Look Closely

http://www.myvidster.com/video/3110656/Footage_of_Scott_Olsen_being_shot_by_Police_at_Occupy_Oakland

At :29 Scott Olsen pulls something out of his right pocket. The position of his hand is as if he is holding a pistol. Then he appears to cock it with his left hand. Then a woman walks in front of him and blocks the view. Was there a gun found anywhere near him after he fell? Would the other protestors admit it if he did? I would really like to know what exactly he pulled out of his pocket and if the police thought it looked like a gun too. The look on Olsen's face was the gaze of a man in a standoff waiting for his moment of draw his weapon. This is certainly an unpopular suggestion, but cold objectivity has never been popular.

The First Amendment protects the right of people to assemble for peaceful and lawful purposes. The police have every right to act against people who have become unlawful and refuse to obey laws. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities. The Occupy Oakland protestors were definitely becoming unlawful and promoting illegal actions.

It is unfortunate that so many otherwise intelligent people allow their emotions and rationale to be manipulated by media biases. Why can't they think for themselves and look at events with a discerning eye? Or is it that they just really aren't all that intelligent?

The Man Comes Around

(originally written 4-10-09 but never published)

Opening Introduction (Spoken part)

And I heard as it were the noise of thunder
One of the four beasts saying come and see and I saw
And behold a white horse

Song

There's a man going around taking names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
Everybody won't be treated all the same
There'll be a golden ladder reaching down
When the Man comes around

The hairs on your arm will stand up
At the terror in each sip and in each sup
Will you partake of that last offered cup?
Or disappear into the potter's ground
When the Man comes around

Hear the trumpets, hear the pipers
One hundred million angels singing
Multitudes are marching to the big kettledrum
Voices calling, voices crying
Some are born and some are dying
It's Alpha and Omega's kingdom come

And the whirlwind is in the thorn tree
The virgins are all trimming their wicks
The whirlwind is in the thorn tree
It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks

Till Armageddon no shalam, no shalom
Then the father hen will call his chickens home
The wise man will bow down before the throne
And at His feet they'll cast their golden crowns
When the Man comes around

Whoever is unjust let him be unjust still
Whoever is righteous let him be righteous still
Whoever is filthy let him be filthy still
Listen to the words long written down
When the Man comes around

Hear the trumpets, hear the pipers
One hundred million angels singing
Multitudes are marching to the big kettledrum
Voices calling and voices crying
Some are born and some are dying
It's Alpha and Omega's kingdom come

And the whirlwind is in the thorn tree
The virgins are all trimming their wicks
The whirlwind is in the thorn tree
It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks

In measured hundred weight and penney pound
When the Man comes around.

Close (Spoken part)
And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

"The Man Comes Around" by Johnny Cash

Lines on the Sphere

For I know your transgressions are many and your sins are great,
You who distress the righteous and accept bribes
And turn aside the poor in the gate.
Therefore at such a time the prudent person keeps silent, for it is an evil time.
Seek good and not evil, that you may live;
And thus may the LORD God of hosts be with you,
Just as you have said!
Hate evil, love good,
And establish justice in the gate!

Amos 5: 12-15

Take away from Me the noise of your songs;
I will not even listen to the sound of your harps.
But let justice roll down like waters
And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

Amos 5: 23-24

Do horses run on rocks?
Or does one plow them with oxen?
Yet you have turned justice into poison
And the fruit of righteousness into wormwood

Amos 6: 12

(Okay, for the mathematicians and other science types, I know I'm taking liberties with this lines-and-spheres metaphor, but I think it works somewhat for my purposes.)

While the United States Constitution guarantees us the Freedom of Religion and forbids the establishment of a mandatory State Religion, too many postmodern "thinkers" have decided that the only way to protect these rules is to completely eliminate all religious influences from public life. Well, it should be logically obvious that such thinking clearly cannot be defended because it violates its own premise of Freedom. How can restricting the "free exercise" of religion in the public sphere be consistent with protecting any true Freedom? Some might object and insist that they are guaranteed some "freedom from religion" and that all public places should be free of any kind of religious symbolism or other influences, but that kind of 'reasoning' does not fit on a sphere where it does not intersect with other fully reasoned freedoms. How else can I make it obvious that one cannot violate a basic principle with such an exception? We know that parallel lines on a sphere will eventually always intersect, and this is not a flat world.

Basic principles and fundamental laws and liberties cannot be breached for the sake of "exceptions." And to favor or champion the exceptions at the expense of the basic and fundamental is inconsistent with reason, justice, fairness, and the rule of law.

An inconvenient reality for the postmodern Constitutional flatlanders is that our entire system of Freedoms is dependent upon the Christian concepts of morality. As Christ taught people how to live in peace and harmony with one another, and he insisted that all men treat each other with the same esteem and respect as themselves. He berated the leaders who did not live in accordance with these principles.

Jesus answered, "How terrible also for you teachers of the Law! You put onto people's backs loads which are hard to carry, but you yourselves will not stretch out a finger to help them carry those loads

Luke 11:46

"How terrible for you teachers of the Law! You have kept the key that opens the door to the house of knowledge; you yourselves will not go in, and you stop those who are trying to go in!"

Luke 11:52

It seems to me that the downfall of our Constitution (and arguably, our society) began with the illogical and errant Supreme Court ruling in Brown v Board of Education which used faulty sociological reasons for declaring that "separate is inherently unequal." Now, no one should confuse himself that I am defending racism or any kind of mandatory segregation. That is NOT my point and that does not fit anywhere on the Sphere of Freedom. My argument is that the very idea that 'separate cannot be equal' is completely wrong and unnecessary to assure equal freedoms. Racism is not an argument I am pursuing, and I will not engage in it at this time except to suggest that one look at the evidence of the last 40 or so years that shows us the steady decline in the quality of education and social conditions since the Court ruling. Usually such evidence speaks for itself.

