conceived and managed “solution” except incompetence, criminal behavior, and unadulterated stupidity? The “Taxpayer Bailout Economic Stimulus Act of 2008” is a far superior solution because, simply put, it is not stupid. It makes perfect sense for a number of reasons: 

First, this proposal is not a bailout. It is either a refund or an inheritance, depending upon how you look at it (just think about the amount of money the IRS confiscated from your families since the Federal Income Tax Act of 1913. 

Second, if you want to pass an economic stimulus package that will actually help the overall economy, said package ought to enable the recipient to do something significant. The recent stimulus check I received, while appreciated didn’t go nearly as far as is needed for its intended purposes. A substantial amount of monies returned to the people would have created the desired effect, but $1,200 when gas is at $4.00 a gallon… well, you get the idea.

Third, given the current situation it makes far more sense to stabilize the economy from the bottom up and not from the top down. Gove the money to the people who will decide where their confidence is in the general market and invest or purchase commodities and goods accordingly. For example, the primary thrust of Secretary Paulson’s argument for a top-down bailout of banks and financial institutions is that under the heavy burden of such vast amounts of bad debt, as the crisis is prolonged the fears of customers and traders will manifest themselves in runs on the banks and financial institutions and will ultimately result in crashing of the collective value of all of these companies, and hence the entire financial system will collapse completely in an economic domino effect. This argument is nothing more than fear-mongering, because it overlooks the simple fact that money in a free market system is equivalent to security, an so if given the money the people who pay that money in the first place will feel more secure (as in they will know they will not be going hungry and will be able to get to work…). When they feel financially secure, they will spend money, either on consumer goods or investing in stocks and commodities, and right now there are many bargains to be had on Wall Street. 

Large numbers of people buying stocks in troubled institutions actually does make sense. Why? Because you generally want to buy something like stock when it is cheap and hold it as it accrues value. T be sure, people would be buying that financial stock up immediately – as they are even now because they know that instinctively buying such stock now is a good bet to make more money later. With waves of people purchasing and therefore by default showing confidence in the overall soundness of the economy and the free market, Wall Street would rally and the value of all companies, public and privately traded would increase, the economy would expand, job would be created due to the affordability of innovation and we would soon find ourselves once again in cyclical upswing, and all without unnecessary government intervention and unlawful nationalization of sectors of the economy or unconstitutional bailouts of private companies. 

Fourth, sending large amounts of money directly to the people instead of to the failing banks and financial businesses is entirely Constitutional and sensible and has a far greater probability of succeeding. Why? Because, in essence, you and I are the economy (read the books…). Such action would truly be supportive of free market capitalism by empowering the consumer and letting the market dictate from there without unlawful manipulation by quasi-government agencies (cough! The Fed) to create artificial conditions conducive to the instability and collapses we are now witnessing because the government wants to perpetuate the upswing cycle and wholly avoid the downswing cycle. Such efforts to force markets and economies to do things and perform in ways that against they nature will never succeed and will only make the eventual downside more severe. Talk to the former Soviet planners about that.

Finally, such an action would boost confidence not only in the economy but also in government for finally realizing that it was the primary reason things are so messed up and for having the sense to trust the people and do the right thing. Bailing out massive corporations that are possibly going to be unresponsive to the injection of cash is just plain stupid. There is no reason whatsoever to appropriate hundreds of billions of dollars for the government to buy bad debt when at the same time there is plenty of reason to spend one-seventh of the current proposed amount and enable those individuals who are struggling to pay off those debts, and by solving their individual financial crises solve by default the collective crises of the larger economy by bringing the debt ratios of the various financial institutions into proper alignment and thereby allowing for the market to do what it alone does best – correct itself.

So, if you are a person who thinks they could use a spare $5,000 maybe you ought to copy this proposal and send it to your representatives in Washington DC before they give a whole lot more of your money to the wrong people and make things even worse.

What is the true cost of the proposed government bailout?  While most of America was enjoying the last weekend of summer and watching football, our unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats at the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve were busy working on how to “solve” the financial crisis that seems to grow bigger and worse by the day. The “initial” solution that they came up with will cost between $700 billion and $1 trillion. That is the initial estimate of the cost. You can bet it will go much higher.

