Here’s a news-flash you won’t see on CNN, FOX, or any other media outlet of ill repute for that matter: the US Government thinks you are stupid. So do the politicians we continue to elect to “represent” us at the legislative and executive levels. So do the bureaucrats that are appointed and hired by the government. They all think we are stupid, and they might even be right.

Why would I even suggest such a thing, that we the people might just really be as stupid as the politicians assume us to be? Here’s my answer: because we are acting like it. And if we don’t wake up real soon and take some serious action we are going to be jolted awake one morning only discover that we no longer live in a free republic, and all the evidence, coupled with the total economic impact of the events of the last several weeks suggest that we are coming perilously close to that day.

Many, if not most, who are reading this would agree with this assessment, but for the sake of those who haven’t been paying attention to history, have no clue that we have a Constitution that is being knowingly and continually violated with seeming impunity by our elected representatives, bureaucrats and judges, and for those who, being either blissfully ignorant about the truth regarding the economic catastrophe our once-free market has become or who simply nod their heads at the assurance of government that they are working hard to fix the problem and everything is going to be OK, I have some disturbing news for you: the government and the politicians you elected are all lying to you – because they think you are stupid. And if you continue to believe them, then you are stupid.

Here is the ugly truth: In the last month your government has committed to spend approximately $1 trillion to bail out various Wall Street financial institutions, along with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. That brings the officially acknowledged federal deficit to roughly $10 trillion. And there will most certainly be more regardless who wins the election: more spending, more promises of programs to help homeowners in over their heads, more debt. The Treasury will have to continue bailing out the FDIC as it (the FDIC) has already paid out the $45 billion fiscal insurance policy it holds to the many banks that have already failed. Amid all this chaos the government officials and elected representatives and candidates for office step up and promise they’ll fix it. One of these reprehensible bulwarks of all that is wrong in the world, Rep. Barney Frank – a man who is at the very least (along with his many Democrat and Republican comrades) complicit if not guilty of gross negligence in facilitating this mess has promised to do “major surgery” on the nation’s financial system. 

If Frank and his compatriots in the Congress hold true to their promise you can bet there will be more bank failures and this current recession will likely devolved into a long depression. Why? Because the whole reason the world’s financial system is on the verge of total collapse is because of government meddling in the economy by trying to manipulate and perpetuate artificial conditions of a growing economy. This is called central economic planning, a long discredited manipulative policy that has been proven unsustainable over time, as we are currently witnessing. You will never hear your Congressman or Presidential candidates speak of this, for to do so would betray the truth, and the truth would set us free, so to speak. 

Speaking this truth would be the equivalent of admitting that our planned and over-manipulated economy is no more a true free market system than was the Soviet economy that imploded in 1991 – and as this ugly truth stares us in face all we hear from politicians and bureaucrats is that “greedy Wall Street CEOs” are the ones to blame. In fact, some in Congress are already holding hearings featuring testimony from CEOs of several of the companies recently bailed out or that have failed. The Congress has the sheer audacity to lay 100% of the blame at the feet of these CEOs, who certainly deserve their share of the blame to whatever degree they jumped on the high-risk bundle bandwagon, while conveniently overlooking their own actions that directly contributed the creation of an environment where such catastrophically stupid business practices were not merely possible but were strongly encouraged. One party accuses the other of deregulating the finance industry as if that were the cause while the other accuses the first party of enacting senseless regulations as if those were the cause – and to an extent, both are correct. What was had prior to deregulation was a lot of bad regulation that was replaced by nothing that would solve the problems the bad regulation created, and most would agree that this is so.

However, while enacting laws for the purpose of regulation of commerce is a legitimate function of the Congress, enabling the Federal Reserve to secretly enact policy of its own, and for which it is unaccountable and un-auditable, specifically designed and intended to manipulate the money supply and interest rates to create and perpetuate a false prosperity nicely contained in a bubble that is an anomaly of free market operation, is not. In fact not only does the existence of a central bank go against the advice of the Founding Fathers of our country, it essentially violates all of the core principles upon which the Constitution is founded.