Jesus Christ himself was arguing that separate IS equal - that all men are equal in the eyes of God (and should be in the eyes of the law) even if they are "separated" by the natural variations of life experience and conditions. And this idea is at the heart of our American psyche and soul:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

What that means is basically the same as what Jesus Christ taught his disciples about their own status in the world:

And there was an argument among them about which of them was the greatest. And he said, The kings of the Gentiles are lords over them, and those who have authority are given names of honour. But let it not be so with you; but he who is greater, let him become like the younger; and he who is chief, like a servant. For which is greater, the guest who is seated at a meal or the servant who is waiting on him? is it not the guest? but I am among you as a servant.

But you are those who have kept with me through my troubles; And I will give you a kingdom as my Father has given one to me, So that you may take food and drink at my table in my kingdom, and be seated like kings, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 22: 24-30

Of course, Jesus Christ required that men accept the judgment of God over the judgment of other men in order to have eternal life in heaven. While these are religious requirements, one cannot dismiss or deny the basic truth of equality within the statements. Our Founding Fathers knew, and assumed that others would know, the biblical basis of their own principles. However, it cannot be considered any kind of co-mingling of Church and State to have your basic principles founded in the truths that are shared by a religion. It is merely an intersection of the parallels on the sphere

Dear House of Representatives,

I want to remind you of your proper place in this nation. I recommend you read the Federalist Papers, specifically #57. For your convenience I'm including a very important excerpt from that paper:

I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it. If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty. Such will be the relation between the House of Representatives and their constituents. Duty, gratitude, interest, ambition itself, are the chords by which they will be bound to fidelity and sympathy with the great mass of the people.

In my own "vigilant and manly spirit" I am stating that unfortunately the "genius of the system" has been undermined by itself and its members doing all of the things that Hamilton/Madison said it shouldn't do, and also by the people tolerating everything but liberty. (a problem that may soon be remedied by sufficient "populist outrage")

As some are fretting about the sanctity of the "rule of law" I am just saying that the law has fallen by its own excess. The rule of law is only as strong, trustworthy, and incorruptible as its makers. I am standing in a separate place from many of the people with whom I normally agree about the fundamental principles of government... some who want to believe that the rule of law should be respected unconditionally. However, be it by the virtue of my rebellious heredity or some other influence, I cannot agree that the rule of law is always untouchable and inviolate.

As for the whole AIG issue, I do believe that all of you Representatives (and Senators) should apply the same punishments upon yourselves as you wish to apply to the employees who received unjust bonuses, etc. You are just as guilty as any of them, if not moreso.

The "populist outrage" is not restricted to, or even primarily directed at, some unfortunate and incompetent financial services employees of AIG, and you would be wise to recognize your own corruption and incompetence and to rectify yourselves immediately.

With much vigilant and manly ;-) spirit,
Vicious Momma

PS Another reminder for you, Article 1, Section 9 or the US Constitution: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Cowards and Monkeys

Surely everyone by now has heard about Eric Holder, the black Attorney General, calling the USA a "nation of cowards" in matters of race and also about the New York Post cartoon of a the crazy stimulus monkey being shot by police. Well, I could say a lot about it, but I'll resist at this moment. Except for this... it takes a good bit of courage (the opposite of cowardice) to publish political satire, but it takes a coward to place blame on everyone else instead of taking responsibility for his own hardships and struggles. What if John McCain, or any other white guy, had said the same thing as Holder? He'd be lynched, or at least figuratively shot like a crazy, over-stimulated monkey (or the cartoonist who drew one).

Free Bird

"Cause I'm as free as a bird now
And this bird you never change"
(when I was little I used to think "change" was "chain" which still makes sense)

Change I Can Believe In

America used to be the Land of the Free, but more and more of our individual freedoms are being eroded and surrendered in these current times. I'm certain that our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves to see how easily the "people" are allowing the government to violate our basic, guaranteed freedoms that they devoted their lives to securing...

So many people have become so lazy that they think it is easier to let the government take care of them and make all of their decisions for them. Well, fine if they want that, but I DON'T. Here is a change I can believe in:

We should follow the example of Czechoslovakia's Velvet Divorce and allow our country to split into two. We could have one that wants to be socialist and the other that doesn't. Let's call them the USSA (United Socialist States of America) and the FSA (Free States of America). It would be pretty easy to find the geographical boundaries with the "left coast" joining with the upper midwest and northeastern regions to be the USSA, and the remainder becoming the FSA. If some are in a border area and don't agree with which side their state is becoming, then they can relocate.

There is enough unhappiness in the populace that many are grumbling and wishing for such a change. But we feel powerless. We feel betrayed, and we are in disbelief at our fellow citizens who are so willing to hand over so much power to the corrupt and bloated government that is exactly what our Founding Fathers rebelled against. It's shameful.

I'm ashamed of the "people" who are ruining our country and our Freedom, in the name of what? Economic security? Financial gain? Comfort? Power? All of the above. Sure, it might look and feel "easier" for the government to pay for all your healthcare, education, housing, food, air you breathe... But just remember who is the government and what those people are really after. They don't really care about your health and well-being. They only care about staying in their positions of power, influence, and control. They don't really care about fairness and equality.

It's not really possible or realistic to enforce some artificially created "fairness" in life. Life and Nature just aren't fair. The probabilistic nature of life is the reason that people vary so much in their life circumstances, such as wealth/poverty, health/illness, etc. In all its glory and accomplishment, science has yet to devise a way to control fate and the probabilities that determine how our lives turn out. Try as they might to tell us that they and we can control the climate and other forces of Nature, they are only engaging in wishful thinking and delusion.