Wall Street has essentially collapsed and its geography has been forever change due to the deadly combination of greed, ineptitude of oversight, and government interference in the form of too much bad regulation. All this coupled with the Fed eternally manipulating interest rates and printing money in a vain attempt to affect a positive outcome and stave off the looming crisis as it simmered only served to compound the problem, and we are seeing the results. The result is an economic collapse or meltdown.  It is primarily due to government manipulation and meddling in something it has neither the authority nor the tools nor the competence to be meddling with. It is the result of “command economics” and central planning. Central planning is always bad for an economy, and in this case really, really bad planning results in a really, really bad problem

Admittedly, there was a certain degree of satisfaction watching the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, Barney Frank and the rest of the criminals on Capitol Hill standing there like deer in the headlights, with the shock and awe clearly displayed on their faces after their conference with Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke. One has to wonder, though, if the looks of grave concern were precipitated by the fact that they had just been told that the economy would imminently collapse if AIG were allowed to fail, or if it was because they understand that they are complicit in this financial catastrophe and are terrified that they will be found out. 

Sadly they have no real cause for concern, though, because the only pseudo-mainstream publications that actually report the truth of this mater and name who is complicit in creating the conditions and ignoring the signs that allowed this financial meltdown to occur are your usual “right-wing conspiracy” theorists like the editors and reporters at the Wall Street Journal, Portfolio, National Review, Weekly Standard, Investors Business Daily and the like. Guaranteed you won’t hear Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson bringing up names like Donna Shalala, Jamie Gorelick, James Johnson or, heaven help us, William Jefferson Clinton.

A remarkable thing is occurring before our very eyes in Washington, though – Republicans and Democrats seem to be genuinely working together to implement a solution as quickly as possible to calm fears and the markets. Certainly there are many differences being voiced, but in general they are all in agreement and the final product will be a matter of hammering out the minutia, so to speak. This is actually more frightening than the actual financial crisis. Why? Because these are the folks that got us into this mess in the first place due to their own narrow self-serving interests, incompetence and corruption, and purposeful lack of oversight of the Leviathan wherein this meltdown began – Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

The solution as it stands would give at present would give Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson extraordinary, unprecedented and essentially dictatorial authority to essentially do what he pleases with $ 1 trillion in taxpayer money. The Wall Street Journal called it for what it is: “Lots of money. Lots of power. Naked, ugly dictatorial power.”

The actual language in the proposed bailout Act as written by Treasury lawyers doesn’t inspire comfort either: “Decisions by the Treasury pursuant to the Authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.” This language is self-explanatory. And it is frightening.

And this is most likely only the beginning, the tip of the proverbial iceberg. On Monday former President Bill Clinton called for a bailout for all those homeowners who can’t afford to make their mortgage payments. The auto industry in Detroit is lining up for handouts to the tune of $50 billion minimum, a deal that has all but been cut between Detroit lobbyists and Speaker Pelosi. One can be sure that credit card debt will mushroom sooner rather than later and all those banks holding that debt will be demanding their share of the taxpayer-funded pie. The airlines won’t be far behind as they are being crushed by unprecedented fuel prices. And on it goes with no end in sight, and that is precisely the problem with government bailouts on such a massive scale; once they begin they do not end.

Right now it is difficult to assess whether we are still at the crossroads or if we have turned a corner toward authoritarian socialism, but is the language in the proposed plan is any indication suffice it to say that things to not look good for the future of a free market or for liberty in the US. And this is unconscionable.

In undertaking to engage in the extraordinary practice of massive government bailouts and nationalization of the most fundamental sector of the economy the US government has stepped into territory unknown since before the Revolutionary War. In fact, it was this exact type of arbitrary government authority that was the reason for fighting the Revolutionary War. While the talking heads on TV and radio speak of entering into “uncharted territory,” the brutal fact of the matter is that this is far from uncharted territory for this same unchecked and arbitrary government power was seen, understood and resisted the Founding Fathers of our republic as they were not afraid to call it for what it is. It is called tyranny.  

It is no secret to anyone who has read the Constitution of the United States with even a modicum of understanding that al three branches of the Federal Government have been violating their Constitutional authority for quite some time now. However, the actions taken by the government over the course of the last week are truly unprecedented. No branch of the government has any Constitutional authority whatsoever to takeover operations of a private business. No government authority is granted by the Constitution to appropriate public fund for such purposes. And certainly no Constitutional authority exists to allow for granting dictatorial powers to a cabinet secretary to run and attempt to manipulate the economy as he sees fit. It is unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional.

And yet knowing it is unconstitutional, out of fear this Congress will overwhelmingly approve this illegal action. And they will hope and pray that it works. And if it doesn’t? It this plan doesn’t work – and keep in mind that there is no Plan B because this is Plan B – amid all the uncertainly that would follow such events, the one thing you can be assured of is even more invasive and strict government intervention. But to what end? Government issued and approved credit becoming mandatory and the sole acceptable manner of conducting commerce? Government seizure and control of all banks and credit issuing agencies? Where does it end?