The Founders knew all too well the pitfalls of a fiat currency, that is, a currency of paper money that derives its “value” by the arbitrary authority of government declaring it’s worth, as it is in reality not backed up by any tangible assets. During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress financed itself partly by its self-produced Continental currency – paper money like we use today – that was not backed up by gold or anything else of any intrinsic value. The people were forced to use it, and the government simply was able to produce more of it by printing it, until they had printed such an overabundance of it that the currency itself became entirely worthless. Unfortunately the geniuses in government and those at the fed have not correctly understood the warnings of the Founders, because we have been doing the same thing since 1971 when Nixon took us of the gold standard. Either that or they know exactly what they are doing, which would be even more disturbing.

The fact of the matter is that those running the Fed are not stupid – everything they do is calculated. So why would they deliberately choose to destroy the dollar, because that is exactly what our government’s economic “rescue plan” or bailout will achieve if it continues the current charted course. They are destroying the dollar because the fundamental element of this “rescue plan” is the infusion of massive amounts of cash into the monetary system. The problem is that the treasury has none, and so it is left to the Fed to print it. With each new dollar that gets printed and injected into the system, the value of all the other dollars out there is diminished so they become worth even less on the market; therefore the buying power of individuals is likewise diminished as the value of the dollar goes down. The more currency produced, the less value it has. 

This is “inflation 101” and everyone on Capitol Hill and in Washington ought to know that. But, then again, these are by and large the same folks who signed on to creating the conditions that ultimately brought about this catastrophe, so it is not entirely surprising that they would sign on to allowing massive amounts of money to be printed and injected into the system. My dark theory on this is that in doing so they are inviting hyperinflation, which is when so much fiat currency is produced that it becomes essentially worthless (take Italy, for example, where you would pay 10,000 Lira for a pack of cigarettes). Perhaps they know this. Perhaps they don’t care. At the very least, they’d tell us, they are working hard and doing something to “fix the problem. 

But that is exactly the root of the problem in the first place, and so here is where the idea of individual responsibility and self-government comes in. The people are running like sheep in whatever direction the government leads – even if it is off a cliff- and unfortunately they have become so conditioned to looking to government to solve their problems that to do otherwise is often not even an afterthought. The people are not asking the right questions either – if they’re asking them at all. But, they are demanding that government “do something.” If they were living up to their civic responsibilities in the first place they would have been paying attention and seen this coming and would have been able to put enormous pressure on their elected representatives to stop the insanity before the crash became inevitable. 

The fact that this is happening in a Presidential election year makes the idea of individual self-government all the more important. The people are panicking as they see a long and deep recession looming, the politicians are panicking because they are afraid they’ll not be re-elected, and no one wants to tell the truth about how we got here in the first place. And now with the totality of the erosions of our Constitutional liberties having been much accelerated in recent years and the government nationalizing massive segments of industry, taking over individual home mortgages to presumably have courts renegotiate rates or perhaps dictate them, a complacent and uninformed electorate is only weeks away from electing a relatively unknown, unprepared, and untested politician who has spend the vast majority of his life immersed in the world of radical socialist ideology while pretending not to be. Our economy, our nation, our republic is being handed to him like John the Baptist’s head on a platter.

The people are crying, “Do something!”   Be careful what you ask for, because now that the government is doing something everything is going to get worse. You don’t believe that? Then name something outside of the realm of military action or law enforcement that the government does well. Incidentally, the national defense and law enforcement are really the only useful Constitutionally mandated obligations of the Federal Government, aside from the construction of roads, and the legitimate regulation of commerce. 

Also of note is Article I, Section 8. Under the title “Power Granted to Congress,” paragraph 5 reads: “To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin and fix the Standard of Weights and measures.” Note that nowhere in this paragraph is there mentioned an entity known as “The Federal Reserve,” nor is the authority to coin money and fix its value given to a single principal in the person of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Furthermore, it is important to note that the Constitution as written is binding as the Supreme Law of the Land, except where amended and ratified. No amendment created the Federal Reserve; rather, by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 did the Congress unconstitutionally give charter to the Federal Reserve and illegally abdicate its obligation to coin money and set its value. Indeed, as if the creation of the Fed as an illicit central bank wasn’t bad enough, think for a moment of the sheer audacity and arrogance in thinking that one person with even the best and brightest minds to assist them, could ever permanently manipulate the forces of the free market to create a condition of permanent prosperity. And that is a major part of the problem.