Likewise, communism and socialism are creations of man that try to enforce some kind of artificial fairness and control over life and its circumstances. Sorry, but that will always fail. No matter how hard someone tries to make life "fair" for everyone, Nature will topple them. A personal example - it's terribly unfair that I've already lost my parents to illness while many others my age still have their hearty parents and can't even get along with them. No amount of government funding or other human intervention would have reversed these outcomes. I'm not asking for pity. I'm just giving a solid real-life example of the unfairness and uncontrollability of life.

Well, what do I know anyway? I'm just really sick and tired of all the sourpusses out there trying to tell us what we can and can't do, should and shouldn't think, what to buy or sell, how much money we are allowed to have, what we should and shouldn't eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise consume, and every other little aspect of our lives that we are supposed to be able to decide for ourselves. I'm over it and I'm ready for the Second Revolution.

Bill of Rights and Congressional Violations of the Constitution

If I had my way, people couldn't vote or even graduate from high school unless they could recite these words...

The first ten amendments to the US Constitution which were designed to protect our individual rights as citizens but which are at this very moment under very serious threat by the government that they are supposed to be limiting:

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble*, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.



*Following is an excerpt of the actual text of the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" which specifies that any institution of higher learning that receives funding from this "stimulus" program CANNOT use the money for improvement of any facilities that are used for religious study, worship, or other religious "missions". This is obviously a violation of the First Amendment which states "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof [of religion]."

GREEN SCHOOL REQUIREMENT.—An institution of higher education receiving a subgrant under this section shall use not less than 25 percent of such subgrant to carry out projects for modernization, renovation, or repair that are certified, verified, or consistent with the applicable provisions of—
(A) the LEED Green Building Rating System;
(B) Energy Star;
(C) the CHPS Criteria;
(D) Green Globes; or
(E) an equivalent program adopted by the State or the State higher education agency.

(3) PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS.—No funds awarded under this section may be used for—
(A) the maintenance of systems, equipment, or facilities, including maintenance associated with any permissible uses of funds described in paragraph (1);
(B) modernization, renovation, or repair of stadiums or other facilities primarily used for athletic contests or exhibitions or other events for which admission is charged to the general public;
(C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities
(i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or
(ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission; or
(D) construction of new facilities.

Declaration of Independence Today

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism,

it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

I'm just about insane enough now to actually do something about the abject condition of our current government. I shouldn't admit this publicly, but I'm not a coward and I am ready abolish this system which has ignored the governed and disregarded our consent and protests and has reduced us to absolute despotism. We have suffered enough and it is our right and duty to throw off this government.

Ours are not "light and transient causes" and if one needs to list "a long train of abuses and usurpations" all it takes is to read the headlines of the last few months.

I'm serious. And I'm asking for help from anyone who is brave enough to stand up for our rights.

And if they come to arrest me for conspiracy and sedition, well, that's fine too because my blood pressure is about 180/110 these days and it would be okay to get some "free" medical treatment. My own personal bailout, if you will. ;-) But that is highly unlikely anyway since the likes of William Ayers can become a media star from being an actual unrepentant terrorist. I'm only talking about it.

Truth In Advertising

Teenage Wasteland

"Baba O'Riley" by The Who

Out here in the fields
I fight for my meals
I get my back into my living
I don't need to fight
To prove I'm right
I don't need to be forgiven

Don't cry
Don't raise your eye
It's only teenage wasteland

Sally, take my hand
We'll travel south cross-land
Put out the fire
And don't look past my shoulder
The exodus is here
The happy ones are near
Let's get together
Before we get much older

Teenage wasteland
Teenage wasteland
Teenage wasteland
It's only teenage wasteland
Teenage wasteland
It's only teenage wasteland
Teenage wasteland
It's only teenage wasteland

They're all wasted!

Of course, this song was written by a Brit, but music is universal and everyone is allowed, at least still at this moment, to interpret music and art as it makes sense to them. While some might read these lyrics as some kind of communist manifesto, I prefer to read them as a declaration of Freedom from the oppression of communistic "groupthink" and loss of individuality. After all, it is usually younger and more immature people who have never actually put their backs into their work to build a life and security of their own. They generally prefer that everything is given to them without having to actually earn it and be responsible for themselves. (If you know any teenagers you know what I mean.)

Well, America is in its Teenage Wasteland. They're all wasted! The People are wasting all the hard work and sacrifice of the Founding Fathers and others who have fought so hard for our unique Independence and Freedom and the Responsibilities that go with them. It breaks my heart and hurts my soul and stomach to witness the "Change" led by someone who believes and preaches that his people are "owed" something and that the very foundations of our Nation are "flawed."

May God or the Laws of Nature intervene to save us from our own destruction.

I don't need to fight
To prove I'm right
I don't need to be forgiven


Bonus:

The Gadsden Flag

A potent symbol of American Freedom and Liberty:

California Should Rescue Itself

Most populous state in country, 11th in median income with $54,385, and the largest state economy in the USA, and The Arnold is asking the US Treasury for a $7,000,000,000 loan.

As of 2007, the gross state product (GSP) is about $1.812 trillion, the largest in the United States. California is responsible for 13 percent of the United States gross domestic product (GDP). As of 2006, California's GDP is larger than all but eight countries in the world (all but eleven countries by Purchasing Power Parity). California is facing a $16 billion budget deficit for the 2008-09 budget year.

Hollywood should have more of its $28,500 per plate fundraisers like the last one that raised $11,000,000 for Obama's campaign. Deomcrats have so far donated $87,684,794 to the campaigns. How about all those big shot, ultra-liberal stars put their money where their mouths are and start being more "patriotic" (as their second in command has suggested) by donating more taxes to rescue their own state? Oh, I guess they only believe in socialism when they don't have to pay for it.