And what if it does work? What if those administering the government later decide that the government should remain in total control of the financial sector and through still more illegal Acts of Congress continue to "renew" the contrived authority to seize and maintain private companies in conservatorship? What then? 

Perhaps most frightening is that no one in government is listening to anyone who is raising these concerns because that is what happens when fear rules the day, and more alarming still is the known fact people will accept anything that promises even temporary security when real fear is being held over their heads. Hitler, Stalin and Mao did not rise to power because people were happy and comfortable and felt secure politically and economically. Fear is a dangerous weapon and history has shown time and again how fear, when employed and exploited by government, always proves fatal to liberty. And when government moves quickly to address a problem, even a well-intentioned solution will result in some very foreseeable repercussions that no one in Washington wants to acknowledge, much less address.

When a people willingly sacrifice their liberty – as is about to occur here – they are no longer sovereign, but subjects, for a republic exists only when a free people willingly submit to a governmental authority de jure, that is an established and mutually agreed upon system of government that by law may operate only with clearly defined limitations, purpose and intent. Should said government exceed any or all of those limitations, thereby exceeding its constitutional authority, it is the responsibility of a free people to take what power with which it is vested – that is all real power – and bring an abrupt end to government abuses of authority. 

In a republic, government exists and operates at the pleasure and by the authority of the people. That is what is meant by government de jure – government by and of legitimate law. When government abuses its power and acts outside of its legally defined authority it acts arbitrarily and becomes a government de facto, that is government by decree or imposition. In such a case citizens are no longer sovereign, but subjects; and, so it almost goes without saying that given the purpose of government being control, thus it’s natural tendency to encroach on liberty and thereby necessitating a clear legal definition of its valid scope of authority, once government exceeds said limitations of authority with impunity it will continue to do so. And in doing so it will continue to encroach upon and usurp individual rights and liberty unless the people fulfill their own obligations as a free people and stop it. 

In a republic such as ours, all true, valid and legitimate power and authority is vested in the people, not in the government. That is unless or until the people relinquish that power either by action or inaction to the government. Such is our present predicament.

As stated above, we all know that all three branches of our government have been exceeding their legitimate authority for many, many years now, encroaching on liberty and violating the Constitution. With this latest government incursion and illegitimate execution of authority it does not have the stakes have become frighteningly high and all too real in a vey short span of time. Now is the time for the people to decide: subject or sovereign, courage or cowardice. This action now being undertaken by the US Government takes the idea of sanctioning the violating of the Constitution to an unprecedented and very dangerous level. This time the politicians and bureaucrats have not only arrogantly wiped their hind-sides with the Constitution, but once they are finished wiping they intend to rub it in our collective faces – but only if we let them. 

If we rise up and let our voices be heard, they will respond, for nothing motivates career politicians like fear, especially in an election year and with the elections a little over a month away. We have a choice: we can make our collective voices heard now, loud and clear and force them to respond, or we can wait and see what happens. The problem with the latter choice is that the next time the people decide to rise up in the face of tyranny they may have to do it with torches and pitchforks and rifles.

So what is a trillion dollar government bailout really worth? What does it really cost? The true cost of the thing is liberty and a free market economy. The price we will eventually pay is subjection to tyranny.

You may want to read Part I , Part II , and Part III prior to reading this, as this is a multipart series.

Part IV

A Government Sponsored Culture of Corruption

Freddie and Fannie took on increasing amounts of high-risk debt because they could do it with impunity: they are backed up with an implied guarantee from the government, so for them high-risk is really no risk at all – even if the loans go into default, Fred and Fan will be OK because they know the government will throw lots of money at them. Why? Because they own more than one half of the mortgage debt in the US. So they, and the government, encourage privately owned financial institutions to get on board the high-risk-high-profit gravy train and they also begin assuming high-risk debt. Banks and holding companies begin to consolidate and merge – money is flowing all around, the economy is humming right along and the Dow hits record highs. Unfortunately for the rest of us, many of those companies and individuals who were raking in the money were doing so because of what would otherwise have been considered unethical business practices had government not been promoting it.   An atmosphere of corruption facilitated and even encouraged by the government is only going to breed more corruption. 