If the markets were left to themselves there would indeed be periods of growth and periods of correction; however, absent mountains of poorly defined or ill-scoped regulation and meddling politicians abusing their lawful authority to implement self-serving policies pandering to their own constituencies and thereby exerting massive, undue influence and encroachment on the machinations of the free market, those corrections would be comparably mild and sort-lived. Yet those very persons responsible for creating those conditions encouraging greed and corruption are now the same who demand of us still more of our money and our trust. The talking heads on the TV, with few notable exceptions, tell us repeatedly that as unfortunate as it is, we have no other option. 

To those who suggest as much I say this: economic freedom and liberty are inseparable – you cannot have the one without the other. If the market can be so easily manipulated by the arbitrary will of government for the benefit of the few, then the market is not free and neither are those who participate in it. If, on the other hand, the market is allowed to dictate unto itself and to its participants the worth of goods and services and the worthiness of those who seek them, then all are able to prosper to the extent that they wish to share in that prosperity. Such is free-market capitalism is spared undue meddling of government. That is our other option, indeed our only option; for if we do trust these power hungry fools again, the hegemony of the government, then we are exactly as stupid as they think we are, and we deserve the misery that shall most certainly befall us. If not for liberty we would only then have no other option but follow along like sheep and give to government all that it demands. We are now at a crossroad in the history of this nation, and the decisions to be made and the actions to be taken in the immediate future will have a profound and perhaps irreversible impact on our lives and those of our children. 

Let us not fool ourselves: we have been asleep at the wheel for far too long, and if we don’t immediately wake up and grab the wheel we run the very serious risk of driving right off the cliff. If you don’t believe in the possibility of an authoritarian socialist regime in the United States you are either very naïve or ignorant of history, because the possibility is not only very real but is staring us in the face. Right now our system is still the best in the world, albeit imperfect. It would be even better and we would be returned to great prosperity if our representatives and government were actually abiding by the Constitution. They will not do so unless we the people force them too.

It could be argued that we are in the beginning stages of tyranny, of the proverbial “benevolent dictatorship.” The government is moving now, through the Fed, to take over controlling interest in even more of the banks in the US. The government is also planning on purchasing mortgages and will thus become the largest homeowner in the world. As they “loan” billions to the auto industry and then, doubtless, to others they will likewise require oversight, if not “public ownership” in those companies. Does “public ownership” sound familiar?   Once government encroaches on a segment of the private sector it will not extricate itself unless the people force it to do so. Remember, the New Deal was sold to the people on the premise that it was a temporary measure to meet the needs of an extraordinary crisis. This same line is being sold to us today. Don’t believe it.

At a time when government encroachment into the private lives of citizens at the federal and state level is at an unprecedented level, where state executives and legislatures usurp the rights of parents by mandating that children receive certain “vaccines,” where the Federal Government is pursuing a course to take over massive segments of the economy, where private sector jobs are being lost while government jobs are being created, and where the most likely winner of the upcoming Presidential election will seek to force state run health care, “world” taxes payable to the UN, and the elimination of the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, complacency is not an option. We must be organized and united starting today, for we must take back control of our government and make it work for us and not against us. Government encroachment into areas heretofore left to the individual self-government and personal responsibility of each citizen is out of control, and if left unchecked it will consume us. Keep this in mind: our Founding Fathers sacrificed their very lives for the liberty we are letting the government illicitly usurp piece by piece. So, as you witness these current events continue to unfold, keep asking yourself this question each day: “Am I sovereign or a subject?” Wake up, America, before it’s too late.

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.

And trashes her family. Nice, and very enlightening insight into the minds of progressive socialists.