All the loudmouth, hateful Hollywood liberals who are bashing Sarah Palin should really put their time, energy, and resources into actually doing some good for their own 'homeland'.

If they'd actually allow some oil drilling off their coast, they could be as rich and well-funded as Palin's Alaska. Do we need much more evidence that Hollywood has completely lost all credibility and influence? Yeah, and TV and film producers got some pork out of that big bailout too. I'm not ever going to pay to watch any of their stupid movies again. And if Matt Damon is such a sissy that Palin scares him, then his nuts would just shrivel up and fall off if he ever met me. ;-)

O'Reilly Got His Groove Back!

I'm impressed. Bill seems to have regained the power of his testicles. ;-) (Apparently the code from Fox doesn't work here, so I'll look on youtube later. But right now I have to take a child to the dentist.)

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html?playerId=oreillyhomeplayer&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3129030&referralPlaylistId=bbeb11095dff273e354ffbd0dfa4c070c9e8730b&maven_dartZone=undefined&maven_dartSite=undefined

From Youtube:

Congressional Term Limits

It just hit me. The best solution and prevention of Congressional corruption and inefficacy is term limits. Let's demand it! Sign a petition if you like.

Dear Foreign Friends and Populist Comrades,

I do understand all of your concern about the current "crisis" in the US economy and that you are also very deeply concerned about how it will affect you and your own economies. Please don't assume that the American people don't care about you. We do. But we also would appreciate your understanding about our own reluctance to throw hundreds of billions of dollars into something that has not been adequately explained and justified. We Americans are generally pretty cautious and careful about demands for huge amounts of money without some assurance that it's not some exaggerated version of a Nigerian email scam.

I hope now that the Senate has passed its "rescue plan" (new name for "bailout" that's actually just their lipstick on the pig) and is sending it down to the House, all of you people around the world who have been throwing blame and hatred towards the "ordinary" Americans will finally begin to appreciate us and maybe even send us a little love for all the sacrifices we are going to make for the *global* economy's benefit.

I was thinking last night that perhaps, since it looks like the US economy is the cash cow that keeps the global economy fed, then perhaps we should just extend this socialism to everyone who depends on us. You know, if we fall, they all fall, so wouldn't it be fair to ask for all to contribute? If every man, woman, and child in America is going to have to be 2-3 thousand dollars more in debt to prop up the global economy, then why wouldn't it be fair to ask every man, woman, and child in the *world* to contribute about $50 which would cover about half of the original $700 billion. Well, what's fair is fair, right?

We "ordinary" Americans have had the weight of the world put on our shoulders and the strain is really too much. What we need right now, instead of blame and derision, is a little love and appreciation for our philosophical and practical sacrifices to join the populist socialist comrades around the world.

I'm willing to say that it isn't really the club that I wanted to join, and all of us "ordinary" and "populist" Americans have been involuntarily drafted into it. Generally, our true populism is not socialist nor communist in nature, and that is why America has been so different from the rest of the world. But now you might have some reason to celebrate our coerced conversion. Actually, it would be pretty nice to see some footage on the news of people around the world sending us praise and blessings, instead of all the previous scenes over the years of people cheering about our tragedies. Well, it's a nice but unrealistic thought.

So please, the next time you are thinking evil thoughts about all the selfish and stupid American masses, stop and try to remember that we are paying the largest price, philosophically and fiscally, to keep your world functioning. And while you're at it, the most helpful and constructive thing you can do is to write and send a $50 check to the US Treasury. That would be the best expression of appreciation possible, but I would personally be happy with a "thank you" or "bless you" or even "I love you." :-)

Sincerely,

Your Comrade (in name only), Rae Ann

PS Here is a video that I always thought had a socialist/communist look to it (but it's a great, fun song):

We can dance if we want to
We can leave your friends behind
'Cause your friends don't dance and if they don't dance
Well they're, no friends of mine

Say, we can go where we want to
A place where they will never find
And we can act like we come from out of this world
Leave the real one far behind

...

We can dance if we want to
We've got all your life and mine
As long as we abuse it, never going to lose it
Everything will work out right

I say, we can dance if we want to
We can leave your friends behind
'Cause your friends don't dance, and if they don't dance
Well they're no friends of mine

I say, we can dance, we can dance
Everything's out of control
We can dance, we can dance
We're doing it from pole to pole

We can dance, we can dance
Everybody look at your hands
We can dance, we can dance
Everybody's taking the chance

...

Passing the Buck

I think that McCain's dropping the campaign to go to Washington for the bailout negotiations was an honest and sincere gesture, putting the country's concerns above his own. If it helped or hurt him wasn't his main concern. Obama says otherwise, but that's to his advantage to be cynical and disparaging of his 'opponent'.

I think McCain was thinking that whoever is going to be the next President and will have to inherit the mess and its fallout really should at least be there to know first hand what exactly the Congress and White House are doing about it. Also, as a Senator *it's his job* to be there. Yeah, it's Obama's job too, but he's more interested in playing politics than actually doing something.

Obama blowing it off and saying "they can call me if they need me" sounded extremely selfish and arrogant as well as unconcerned about what his future job might involve. It is that casual disinterest in "regulating" the process that makes him look pretty hypocritical for blaming Bush and Co. for not keeping a good enough eye on things years ago. He's trying to pass the buck.

Passing the buck like that is the very reason why this thing has grown so out of proportion. All those people were passing the responsibility on to others while packing even more onto it as it goes, until now, and they're trying to pass it on to the responsible taxpayers.

