What is happening to our Republic?

“Treacherous leaders”, “propaganda network.” When one hears or reads these words it usually comes from the political apparatus of some third world dictator, not the president of the United States. But that’s exactly where they came from, and it wasn;t some harsh words for the leader of Iran, North Korea or Venezuela.

The Obama apparatus used these terms to demagogue his political opponents. This kind of language has never been used in the history of American politics. This organization is calling on its apparatus to call on their Senators on September 11 to pass the so called “Pubic Option” and “fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists.” An amazing affront to the American people on the day we remember and mourn those whose lives were lost in the worst terrorist attack in this nations’ history.

His political apparatus is sending lesson plans to teachers to “guide” the classroom discussion both before and after the broadcast. This has all been characterized as message to “challenge students to work hard in school, to not drop out and to meet short-term goals like behaving in class, doing their homework.”

Yet, what is the hidden goal? To build a relationship with children to disarm them and perhaps even divide them and their parents? We’ve seen this happen in other totalitarian societies. Nikita Kruschev warned America that communism would destroy her “from within.” Gain control of the classroom, and you have control of the nation.

“The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next,” opined Abraham Lincoln. That works both ways. Obama’s guide, Saul Alinsky, and his friend, William Ayres, both taught that the battle is won in the classroom.

Now, with the battle for the future of America enjoined by the right, Obama and his minions are reaching for our very soul as they make a bold grab for our children. The question for us is, “will we stand idly by and allow this disgraceful and undemocratic, yes, un-American, political ploy in our children’s classrooms go unchallenged, or will we stand and declare, ‘Enough!’”

The administration already has a program to use the classroom to spread their message to children about the 2010 census. Some would say the purpose is more sinister, to spy on their parents. They have already called on American citizen to spy on each other and report “fishy” email and conversations to the White House.

They have taken bold measures to nationalize part of our finance and manufacturing sectors through “bail outs” and seek to take hold of 15% of our economy through nationalization of health care. In November 2008 the majority of voters succumbed to the sweet elixir of “hope and change.”

Is this the “hope and change” they wanted? To turn the world’s most successful democracy towards a socialist dictatorship? These may seem to be harsh words. But are we willing to speak soft platitudes while our nation is destroyed “from within.” I pray not.

“We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea and
we owe each other a terrible loyalty.” – G. K. Chesterson

How progressive taxes work…

Came across a paraphrase of the following on another networking site I regularly visit. Snope’s can’t verify attribution so I’ll leave that part off.

Still, the analogy is sound and clearly explains the fallacy of a progressive tax system and especially one geared towards wealth envy, such as ours.

How Taxes Work . . .

This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on — it does make you think!!

Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men — the poorest — would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man — the richest — would pay $59.

That’s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.” So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six — the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. “But he got $7!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man, “I only saved a dollar, too . . . It’s unfair that he got seven times more than me!”.

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man, “why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!

Sadly, in America today, according to a recent Gallup poll 46% of those polled would prefer to be the first 4 or 5 guys. They approve taking from the others, only they don’t want it done voluntarily, they want it under the threat of government coercion.

That says much about the state of their self motivation and one might even say moral depravity. What happens when government gets into the business of wealth redistribution? Well, I’m talking more than we currently have and more like has been proposed by the incoming powers of our government, both legislative and executive branches.

In the mid ’90′s I was in Hungary, a nation that lived under Communism. In 1989 she came out from under that heavy handed rule and while the Budapest was thriving, outside the city the people still labored in a state of despair.

Old world horse carts still traveled the roads as people moved themselves and the fruits of their backbreaking labor in their gardens and fields. Once the socialist economic principles of Communism took hold, breaking their grasp on those weaker, poorer victims of it’s failed policies was near impossible.

This is what some in power want for our nation. I have no doubt they don’t wish the wearying daily struggle, but we have already seen the results of unintended consequences of well intended government intervention gone wrong.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, at the heart of our current financial crisis. I’ve written much about that. The 2005 Energy Bill, expanded in 2007, mandating ethanol production. That short-sighted, well intended legislation resulted in dramatically higher grain prices and ultimately grocery prices, with little to show in energy production. There are currently calls to freeze its mandates at the current levels.

Social Security, a well intended product of the Roosevelt era, has had progressively steeper demands placed on it, disability benefits, survivors benefits, constantly increasing the meager monthly payments. All the while the population of those drawing SS checks grows as our population lives longer and the pool of those worker paying in continues to decrease as the birth rate declines.

I have two nephews, a niece, two step sons and two grandchildren who will be footing the bill for my Social Security payments, assuming it is still in force 12 years from now. Currently the estimated benefit for myself and my wife is $2489 in today’s dollars. In 2020, at the current rate of growth, its estimated that for every recipient there will be 2.4 workers, and the ratio gets smaller every year. (More info)

That means, on average, out of each of their monthly paychecks, about $520 will be taken off the top to pay the social security for me, my wife and every other recipient. That, my friends, is wealth redistribution.

But for those currently coming into power in Washington, its a non-issue. The wealth redistribution they are pushing takes this much further and in the process the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security, Medicare, National Healthcare, Welfare, Child Credit ad nausem will end up breaking the back of the American economy.

Good intentions? Certainly, though some more skeptical will argue its merely buying the vote of the lower economic classes. But good intentions do not make good policy.

We’ve already seen in microcosm the results of human nature in the financial bailout. Companies are repositioning themselves to become eligible when they weren’t before. Companies not related to the financial crisis are demanding a bailout for their sectors. Citizens are concocting schemes, dreaming up ways they think they should get a piece of this action.

What everyone forgets is that it isn’t government who foots the bill. Government doesn’t create wealth, it only takes it. Government doesn’t produce a salable product. The current model seems to be redistribution.