It appears Obama’s surrogate minions in the Great White North have been working overtime in the creativity department. The latest overtly sexist attack against Sarah Palin comes from… you guessed it, a progressive socialist writer in Canada who just looooves Barack Hussein Obama! According to Heather Mallick writing for the Canadian Broadcast Corporation, Sarah Palin is not merely “inexperienced” and “unprepared” and “frighteningly extreme on abortion.”   No, she is comparable to a porn actress.

I guess now that Canada has delved to the very depths of socialism and legislated a radical progressivism that apparently encourages, if not mandates hate-speech filled and sexist-slurred articles against anything purporting normal, traditional Judeo-Christan values. How very sad for them. I wonder how Mallick will feel when her progressive extremism celebrates diversity and multiculturalism to the extent that they recognize sharia law and allow Muslim men to brutalize their wives in the name of Allah? Oh. Wait – they’re already doing that in BC. But I digress…

Mallick is so clever. Here’s a couple of excerpts for you:

“Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favoured by this decade's woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression. Bristol has what is known in Britain as the look of the teen mum, the "pramface." Husband Todd looks like a roughneck; Track, heading off to Iraq, appears terrified. They claim to be family obsessed while being studiously terrible at parenting. What normal father would want Levi "I'm a _______ redneck" Johnson prodding his daughter?”

“I assume John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential partner in a fit of pique because the Republican money men refused to let him have the stuffed male shirt he really wanted. She added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn't already have sewn up, the white trash vote, the demographic that sullies America's name inside and outside its borders yet has such a curious appeal for the right.”

Here is the full article: A Mighty Wind blows through Republican convention

Here is Heather Mallick’s website: www.heathermallick.ca

Here is the feedback link to the CBC: SEND YOUR FEEDBACK

I am sure they would love to hear from you. 

I would be hard pressed to think of a time I have rad something so offensive masquerading as journalism. But, then again, as Michael Savage has repeatedly said, “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.” And this is incontestable proof that he was right.

Senator Obama came out swinging at John McCain this morning, taking swipes at his “extreme” position against abortion, and his minions in the MSM are only too willing to deliver the ever-convoluted messages of the Prophet of Hope and Change. The AP (read DNC) hit the ground running this morning with an article entitled, “Obama calls out McCain on abortion.” Gee, with a title like that, you’d just have to assume Obama holds the correct position on abortion. 

McCain is opposed to abortion except in cases where the life of the mother is in jeopardy, or in cases of rape and incest. He would prefer to see Roe overturned and the issue sent back to the states, where it belongs. In fact, Obama is so confident that he is in the right, he rails that McCain holds an "extreme position on choice" and "will make abortion illegal."

It is difficult to wrap one’s mind around the fact that Obama does not see his position on abortion as extreme. As has been reported since he announced his candidacy, Obama favors unrestricted abortion to include lifting all bans on partial-birth abortion. Obama also fought hard to kill a bill in the Illinois State Senate that would have protected a newborn baby that survived a late-term induced-labor abortion. In fact, he is on the record on the floor of the State Senate as not merely speaking out against the bill, but in doing so making a convoluted argument as to why a baby born alive should not be afforded “human personhood” because it would “unduly encroach upon Roe.” Translated, that means, “I can’t afford to let these children live because I must retain my 100% rating from NARAL in order to received money from Planned Parenthood.”

Here is Obama in his own words on the floor of the Illinois State Senate:

“As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.”

To clarify his twisted reasoning Senator Obama explained it thus: "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute." [For audio of this testimony click here.]

Barack Obama has stated “the first thing I’d do as president“ would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would overturn every local, state, and federal abortion law passed in the past 35 years.

If that is not the extreme position of a murderous pro-infanticide zealot, then what is?

Have you seen the news? Have you been watching the financial sector self-destruct? Did you hear about the latest $85 billion bailout of AIG? Did you hear Dana Perino’s briefing from the White House today? Here’s a little exchange that caught my attention:

Begin transcript

“Q And to the people who say, you know what, AIG should have failed so that you clean out the system and you don't delay whatever recovery -- you have a bottom and you start to move up. What do you say to that?

MS. PERINO: Well, we remain concerned about other companies, and that's why the Secretary of the Treasury continues to work with the team to see if we can stem any other losses.