And it really irks me that Bill O'Reilly has been harping on Bush and Co. about not warning everyone vigorously enough about this financial mess coming. Well, I think he's passing the buck too because he should be feeling some responsibility for not paying enough attention to the news over the years that suggested that this problem was on its way. And really, if he will be completely honest he will admit that if Bush came out and forcefully warned everyone about this back then, the Democrats would have crucified him and there probably would have been widespread financial panic and chaos. Then they would have totally blamed it on Bush, saying his alarmism caused it to crash and so on. Bill really needs to stop it with the Botox because it's not only seeping into his nuts, it's seeping into his brain too.

And another thing, what exactly is Bill's job as a highly paid media figure? Doesn't he realize that part of HIS responsibility, as such a prominent media presence (as he's always reminding everyone about his ratings), is to keep up with the news and spot the big, important stories developing? Stop passing the buck to the government. What was he paying attention to in 2003-2007? Why wasn't he reading the NYTimes and their stories about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and trying to look deeper into the issue? Isn't that the job of a journalist and/or commentator (especially one with lots of resources and assistants to do the grunt work)?

Apparently, he wants all the glory but none of the responsibility. Just like all those crooked hogs who kept feeding at the teats, even as they were drying up. Bill said nobody told him that his Merrill Lynch stock was worthless. Well, poor little baby. First of all, I don't think anyone should invest a lot of money in something that they don't really know that much about. But anyway, can't he see that the reason why his broker and the employees of Merrill Lynch and everyone else, including the government, didn't know is because the Congressional committees that were supposed to "regulate" this stuff were all caught up in the corruption themselves. They did everything they could to keep everyone ignorant about what they were doing. It wasn't just the CEOs but the Congress members too who were hiding things. They were almost caught when the "accounting scandals" were discovered, but they were sneaky enough to get past that. And that's why, when the President tried to address this issue, one of the main guys who should have been concerned - Barney Frank - sat there and denied that there was a problem at all and said that suggesting that there was one would actually cause problems. Fannie and Freddie should have been properly dealt with back then, but in trying to avoid a big financial crisis at that time they just passed it on to now. How hard is it to see how that worked out?

Why wasn't there good enough regulation already? Well, in 1999 President Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which loosened some rules about banking and also contained new laws regarding privacy of personal information. By passing that bill no one was advocating corruption or abuse within the financial industry in cahoots with the Congressional committees on banking and finance. The bill was intended to increase competition among banks so that people would have more choice, etc. There were mostly Democrats at the helms of both the Congressional committees as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's completely disingenuous to blame Bush for inheriting this whole setup. And let's try to remember that just after he was inaugurated our country was attacked in the most serious way by terrorists, so all the crooks were able go to work 'under the radar' since the responsible people in government were pretty distracted by dealing with national security.

So I hope that explains somewhat where that toxic buck came from and who started passing it in the first place. This isn't some fairy tale version of history. It's the real thing.

No, McCain hasn't been perfect, but I think he's been very honest and selfless in his work. And those who suggest otherwise should really stop because they can't offer any real evidence to the contrary or any justification of their own behavior.

PS To Bill O'Reilly, please stop blaming Bush for not warning the "people" about Fannie and Freddie. He even mentioned the need for reform in his 2008 State of the Union address:

On housing, we must trust Americans with the responsibility of homeownership and empower them to weather turbulent times in the housing market. My Administration brought together the HOPE NOW alliance, which is helping many struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure. The Congress can help even more. Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, modernize the Federal Housing Administration, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to help homeowners refinance their mortgages. These are difficult times for many American families, and by taking these steps, we can help more of them keep their homes.

Whose fault is it that they weren't watching his speech? Or if they were watching, why weren't they paying attention to these things? As citizens of this country it is our responsibility to be informed, and Bush was trying to inform us in the one most important speech of the year.

Another quote from that speech:

The strength -- the secret of our strength, the miracle of America, is that our greatness lies not in our government, but in the spirit and determination of our people. (Applause.) When the Federal Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, our nation was bound by the Articles of Confederation, which began with the words, "We the undersigned delegates." When Governor Morris was asked to draft a preamble to our new Constitution, he offered an important revision and opened with words that changed the course of our nation and the history of the world: "We the people."

Okay, so like I said before, we the people are really the bosses, so let's start acting like it and finally vote out all the corruption and crooks instead of letting them hold us hostage and demanding from us some hundreds of billions of dollars ransom. That's just is not the American Way.

Transcend the Poison and Boot the Bastards

This whole financial scandal is full of poison, and it's making many of us very sick. On top of that I've been dealing with my own monthly possession by some kind of evil, satirical demon, as well as going through a battery of tests to make sure there isn't any more cancer trying poison my body. I am working on transcending all of this poison. Here is a dose of reality to try to help others transcend it too.

Let's look at the reality of who said what in recent years about the problems surrounding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:


The NYTimes reported this Sept. 11, 2003:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
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.

However, what many do not recall is that Bush wanted to tighten oversight with a new regulatory board for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other government recipients for the express purpose of addressing bad loan practices — and Democrats blocked it.

What Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, said (page 2 of article linked above):

These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.

Well, so much for the Democrats' argument that the Bush Administration ignored the building problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and is responsible for it. Obama, read it and weep, or at least quit falsely blaming Bush and McCain for all of this mess which is rooted much more in the corruption of the Congressional Democrats on the committees involved in finances and banking.

May 25, 2005, John McCain, speaking to the Senate:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

The legislation was blocked by Democrats, with the assistance of a few Republicans.

October 27, 2005, NY Times reports:

Responding to the accounting scandals at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the House of Representatives approved legislation on Wednesday overhauling the regulatory oversight of the two huge mortgage financing companies.

...

The White House issued a statement on Wednesday criticizing the legislation adopted by the House, saying it envisioned a regulatory regime that "is considerably weaker than that which governs other large, complex financial institutions."

The legislation "fails to include key elements that are essential to protect the safety and soundness of the housing finance system and the broader financial system at large," the White House statement said.