Housing was more in demand than ever, so… the price of housing goes up, and up, and up. The demand is still there, so when the opportunity presents itself to make even more money, people and institutions will do it. Given the fact that the government was at least tacitly blessing these questionable activities, if not outright threatening regulatory enforcement if companies refused to participate, many people were taken advantage of by such relatively new inventions as so-called Ninja loans (No Income, No Job and no Assets) where said loans were made when there was really no probability that it would ever be paid back. Granted, one would think that when pursuing a loan for a home that one would have adequately assessed one’s financial standing and come up with a line in the sand that was an absolute limit, knowing they could afford nothing more. You can’t argue with ignorance or sheer stupidity. 

If people are too stupid to understand what they can or cannot afford, there’s not much one can do to help. A substantial part of the problem here, and certainly a part that only served to feed the beast and make matters even worse is the “credit culture” that practically puts having as many credit cards as you want in the Bill of Rights and very bad regulations that allow banks and financial institutions to give credit cards to an unemployed homeless guy with leprosy and dementia, and then encourage him to seek even more credit. 

Credit cards are great, right? You only have to make the minimum payment each month and you can spend as much as you want – and, the more you spend the bigger your credit line seems to get. Let the reader understand that I am not making excuses, but simply relating a contributing factor. When you go into a broker and sit down to get pre-approved to buy a home and you have determined that your absolute maximum price you can afford is $200,000 you have given this a fair amount of thought. Then the broker sifting through your paperwork tells you that your assets show that you can really afford a $285,000 home. And then you start thinking about the one you saw last week that you thought was out of your price range and reconsider – and buy it. Eventually you realize too late that the broker was wrong and you were right in the first place. You default, the bank takes the house and turns around and sells it and continues to make money – that is until people stop buying houses. Then the whole bubble bursts and the ugly truth rears its head. And that is what happened leading up to the collapse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Let me reiterate once more: I am not advocating excuses for any people who knowingly overextended themselves and ended up in foreclosure sitting under mounds of debt that they could not pay off. Fiscal responsibility is an individual responsibility, and most of us understand and adhere to it. Unfortunately there has been a general attitude of entitlement in this country for a long enough period of time that many people simply think that having credit so they can get stuff they know they cannot afford is a Constitutional right. And, it doesn’t help matters when the government steps in and acts as if this were so, creating a regulatory structure that not only encourages but forces banks and financial institutions to make loans to people it otherwise wouldn’t because of quotas and threats of enforcement of anti-discrimination statues, etc.

The people on Wall Street and those who administer the financial markets of this country are not stupid. If someone with no job, no assets, no income, and no way of ever paying off a loan can to them and asked for a loan to buy a nice house in the suburbs, under normal circumstances the banks would have turned them down flat. But the government stepped in and said, in effect, “you have to give them a loan because they deserve a home and a line of credit, and if you refuse we will have to audit your business practices.” In the beginning, the banks weren’t given a choice. In the end, they succumbed to greed as they apparently could no longer resist the temptation to get themselves in deeper and deeper, issuing more bogus loans and justifying it by the “collateral” supposedly backing up those loans. But, the wealth of the companies was measured in terms of the “pledged collateral” and assets backing up those loans, so on paper they were rolling in money. In reality they were being bled dry.

To say that the bursting of the mortgage bubble caught some off-guard is completely and utterly moronic, because common sense ought to dictate that when you make a loan to someone with no assets, job, or income, you will not be getting that money back anytime soon. The people who were making the decisions at these institutions are not by any means stupid: they knew full well what they were dealing with and what they were doing. They knew exactly the risks they were taking, and believed the potential for profit was worth the risk. And they were wrong. And they were warned many, many times.

Some people, however, apparently did see the eventual bursting of the bubble. In fact, the Bush Administration proposed some sweeping overhauls back in 2003. In a New York Times article dated Sept. 11, 2003 the Times reported that, “Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.” This was seen as “is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken.”

Furthermore, then Treasury Secretary Snow said that “Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.”

However, “The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.”

So, even though people in the know were openly acknowledging a very major problem and preparing somewhat for the inevitable downturn that they had to know would lead to a financial collapse, there was still little incentive to alter the prevailing practice of the day when both companies were exempted from antifraud provisions of federal securities laws. The result? No changes, just more debt. Freddie and Fannie continued to accrue debt and sell it to other firms, all of which were now totally on board the high-risk mortgage gravy train.

Not everyone saw a problem with this, however: “’These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,’ said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ‘The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.’'' You see, to some politicians, most of them progressive Democrats, pandering to a voting bloc is more important than the financial stability of the nation.