But they're -- as I said, they're taking this on a case-by-case basis, and we will have to continue to do so; at the same time, looking at what we do to make sure that the taxpayers, to the greatest extent possible, are protected. But the considered judgment here was that if you don't take the recommendations of the senior economic advisors, who are very experienced and have decided on decisive action that can help stem the tide of broader economic damage, that that's the best thing that we can do to try to help protect all taxpayers in the long run.

[W]e are dealing with very challenging times and Secretary Paulson -- I'm sorry, the Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, and the President's economic advisors had determined that there were some -- some of these companies were so big that to allow them to fail would have caused even greater harm and damage to the economy.

So the goal has been to take action where necessary to promote stability and strength in the marketplace, so that we can prevent or limit more damage to the broader economy. In all cases, the President has wanted to make sure that the taxpayers are kept foremost in mind. In these agreements, if you look back, the shareholders have been wiped out. A lot of employees have lost their jobs. Management has been replaced. And the taxpayers will be paid back first.

While no one would have liked to have ended up in this situation, you have a government that is willing to lead, act where appropriate, and govern, to make sure that we limit broader financial harm to the economy.

Q You say taxpayers will be paid back first. They may not be paid back at all.

MS. PERINO: Well, that is true. And that is why we take great care in making sure that President has asked a lot of questions, to make sure that his economic advisors have thought things through, have made the best determination and have moved forward. But I think the tax -- I think the argument is that the taxpayers might be harmed even worse if the economy was -- if we allowed it to just have a lot broader damage.

And we think that the actions that have been taken were appropriate ones. I believe that Treasury thinks that they will be able to pay the taxpayers back. But it's just going to take us some time to work through this crisis.

Q Where does it stop? (The Bailouts)

MS. PERINO: You know, I would be misleading you if I knew. What we are doing is taking this on a case-by-case basis, evaluating each one carefully.

Then there was this exchange that really caught my attention:

Q Dana, what do you say to Americans who are looking at the AIG deal and saying, we don't have a free market economy; how can you call this a free market economy?

MS. PERINO: We do have a free market -- the free market is alive and well, and we have systems in place here in our country to be able to deal with shocks to the system like this. And Secretary Paulson and the Fed Chairman have taken action where they think necessary in order to prevent broader shocks to the economy.

Look, the market has had a lot of information to digest over the past several days, and it's going to take a little bit of time for us to see where this goes. But I think the considered judgment -- the collective judgment of most people today is that the action they took last night on AIG was the right move.

Q And to the people who say, you know what, AIG should have failed so that you clean out the system and you don't delay whatever recovery -- you have a bottom and you start to move up. What do you say to that?

MS. PERINO: Well, we remain concerned about other companies, and that's why the Secretary of the Treasury continues to work with the team to see if we can stem any other losses.”

End Transcript

Is it just me, or is everyone in Washington kind of sticking their collective heads in the sand and pretending that waving the flag around and pontificating on what little they know of the Constitution and the actual limits and constraints upon governmental authority relative to the economy, they will be able once again to bamboozle the people into thinking that big-daddy Uncle Sam will make everything OK?

It is disgusting, it is unconstitutional and it is very, very disturbing. And I am one very, very pissed off American today. I don’t usually use such language on this blog, but I just don’t know any other words to describe how I feel – OK I do, but if I use them they’ll throw me out of here.

I am pissed off that everybody in DC says they didn’t see this coming, but the evidence shows otherwise.

I am pissed off that every branch of the government is deliberately exceeding its Constitutional authority and doing whatever it feels like with impunity, because they think that the people are so apathetic that if they just throw us a bone here and there we’ll simply ignore their gross transgressions.

I am pissed off that these politicians and bureaucrats pretend like there is nothing wrong with calling our system a "free market" economy while at the same time they are messing with it from the Fed and thereby making it anything but free.  The fundamentals of a strong economy are indeed ther, and it would work if only government would let it instead of trying to constantly manipulate it.

I am most pissed off that no one will speak the truth in DC! How stupid do they think we are? Am I the only one who feels insulted? 