That legislation died in the Senate. Did you catch that part about the Bush Administration wanting stronger regulation? Yeah, that's right. Whatever tripe Obama is pushing is spoiled rotten and full of toxins. We all know why this legislation failed. It was purely political games by the Democrat-dominated Congress because they hate Bush so much they were willing to sacrifice all of our future financial security just because they didn't want him to "win" anything. That, and they used the excuse that they thought he was seeking too much power. blah, blah, blah

All of that being said, can we please put to rest the wrong ideas that the Republicans are at fault for our "financial crisis"? How can Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank sleep at night knowing that they were actually big players in preventing the problems from being fixed before it became such a huge "crisis"? Pelosi has said that the Republicans and the Bush Administration failed to properly regulate things so that they got out of control. Well, Nancy, why can't you properly regulate the corruption right under your nose (Charlie Rangel, et al)?

Let's just stop it and do what Obama won't do: transcend the poison of the old political games. Yes, it's difficult and I'm having trouble doing that myself, but Jesus Christ, they (and we) are going to have to put all of that political nonsense aside and actually try to solve some problems. Will the Democrats please just stop demanding all these extra things that only complicate the problems? In Sunday's New York Times:

Ms. Pelosi said Democrats would also insist on “enacting an economic recovery package that creates jobs and returns growth to our economy.”

Jesus F. Johnson, is she a complete idiot or what? Oh, sorry, I'm still dealing with some residual poison. ;-) How about we just try to solve this one huge problem first before we start adding all these conditions and extras that will only complicate and impede progress? Growing jobs is important, but let's get this mortgage situation under control first. And as soon as the government-secured mortgages can get properly straightened out and distributed/sold to financial institutions that can actually handle them, then the broader "economic recovery" can be addressed. Sometimes it's necessary to prioritize and handle one thing at a time, instead of trying to kill fifty birds with one stone.

Truth be told, I tend to agree that there needs to be a serious restructuring of how corporations and financial institutions do business. In my utopian ideas it wouldn't be necessary for the government to regulate so much because all the businesses would naturally want to be ethical, fair, and responsible for their own behavior and the consequences of that behavior. But I know that is only an idealistic fantasy and that a lot of people won't regulate themselves without force or fear of severe penalties.

My own ideas are fairly radical, and maybe even "liberal" depending on how you define it. ;-) I've never believed that the corporate business model is really that good because it inherently encourages too-risky behavior without tough enough consequences. Inevitably when a corporation fails, especially the very large ones, it becomes a private profit-public loss situation because the "owners" aren't held accountable for the losses. The value of their ownership in the company is often not at all related to any real, physical assets. Their wealth is just an illusion based on an assumption of future performance. It's just a bad model to begin with, although I do know and somewhat appreciate some of the "pro" arguments for it. But any other purely private business just can't survive or function by doing things in the same way as corporations, and they can't rely on public money for bailing them out when they screw up.

Let's look at this $700,000,000,000 that the government wants to "liquidate" the whole mess, which apparently accounts for only about 10% of all mortgages in the US (though I haven't found any solid numbers on that so it could be inaccurate). Well, I'd say 10% isn't really that much, but because of the fucked up ways that the banks overinflated the values of them and lent much more money than what the actual collateral was worth, the problem seemed to exponentially grow somehow. Anyway, if I've done my math right, which I probably didn't because every time I try to use real numbers I mess up for whatever reasons ;-), every single man, woman, and child in the US either owes the government over $2000, or you might could say they each will own $2000 worth of other people's houses until the mortgages are paid off.

Okay, I suppose the socialists might be cheering about this movement into that direction. But frankly, I don't like it, although logically and rationally and morally speaking no one can place any claims, or liens as they call them, on our mortgage because ours isn't in any kind of trouble. It's just between us and our credit union. I just hope that all those other supposedly 90% of people like us will actually see some "return" on our investments in other people's properties. I'd say it would be fair for the government, as soon as they are able (if ever?), to send us a dividend of that $2000+ per person plus interest (but definitely not at a "sub-prime" rate). ;-) What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so to speak. Or to be a little more "charitable" they could just give us future tax credits for those amounts, including some percentage of interest.

Does anyone really think it's a good idea to trust the current Congress to improve anything? Regardless of your political leanings it should be very clear that these people who are supposed to be "public servants" paid with our money have done a piss-poor job. In fact, I think we should have many of them charged with "high crimes and misdemeanors" and bribery (in the guise of lobbyists' payments). A good explanation of what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means in this context is found in an article by Jon Roland:

... the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Our Congress is sworn in and under the obligation to uphold their Oath of Office. This puts the responsibility on them to act on our behalf. I would lead an insurrection if that's what it would take to get all those corrupt bozos out of office. I am a conservative, but I'm a rebel too. Perhaps a revolutionary conservative is a paradox, but here I am anyway. ;-)

As for all those "executives" of these failed and brink-of-failing financial services companies, I think they should be charged with several serious crimes. Stop it with this namby-pamby fiddle-farting around with some big bailout that we can't really afford. Throw the bastards in jail for practically treasonous fraud. Yes, treasonous is a very strong word, but if you believe that the failings of these companies without (and possibly even with) a bailout will actually lead to the complete collapse of the US, and possibly global, economy, then okay, that looks awfully serious to me. They've essentially weakened our country's security in every way.

At least treat them like drug-dealers and seize all their property that they gained from their criminal activities. Make them pay for the mess they created. Of course, that wouldn't be enough to cover it all, but at least it would be something coming from the criminals who caused it. Back in the good old days, people like that would have been dealt with quickly. They certainly wouldn't be rewarded for their betrayals and treachery.

I hope that everyone who reads this will see the truth. And spread the word. I mean really. We're actually the bosses here. So let's act like it.