So for the far-left progressives who are in denial that their precious pandering policies are about to ruin the nation financially, and continue to blast the current President and any conservative thinker who would dare to question the validity of the standard progressive, or for that matter Congressional, solution of throwing as much money as possible at problems, might I inquire as to who you think will be paying for this? The progressive left blames the free market, but the real problem is that the market is not free and hasn’t been for decades due to government meddling in things it has no business meddling in. And now it owns businesses – and a ton of debt. That means YOU own a ton of debt, and you and your posterity will be responsible for paying it off because, despite its assertions to the contrary amidst the clatter printing presses running overtime in the basement of the Fed, you know and understand if you have read some of my previous articles on the subject of the government and its debt, that the Federal Government is flat broke. It has no money, and only keeps running because the Treasury auctions off that debt to the entity – or country – bidding to charge us the lowest interest rate.

This brings me to a final point. Remember that $2.3 trillion dollar figure we were discussing a while back?   Well, that seems to have changed too. Recently the Fed printed out another $180 billion to pool with other central banks from around the world and pump into the global economy. Congress will likely will approve the recommendations of Fed chief Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Paulson and authorize close to $1 trillion for a new government agency and program to by up all the bad debt in the country. It’s amazing how fast things can happen in Washington when those responsible for it realize that the proverbial you-know-what has hit the fan and splatter all over their vile and corrupt faces. You may also factor in the very real possibility of Congress approving even more that the $1 trillion figure requested so it can bail out homeowners. There will also be more industry bailouts, because now that the government kitty has been tapped, there will be no end to the number of industries holding out their hands for money.

Finally, as if the news could not get any worse, consider that a certain far-left progressive who would be President will tack on an additional 800 billion to 1 trillion dollars to these figures with new government programs. 

It is time to act sensibly here and do something about this mess before we totally implode. 

What can we do about it? For starters bombard your representatives with angry email. Flood their accounts. Flood their phone banks. If you scare them they will react, because for the most part, they are cowards. Then in early November ask yourself this question before you go to the polls: “If two quasi-government agencies and a bunch of corrupt, rotten and unaccountable politicians got us into this mess, how will the same people and more government get us out?” Then vote.

You may want to read Part I and Part II prior to reading this, as this is a multipart series.

Part III

An Economic Bermuda Triangle

Those who are to blame for this crisis are the ones who engaged in predatory lending practices and those who enabled them to do so. Who would that be? Let’s start at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and then skip on over the Capitol Hill and the White House.

Who’s been working over at Freddie and Fannie? Funny you should ask that. According to the Investors Business Daily, when “Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud. Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million. Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses. In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.” Hey – isn’t that the same Jaime Gorelick who was on the 9/11 Commission? And isn’t that Franklin Raines the same guy who was Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget under Clinton? Coincidence, or...?

Below is a list obtained from OpenSecrets.org: 

Top 12 Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

Name                             Office State Party     Grand Total    Total  PACs   Total Individuals 

1. Dodd, Christopher J     S         CT        D          $165,400      $48,500           $116,900

2. Obama, Barack            S          IL         D          $126,349      $6,000            $120,349

3. Kerry, John                  S          MA      D          $111,000      $2,000             $109,000

4. Bennett, Robert F         S         UT       R           $107,999      $71,499            $36,500

5. Bachus, Spencer           H         AL       R            $103,300      $70,500          $32,800

6. Blunt, Roy                   H         MO      R            $96,950       $78,500             $18,450

7. Kanjorski, Paul E        H          PA      D            $96,000        $57,500            $38,500

8. Bond, Christopher S    S          MO     R            $95,400        $64,000            $31,400

9. Shelby, Richard C       S          AL       R           $80,000        $23,000             $57,000

10. Reed, Jack                  S          RI        D           $78,250        $43,500           $34,750

11. Reid, Harry                S          NV       D           $77,000        $60,500           $16,500

12. Clinton, Hillary          S          NY       D           $76,050        $8,000              $68,050

Nancy Pelosi is number 17 on the list. The full list names just about everybody in both houses of Congress. Get the picture? 

At the very least since the Clinton Administration took power, and likely long before – like circa 1970 – there has been a financial Bermuda triangle between the White House, Congress and Freddie and Fannie. Money and power and influence and corruption swirl round and round, yet the data, evidence and memories of those involved in government sanctioned corruption seems to just disappear into thin air – especially when the good times go bad and someone else has to be blamed. It seems that it is always the same people involved in making your money disappear – and right into their own bank accounts in one way or another. Ah, the revolving doors of Washington DC!