When you look at the players in this meltdown and trace the money and people, you get back to Clinton’s pandering to minorities and the poor and pushing that multiculturalism nonsense that the progressives love so much. You also inevitably get back to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae – two unconstitutional quasi-government agencies that cost taxpayers a bundle and make rich bankers richer and hook up members of Congress with a money machine that is akin to an ATM, so that these behemoths will never die, cause no one wants to turn off the money spigot.

I have no problem whatsoever with people getting rich, but not on my dime - not at the public trough.  And, I want to know why the former executives of Freddie and Fannie are still getting paid to stay on for the "transition."  Only in Washington DC can you ruin the financial sustem of the nation and get rewarded for it.  Freddie Mac’s Richard Syron and Fannie Mae's, Daniel Mudd are still getting paid, even though they knew what was going on.  You and I both know that if they worked for a true privately held firm, they'd be persona-non-grata and awaiting indictment and trial.  But there will be no trial.  Probably no hearings either.  nancy Pelosi is a big fan and recipient of Fred and Fan's lobbying money.  Imagine that!

You also have career political hacks that would sell their souls for money, dark amoral people who can smile and put on a look of concern and lie right to your face and mean it at that moment. People like Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Jamie Gorelick, Franklin Raines, et al.

You have people who do not give a crap about people like you and me because they are better than us – they work in DC. They are members of Congress. They are bureaucrats.

They are all liars!

You have a guy like Obama who’s bemoaning greed and avarice on Wall Street, and talking nonsense like this: “’Since this turmoil began over a year ago," the Illinois senator said, "the housing market has all but collapsed. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to be effectively taken over by the government. Three of America's five largest investment banks failed or have been sold off in distress. Yesterday, Wall Street suffered its worst losses since just after 9/11.’ He said McCain and President Bush subscribe to the same approach: ‘support ideological policies that made the crisis more likely, do nothing as the crisis hits and then scramble as the whole thing collapses.’”

Wow! Suddenly he’s outraged about Freddie and Fannie. Gee, he didn’t seem too upset over the fact that he has accepted $126,349 in lobbying money from Freddie and Fannie since 2004. In fact he’s the Number Two recipient of money from those two abominations. And let me put it in the proper context for you: the list at opensecrets.org was compiled from 1989 to 2008. Obama is second on the list. Chris Dodd is Number One, having received $165,400 since 1989. Obama received $126,349 in just four years, and half of that time he’s been running for President.

Why the hell isn’t anyone except those of us on the blogs talking about it? Why won’t McCain bring it up? I don’t know – maybe he has, but I haven’t heard about it.

This stuff isn’t secret – it’s all public information.

And now McCain goes and disappoints me terribly by flip-flopping on the bailouts in just 24 hours. Yesterday at this time he was against them. Today he says it was the right decision. Helloooooo! How the hell is tacking $85 billion onto the taxpayer’s tab to bail out foreign interests the right decision? Oh, you didn’t know that? Yeah, AIG is a multinational corporation whose holding company, which was the entity bailed out, is backed 85% by foreign central banks. Where is the outrage? Where does it stop?

It’s wrong and it’s unconstitutional! McCain ought to know better!

Where does it stop? It won’t unless the people make them.

This has prompted me to do something different: I am writing several articles in various parts not only about this financial meltdown, but also on my take on our economy and the Constitution. I’ll be posting them in several parts, each with a disclaimer, because it is possible that without first reading the preceding parts, a current post may not make much sense. 

To my readers, I thank you for reading and I apologize for my ranting format – and language. I would also ask that, if you can, to please let me know when I post these multi-part articles if they flow and work for you – if they are coherent and lucid, so to speak. 

Until tomorrow, I’ll be pissed off and writing…

Elections are as funny and entertaining as they are serious, and if you can’t find the humor in this stuff you’d better make sure you don’t miss taking your blood pressure medicine, because the differences between the candidates in this race are indeed striking, and the very future of our republic hangs in the balance.