Amen, go in peace. :-)

Update: Shortly after finishing this and posting it, I heard on the news that the FBI is investigating Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Bros., and AIG. Praise the lord! I hope they are investigating some Congress members too. (of both parties, whoever has been instrumental in allowing the banking fraud to continue)

The Truth About Big Government

Saw these at Xanthippa's and wanted to post them too. They are very much worth the roughly twenty minutes to watch them.

White Trash and Proud of It

Canadian columnist, Heather Mallick, has called Sarah Palin's supporters "white trash" and has said Alaska is full of "drunks and crazy people," as well as saying very insulting things about Palin's teenage daughter's boyfriend.

Well, Ms. Mallick, I'm a white trash redneck and proud of it. And I think you and all of your Canadian elitists should be taken out behind the woodshed, or outhouse, ;-) and be whipped with some hickory branches, or maybe even some thorny blackberry branches. What you people just don't have is any respect for anyone who is different from you, and to me, that is much, much worse than being a country bumpkin or redneck.

I'm really shocked at the hatred directed at all of us normal people. But I guess I'm not that shocked about the hypocrisy spouted by so-called feminists and other rabid liberal opinionists.

Now here's this Mary Mitchell who says,

"Sarah Palin makes me sick. I hate that she was able to steal Barack Obama's mojo just by showing up wearing rimless glasses and a skirt."

Well, you know what, Obama makes me sick with all his lies and cheap shots and fake "change" based on what, class conflict and pitting the "haves" against the "have-nots" instead of focusing on the the real source of the trouble which is the very corruption in which he's been so entrenched and well-funded. Call me a racist if it makes you feel better, but it's not the color of his skin that makes me sick. It's his actions and character, or lack thereof. And there is no way you can compare me to that black columnist who hates Palin just because she's a white woman who "stole" Obama's "mojo."

And Wendy Doniger, Professor of the History of Religions, University of Chicago’s Divinity School, goes so far as to say this:

Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.

Wow, now what exactly is the liberal feminist definition a woman? This is insane! I can't believe someone who is supposed to be well-educated could be so stupid. Well, actually, I'm not that surprised because of how many of these types I've encountered in my perusal of some "academic" blogs. Anyway, thirty years ago in the black community Obama wouldn't have been consider a "real" black because of his white mother. Oh, but I'm not allowed to say anything like that because that would make me a racist or something. Oh, God forbid I should even hint at some mildly race-related comment about the liberal Sacred Cow Pig, Obama.

And then there are other snobbish, elitist "academics" who proudly proclaim their hatred for Sarah Palin and try to defend their hatred by diminishing all of Palin's accomplishments by saying that she's just a "token feminist." And also claims that her hatred is justified because she thinks Palin is "rich." Great, that's such a perfect "academic-like" reason for hating anyone. ;-)

And really, all of this proud hatred is just completely stunning and unprecedented. I'm pretty sure that there wasn't even a fraction of this kind of elated hatred spouted so blatantly and cavalierly about black people back in the days when the civil rights movement was just beginning. I mean, wow, I just can't believe it.

You know what I really think, and this is not because of any hatred for anyone, is that all those who are so proud of their intolerance and ill will towards "white trash" or "rednecks" or Sarah Palin who actually does represent a great many normal, average women should be gathered up and whipped to shreds with those thorny blackberry branches until they learn the real meaning and consequences of their hatred.

Call me an evil conservative bitch if you like, but it's about time that those of us who have been so denigrated for so long stood up and said, "Enough, already!"

After all, no one ever said that democracy was supposed to be easy. ;-)

The Vicious Momma has spoken. Amen, go in peace. ;-)

PS In case anyone reads this and is somehow disappointed, please understand that the point of this post is to hold up a mirror and reflect back to all those intolerant haters exactly how ugly their hatred looks. To my liberal friends whom I love and don't want to offend, I know that not all liberals, feminists, etc are so full of hatred as the examples in this post.

Invasion of Palin's Email Is UnConstitutional

It's just completely sickening to see what horrible things some people do and get away with doing. The hacker(s) who violated Sarah Palin's privacy by invading her email and making them public should be hunted down and prosecuted at the fullest extent of the law.

Speaking of the law, no, I'm not a lawyer or any kind of academic expert about it, but the way I see it one should not have to be in order to understand the basic foundation of all our laws, The US Constitution.

I've been in an argument about why this hacking event does or does not fall under the authority of the Fourth Amendment. Apparently, back in 1984 the Supreme Court, in its excessive vigor to fight the "War On Drugs," decided that the Fourth Amendment only applies to government agencies and not to private citizens. That was the majority opinion, but there were some dissenting opinions too with which I mostly agree. I think that case was an excellent example of when the dissenters were really the more correct ones. Oddly enough, I seem to be in agreement with the Justices who were considered more "liberal." Well, sometimes I think these labels are pretty meaningless when it comes to common sense and careful rationality and concern for privacy and personal rights and freedoms as prescribed by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court does have the final say about what our laws mean, but it is possible for it to come to the wrong conclusions based on their political leanings and the political environment of the time. And it is always possible for new cases to be brought that re-examine old rulings.

In today's political environment, in which individuals have so much more ability through technology to invade and violate the privacy of others, often even more so than 'government agents," it would be a good idea to look again at the Fourth Amendment and how it must apply to individuals and private groups in addition to government agents. There absolutely must be some serious reconsideration about requiring individuals and private groups to respect the right of privacy of others by including them under the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

While it seems like common sense that violating people's "persons, houses, papers, and effects" are already covered by all the laws against trespassing and theft, apparently it looks necessary to in today's culture and situation to make the invasion of personal privacy an even more serious crime, much like so many of the decisions regarding Freedom of Speech and the other First Amendment rights.