When you look at this list of politicians who took Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae contributions over the last twelve years and read their names and party affiliations, one quickly realizes that the spirit of bipartisanship is indeed alive and well, at least when it comes to taking campaign contributions from quasi-government agencies chartered by Congress, certainly with that potentiality in mind.  

The whole list it is very incriminating to politicians of both parties. It is interesting to note, however, that most of the high dollar recipients were Democrats. This by no means absolves the Republicans - in fact it damns them. Not the number one recipient of these contributions, Senator Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. This Senator also received a sweetheart deal on a loan, as it turns out. Surprised? You needn’t be, because he is not alone. 

According to Portfolio.com, “Kent Conrad, Democrat from North Dakota, chairman of the Budget Committee and a member of the Finance Committee, refinanced properties through Countrywide’s “V.I.P.” program in 2003 and 2004, according to company documents.”

Here’s something else that won’t surprise you, because the MSM and the Democrat Party don’t want you to know about it, lest your feathers get a bit ruffled. “Other participants in the V.I.P. program included former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, and former U.N. ambassador and assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke. Jackson was deputy H.U.D. secretary in the Bush administration when he received the loans in 2003. Shalala, who received two loans in 2002, had by then left the Clinton administration for her current position as president of the University of Miami. She is scheduled to receive a Presidential Medal of Freedom on June 19.”

Have you noticed anything that these folks, I mean crooks, have in common. They all worked… for a certain guy… at a particular address on Pennsylvania Avenue… Have you figured out the connection yet? Here’s one more clue just to help you out: “James Johnson, who had been advising presidential candidate Barack Obama on the selection of a running mate, resigned from the Obama campaign after the Wall Street Journal reported that he received Countrywide loans at below-market rates.”

There are many, many more. All of these former high ranking government officials who worked for a particular Democrat who served two terms between 1992 and 2000, and who received VIP treatment were referred to in Countrywide company emails and documents as “FOA”s, or Friends of Angelo – Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo. 

It appears, again according to Portfolio, that Angelo had many, many friends in very high places. “Henry Cisneros, who served as secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Clinton administration; former White House staffer Paul Begala, now a commentator on CNN; and Postmaster General John Potter. Countrywide also offered special discounts to Congressional staffers involved in housing issues.”

Angelo’s tentacles were far reaching: Countrywide spent over $1.5 lobbying Capitol Hill in 2005. Here’s an interesting anecdote. “Jimmie Williams, a Countrywide lobbyist in Washington, was remarkably candid in emails about the purpose of V.I.P. loans. In November 2002, for instance, Williams urged Feinberg’s boss, Doug Perry, to give “specialized handling” to an application from a staff lawyer for the House subcommittee that monitors the Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD regulates real estate settlements and closing costs and runs the Federal Housing Administration, the agency that guarantees mortgages. Williams pointed out that Clinton Jones III, senior counsel of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, was “also an adviser to ranking Republican members of Congress responsible for legislation of interest to the financial services industry and of importance to Countrywide.” Jones borrowed $101,800. So what. Who is this Clinton Jones, anyway?

Clinton Jones III is now vice president for industry relations at Fannie Mae. The lobbyist, Williams, is currently state director for federal residential-mortgage bundler Freddie Mac – you know, the guys who bundles up all this bad debt and sells it to firms on Wall Street. Also worthy of note is the fact that depending on the year, Fannie Mae bought anywhere from 10 to 30 percent of its loans from Countrywide, which they would bundle with other bad loans and then sell again. Are you holding your nose yet? Wait – there’s still more! 

Many current and former Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae executives received VIP loans from Countrywide. Former Fannie Mae C.E.O. James Johnson was given home loans at relatively low interest rates, and Countrywide waived points for him. In fact, company documents show that after leaving Fannie Mae, Johnson received more than $7 million in VIP loans. Just in case you forgot, that’s the same James Johnson who Senator Barack Obama appointed to vet his potential VP candidates. I think you get the point.

These were the just some of the players involved in the high-risk mortgage game. Granted, many of these people just named would have no problems paying back the loans, but when one is given such VIP treatments and so many of these types of VIP loans are made that may preclude a company such as Countrywide from adequately covering its costs, who do you think that cost gets passed on to. Did your Countrywide mortgage rate increase over the last couple of years? Mine did. Gee, I wonder why?