Politicians are funny too – especially Senators and anyone running for President.  You’ve got to expect gaffes and goofs and stupid things.  And you ought to laugh at them, if for no other reason, than because it’s good for the soul.  But I digress…

Don’t you just love watching the elite intelligentsia try to relate to us every four years?  I do – I can’t get enough of this stuff!  Now, GOP and Democrat candidates have markedly different ways by which they demonstrate that they are just like us.  The Republican multi-millionaires will dress casual, which means they don’t wear a tie with their slacks, blazer and loafers; and they’ll go to local coffee shops and restaurants and talk to the folks and try their best to come off as a regular Joe or Jane.  Sometimes the GOP candidates from the plains or the west even wear jeans. Oh, audacity of hope!

The Democrats are more fun I their approach.  Bars and rodeos.  I mean, what normal, average, everyday American doesn’t like bars or rodeos?  We’re talking proletarian-paradise here.  Corn-dogs, beer, cowboy hats and, of course, don’t forget the rodeo clowns wearing cowboy hats!  Ah, Americana at its best!  And speaking of clowns in cowboy hats, I’ll tell you, when I saw the image of Senator Obama in a cowboy hat doing his best John Wayne, I just couldn’t help but be moved.  No, no, not that kind of movement – and not the “tingly-leg” thing either.  It was more of a moment of self-reflection and identity.  It was like I jumped out of myself because it was like I was looking at myself, you know?  I just wanted to scream out, “WOW!  He’s just like me!  This progressive, socialist leaning liberal Democrat understands ME!  Hallelujah!  Hallelujah!  HE IS JUST LIKE ME!  This man GETS IT!”

And he’s into electronic devices, too, although I admittedly kind of lost my enthusiasm momentarily when I thought about how I only have a little Razor cell phone and therefore can’t really relate to a guy with a few million dollars in his pocket who can bring a teleprompter to the rodeo.  But I digress yet again…

Seriously though, when is the last time you saw even a closet socialist wearing a cowboy hat?  I can only think back to when Gorby visited Reagan’s ranch in California and when Khrushchev visited President Eisenhower in 1959 and stuffed his face with good old American corn (because they didn’t grow enough in the Soviet Union, maybe?).

I also got a chuckle thinking about something else: Mike Dukakis sitting down on the T on his way into Boston, holding his latte-frappa-doosie, and opening his Boston Globe only to see Senator Obama’s picture in the cowboy hat there staring at him.  Yes, one need only muster a little imagination to guess what was going through the Duke’s mind as he reacted to the photo of Obama as if it were saying, “Howdy pilgrim.”   Can you picture him thinking back to the photo that killed his campaign as he bolted out of his seat shrieking, “NOOOOOOOOOOOO!” before collapsing back into the seat and leaning his head against the window, silently watching the suburbs pass by and lamenting yet another lost opportunity to advance the cause of the Proletariat.  Yeah, kind of makes you smile, huh?

Oh, the lamentations of the Duke!  “How could this be?”  I don’t know.  I wonder if Obama had ever seen that photo of Dukakis in the tank.  I mean 1988 was only 20 years ago.  Well, maybe Obama was too busy organizing communities and multiplying fish and loaves for the downtrodden masses to have seen the picture.  Oh, yeah, and in his spare time he was probably in church praying for the rise of world socialism and rejecting middle-classness, and fist-bumping Jeremiah Wright after his radical sermons, after which he would read and memorize Saul Alinsky books.  And when he went on to Harvard he was still far too busy to seek out the Duke for his political savvy and advice for the future.  Not to mention the fact that the Duke taught at Northeastern after the election, and no respectful member of the Harvard elite intelligentsia would be caught dead hanging out in the Fens at Northeastern.  Please!

Yep, that Barak Obama, why he’s just like me, and I can really relate to him, except for all that money he has, and the radical black liberation theology to which he subscribes, and the degree from Harvard, and the “community organizer” thing, and his proclivity toward socialism.  Oh, and the teleprompter at the rodeo.  Yep, just like me!  Yes we can! Hope! Change, change, change!  Yes we can!

You know, come to think of it, I think I can actually relate a little bit better to Dukakis - at least the Duke was in the Army for real, long before the photo ops.