Okay, maybe this is an overly simplistic or naive point of view, but sometimes that's what it takes to see through all the obfuscation and overcomplicated mess that other people want to use to defend their wrong ideas. I don't think anyone with a brain could really argue against strengthening our rights to privacy, whether the violators are private citizens or government agents. Without proper privacy and respect for others' privacy there can be no real Freedom of any kind.

Hogs In Suits

The full content of John Gibson's commentary yesterday:

Lehman Brothers collapse is traced back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two big mortgage banks that got a federal bailout a few weeks ago.

Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs.

A group called the Center for Responsive Politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were Democrats and No. 2 is Sen. Barack Obama.

Now remember, he's only been in the Senate four years, but he still managed to grab the No. 2 spot ahead of John Kerry — decades in the Senate — and Chris Dodd, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional Democrats and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people and, as it turns out, some people who couldn't afford them.

Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington Democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration's White House Budget Director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected $50 million. Jamie Gorelick — Clinton Justice Department official — worked for Fannie and took home $26 million. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama's VP search committee, has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae CEO job.

Now remember: Obama's ads and stump speeches attack McCain and Republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain — Sen. Obama — was at the head of the line when the piggies lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks.

Sen. Barack Obama: No. 2 on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the Senate.

Next time you see that ad, you might notice he fails to mention that part of the Fannie and Freddie problem.

Also according to the Center for Responsive Politics:

Lehman Brothers has given $9.2 million through employees and its PAC since 1989, with 54 percent of that going to Democrats. Clinton and Barack Obama top the list of all-time recipients for the company, collecting $410,000 and $395,600 respectively.

I think it needs to be said many times that when Obama blames the Republicans for the current "financial crisis" he is being a bit more than disingenuous. I would go as far as to call him a liar. So much for his promise to transcend the old political games. I'm pretty disappointed in how he's come around to that.

I do recall back around 2004, or thereabouts, maybe in one of his State of the Union addresses, President Bush spoke about his wish that more people could become homeowners because he thought it would make them more financially secure. Unfortunately, the greedy Bastard-Pigs-In-Suits who controlled the big financial services companies, who apparently were very invested in the Democrats, took that as some kind of free pass for taking advantage of the people's desires to become homeowners.

I watch a fair amount of TV, mostly news, nature/science documentaries, and a few "reality shows" sometimes. Well, I think it's a good way to gauge the trends of our society to see what is foremost in the popular culture. Commercials are one big source of these trends. Before the housing bubble burst, there were always very many commercials for mortgage and lending companies who were pushing these ridiculous, but superficially attractive, offers for people to get loans, e.g. for 125% of the value of their homes, and those very low "introductory rates" that would allow payments of only, for example, $900 on a loan of $200,000. Also, many of the offers told us that "everyone is approved" or some such encouragement for people to apply who really had no business getting big loans in the first place. Of course, many people are ignorant about these gimmicks and/or the lenders were pretty sneaky about the actual terms of those loans.

Let me explain why those lenders foolishly threw money at so many people. They were thinking that when the low introductory rates ended and people could no longer afford their payments, then they could foreclose on the loans and resell those homes for at least the value of the loan because housing values were climbing so much. They either didn't see that it was a bubble that was going to burst, or they knew and didn't care. And yes, I do blame the lenders more than the borrowers because any reputable and responsible lender is not going engage in trickery and very risky practices in hopes of getting some big pay-off from overly inflated collateral.

A big factor in the housing bubble bursting was when the construction industry responded to the higher demand for new homes, that people wanted to buy with those over-valued mortgages so that they could get more house for less money. They pretty much started a home-building boom because they thought that they would be able to sell all these new houses. It made the economy look pretty good for a while because more people were working and because the increased construction required more materials, supplies, and all the other stuff that is needed when there is a lot of building. It looked like great economic growth.

But it was just an illusion because it was ultimately based on some worthless paper and money games with no real collateral backing it up, not even all those houses out there with no one able to buy or sell them. It was not that capitalism failed. It was that some crooks pretending to be capitalists built their 'house of cards' out of speculation and greed without any solid foundation. You know, most actual functioning businesses just cannot and will not survive by trying to sell something that doesn't really exist. Didn't anyone learn anything from that DotCom bubble bursting?

If someone really wants to place some sort of final blame for these troubles we're in now, they should really look to the people at the top of the chain and who they support and who supports them and their actions. And if you really look you will see that it was not the "evil" capitalist Republicans who exploited the people's hopes and dreams for a better life. It was the Deomcrats who raked in millions at the expense of us all. Do the research. Look it up. Learn the reality and truth of the matter. And stop blaming the wrong guys. Blame the real Hogs in Suits who are pretending to be something else.

Amen, go in peace. ;-)

PS I love Neil Cavuto. He has some seriously big balls because he is the only person I've seen really stand up to Bill O'Reilly and put him in his place. Last night Cavuto was on the Factor and called Bill out on his wanting to blame the wrong guys for all of our troubles:



Bill wants the government to "watch" the big corporations in order to let us know when they are doing bad business. Well, that's a pretty naive view because it trusts the same guys who are the source of the trouble to self-regulate. It won't work. That approach never has worked. Besides, it sounds like he wants the government to be 'fortune tellers' (literally and figuratively) who can predict what companies will succeed or fail. Fortune-telling isn't a very solid business venture either, privately or publicly. ;-)

The real solution is to level the playing field by requiring all those big corporations to play by the same rules as the small businesses that can't and won't survive if they engage in ridiculous pretend capitalism and they aren't protected and bailed out by the government when it all fails for them. Cavuto is right that you can't blame the oil companies for having real profits because the oil companies are actually making money from real products and services and not some worthless paper. Don't penalize the successful capitalists for being successful. Bill O'Reilly should know that because he's always preaching that when it comes to his own money. ;-)