So, you had at least one major mortgage company giving away sweetheart deals to those who wield political power and leaving the rest of us to make up the difference coupled with pressure from the Clinton Administration to approve loans to millions of people who couldn’t afford them and shouldn’t have been given loans and lines of credit in the first place. What, then, do you have? According to the left you have a conspiracy theory, for it is understood in official circles that there were no Democrats involved. That means the MSM doesn’t tell you about it – so you have to hunt around to find the information, even though everyone in Washington knows who did what.

According to Politico, Nancy Pelosi had this to say “Eight years of weakened regulation of our nation’s financial system — including a failure to regulate risky, and often predatory, lending practices — by the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress have led us to this point, and could further erode our nation’s economic health.”

Doesn’t seem to jive, now does it? Remember too that Pelosi has a vested interest in NOT being found complicit I this scandal – she’s Speaker of the House and number 17 on the recipients list for Freddie and Fannie. Funny how these things always seem to triangulate in Washington, isn’t it? 

Obviously, if you’re thinking that there might be some hearings on this little matter of our entire financial sector imploding, you can forget it. The left will blame Bush and McCain and the MSM will ignore the inconvenient fact that Obama is up to his ears in this mess – if for nothing else than really, really bad judgment in appointing or having anything whatsoever to do with a miscreant like Johnson. If everyone is making some money, then all is well among the corrupted elite; no harm, no foul, right? That is at least if you’re the DC insiders making the money, cutting the deals, brokering power and influence, and covering your tracks – or at least trying to.

So, as the financial feeding frenzy really ramped up, Freddie, Fannie and the bulk of the remaining major lenders began delving into the high-risk loan market and issuing lines of credit and approving loans for more and more people who shouldn’t have had them while jumping in bed with Congress and the apparently the whole former Clinton White House. They just couldn’t control themselves, I guess, with the potential sitting there for such huge, monetary gains and political favors waiting to be granted. 

Part II

Here’s the Deal-eo

Before I get into the down-and-dirty politically-incorrect reality of what is presently transpiring in the national cesspool known to most people as Washington DC, let me first provide the reader with a breakdown of where we are so far. The government has thus far exceeded its Constitutional authority in bailing out the following companies and financial institutions: Bear Stearns $29 billion; Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae $200 billion initially (with a potential ceiling of $1.5 trillion, yes, trillion, due to the debt they carry); AIG 85 billion; the “officially” acknowledged version of the federal deficit $400 billion; loans floated to various other smaller banks and institutions, plus FDIC replenishment $109.6 billion. Put this all together and as of today we’ve just tacked another $1.2 trillion onto the taxpayer’s bill. 

But it gets better, as we may as well just factor in the actual debt that Fannie and Freddie have accrued, $1.5 trillion, because you and I both know the bottom line is that when the government steps in to pay for something, they pay the full asking price. So the real number up to $2.3 trillion. But we’re not done yet. Far from it. You know that “official” deficit figure of $400 billion? Well, that does not include the obligatory welfare/nanny-state social and financial programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, federal education loans, grants and the like. Oh, and don’t forget the trade deficit where we lose big to foreign tariffs and, of course, the interest we will ultimately have to pay to all those other corporations and foreign central banks who are buying up US debt auctioned off by the Treasury like candy. So just keep that little $2.3 trillion kiss-in-the-mail in the back of your mind and understand that the actual figure is far, far higher. 

On September 15 the Investors Business Daily published an Op-Ed piece called, “The Real Culprits In This Meltdown.” This piece sums up the current financial crisis nicely and places the proper blame exactly where it ought to be placed – on those people who were responsible and complicit in the criminal activity that resulted in the unprecedented action of the US Government nationalizing industry. 

First off, let us understand exactly what was the catalyst of this mess. Subprime lending is a high-stakes financial game played by massive financial institutions, most notably Freddie and Fannie, where loans are made with the higher expectation of risk and are therefore made with a higher interest rate than normal. This means loans are made to people or entities that the lender understands may not be able to pay back, and so a higher interest rate is the price of the loans. If the loan is paid back the lender wins big. But if the loan is defaulted upon, the lender loses all.

The notion of subprime lending generally refers to those types of loans in categories apart from those specified in loan guidelines established by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which is a bit of irony seeing as the whole problem snowballed from these two institutions. Loans would be considered subprime due to several factors including, but not limited to, income, income and job history, and the credit status of the borrower. “Subprime” also denotes bank loans taken on property that cannot be sold on the primary market and such lending encompasses a variety of credit instruments, including mortgages, car loans, and, of course, the all-American staple that those with no money just can’t do without, credit cards.

Now that we understand what we are talking about, let us move on.

Let’s jump back in time to the late 1970s for a moment. You remember it, don’t you? The booming economy, massive economic development, national pride abounding, and all under the leadership of the best President that the United States that has ever had: Jimmy Carter! You remember that little gem he got Congress to pass called the Community Redevelopment Act that was meant to promote minority home ownership? Well, that particular piece of legislation was employee by the Clinton Administration fro the first days he was in office to ensure that he could declare how he was the champion of the poor and of minorities and how it was he who was able to provide them with “affordable housing.” Do you know what “affordable housing” is? “Affordable housing” is when people who can’t afford it buy a house and you and I pay for it. 

So, Clinton used this legislation to pander to minorities and the poor. In doing so, he also put the full weight of the Federal Government behind it so as to “encourage” lenders to “help” the “less fortunate” to obtain “affordable housing.”   What that really means is that Clinton resurrected the Community Redevelopment Act and to make good on his campaign promise to provide said “affordable housing,” it quickly became well understood that every lender had to make “affordable loans” “available” to basically anyone who was not of white Anglo decent who wanted one. Of you were a lender, you did not want to turn anyone down, because then you were subjecting yourself to bearing the full brunt of the US Government penal code as enforced by the relevant agencies. You could be investigated for anything from “unfair” loan practices to racism and discrimination, and as we all remember after Waco and Elian Gonzales, Janet Reno was more that anxious to wield her power.

Caught up in the hysteria of the typical liberal obsessions of enforcing multiculturalism and pandering to the poor, the Administration was more than willing to levy hefty fines and other penalties on those who did not share the Administration’s enthusiasm for such high risk lending. Any anyone who does not think that such conditions not only enable but strongly encourage predatory lending practices – that is lending to people that you know will never be able to pay it back – needs to pull their head out of their hind-side and get with the reality of the actual situation as it was and as it presently is.

Part I

Here We Go Again…

OK. By now you’ve probably heard that the US government has seized control of yet another failing company, AIG and the Federal Reserve is going float them a sustenance loan to the tune of $85 billion. The government will have 79.9% control of the company and the loan must be will be repaid in 24 months, at an interest rate of 11.56%.

When the Fed and the Treasury and the President’s “economic working-group” decided on this course of action, they did not call Congress for approval. This is a big deal, and just in case you don’t know, Congress and Congress alone holds the purse strings of this nation’s government. Per the Constitution, no monies in the Federal treasury can be appropriated without the approval of the Congress. Not only did the Fed in it’s infinite wisdom opt not to contact the Congress and even inform it that they had decided upon another multi-billion dollar bailout for AIG, they also talked with a bunch of central banks from around the world and decided to inject $180 billion into the global monetary system.

But don’t worry, because according to the government they didn’t really need to get approval from Congress to do this because they were not going to spend money we already had, they just printed more! Get the picture?

Did You Know…

Let me put this as clearly and succinctly as I can: there is nothing Federal about the Federal Reserve. It is not a branch of the US Government. It is a bank. It is a central bank of the exact type that our Founding Fathers warned not to create. It is an entity that operates entirely outside of the constraints and limitations of the Constitution because it is entirely unconstitutional. It is completely and utterly unconstitutional, yet is the de facto controlling agency of the US Government. Congress is supposed to hold the purse strings, yet it is the fed that routinely dictates to the Congress what it intends to do, and then summarily receives a blessing to do so. It operates with impunity, and you and I pay the price it’s activity incurs.

An article entitled U.S. to Take Over AIG notes that: “It puts the government in control of a private insurer - a historic development, particularly considering that AIG isn't directly regulated by the federal government. The Fed took the highly unusual step using legal authority granted in the Federal Reserve Act, which allows it to lend to nonbanks under ‘unusual and exigent’ circumstances, something it invoked when Bear Stearns Cos. was rescued in March.”

Some economic analysts and talking heads are speculating that this could be a good thing – that when the loan is repaid, the government will actually make money on the deal because of the steep interest rate. They must be assuming that the loan will actually be repaid. And you know what happens when you assume, right? They think this is a good thing because they have totally lost sight of the fact that the US Government has absolutely no Constitutional authority whatsoever to seize control of a privately owned business and bail it out with taxpayer money.  

What is going on here is sheer, unadulterated, unconstitutional, government-run-amok madness, and its high time we took the gloves off and stopped dancing around the issue of why we are here in the first place, and start naming it for what it is. And naming names. We may as well do that here in the blogosphere, because you sure as hell know that these subjects and names of the people responsible for this mess will never, ever, come before Congress. I don’t think I need to tell you why.