According to the Tax Foundation analysis of 2006 tax data, if you earned $153,542 you were in the top 5% of income earners and paid 60% if income taxes. If you earned a modest $64,702 you were in the top 25% of income earners and one of the wealthy. You and your group paid 86.27% of all income taxes.

What does this tell us? For starters, the idea that the wealthy don’t pay income taxes is a myth. Perpetuated by a political class with an agenda of riding wealth envy to power. Secondly, you could have confiscated the total incomes of the top 5%, those making %153,542 in 2006 ($2.43 trillion), and the total going to the government would come close to to paying the $2.7 trillion budget for that year, but only once.

The only answer to this is to reduce spending. In 2006 the federal government spent $248 billion just on interest on the national debt, that is more than twice the $117 billion spent on the Iraq war that year and $22 billion more than the federal deficit that year.

Confiscating wealth, nor redistribution of wealth, is the answer. A fair review of the data is convincing. The only answer for the fiscal dilemma our government is in, less government.

The only problem with this is the current and the incoming leadership on both sides of the aisle seem committed to more government, more intrusion into the private sector, more spending, more and increased entitlements, more deficits, and a higher national debt.

I’ve oft repeated this quote from Alexis de Tocqueville, “The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.”

Our legislators discovered this long ago, the people are swallowing this hook into their collective gut and it will eventually rip us all inside out.

I want more for my nephews, niece, step sons and grandchildren. They deserve more, yet sadly, I’m afraid their generation may have fallen victim to the elixir of wealth envy and may well be bringing to power those who will orchestrate their own fiscal demise.

“We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea and
we owe each other a terrible loyalty.” – G. K. Chesterson

Change, Obama’s positions vary minute by minute

As recent news events and the current political cycle has demonstrated, disgusting images of anyone on the left are hate speech and those committing such acts must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Arguments, ideologies and even general statements that differ from the leftist “party line” are deemed at their core racist, intolerant, disgusting, lies and without basis. Even when it is shown that those statements are rooted in fact backed up with quotes and even recordings showing the statements to be factual.

Barack Obama was only 8, so the story line goes, when Bill Ayres committed his heinous acts, there for he cannot be held responsible, I can accept that. But Obama was in his 30’s when he sat on committees and boards with Ayers, conceding to and helping to promote Ayres views of America while accepting Ayres help in launching his own political career. The Obama campaign would have us believe the candidate barely knew Ayres.

For 20 years Obama sat in the pews of the Chicago Trinity United Church while Jeremiah Wright spewed hate for the principles of America and directed that hate towards 74% of Americans who are white. Obama counseled with Wright and calls Wright his spiritual mentor. Yet during all that time Obama claims he knew nothing of the racist views and hatred espoused by Wright. When confronted with it, Obama conveniently threw his mentor of 20 years “under the bus.”

Now the story line goes that it was 7 years ago when Obama made statements of support for PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi calling Khalidi his “friend and frequent dinner companion.” That was so long ago and now the Obama campaign spins out, “he does not share Khalidi’s views.”

Of course, he didn’t mean “spreading the wealth” when he said those words so clearly to Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher. What he really meant was tax fairness.

He doesn’t promote or support socialism or Marxism. But, as stated in a 2001 interview, equal outcome for all is desirable and even, in his view, a basic societal right that the US Supreme Court has failed to ensure. According to Obama our nations highest court failed to “break free from the essential constraints” of our Constitution. Therefore the Constitution itself is, in his view, fundamentally flawed and should be “thrown under the bus.”

The Obama campaign dismisses the socialist characterization of such statements as a “distraction.” The spokesperson says Obama was speaking of the “civil rights movement – and the kind of work that has to be done on the ground to make sure that everyone can live out the promise of equality” and “has nothing to do with Obama’s economic plan.”

Excuse me. His 2001 statements are fundamental to his current tax and wealth redistribution policies.

I recently heard Obama campaign spokesperson Bill Burton excuse a statement by the candidate as inconsequential because it occurred 2 weeks previously. Next we’ll be told to forget what was said in the previous sentence because it just didn’t happen that way.

So we are required to make excuses for and accept a new story line a day for candidate Obama who refuses to defend at face value even one of his controversial stands. If we fail to accept his views we are characterized as racist, intolerant, dysfunctional and without merit.

I suppose in an Obama administration free speech will still reign as long as it mirrors their party line. If not, you may well end up in an gulag, Obama style.

“We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea and
we owe each other a terrible loyalty.” – G. K. Chesterson

Sophie Scholl: The Final Days

I just finished watching a DVD I heard about on Steve Brown Etc. several months ago and had put on my list of must see videos. It is Sophie Scholl: The Final Days.

If you have never heard of this story, or haven’t yet taken time to view it, you must do so. It is a lesson, first in the strength of character of those who truly believe in their cause and secondly, a treatise on the dangers of a government that believes it alone has the right to determine what ideas are proper and must destroy those whose ideas oppose it.

In a nation where government becomes so powerful that it invades the private economy, nationalizes industry, socializes its education and humanitarian sectors, that power is an elixir to the population and a source of control for those in power. The people become either emasculated through fear or gratitude, or a few rise and speak out against the iron claw of those in power.

Sophie Scholl, her brother Hans and a group of others known as the White Rose chose the latter. When they saw, either with their own eyes or through reports from others, the abuse of a government self-described as Nationalist Socialism, they knew it was their duty to speak out, even in the face of possible death.

That death came at the end of a kangaroo court where the laws and constitution of Germany were suspended for the sake of expediently dispatching those who opposed Hitler’s Third Reich.

The lessons for today are many. Throughout the film, which was created after interviews with many who were witness to the events as well as uncovered court records, Sophie, Hans and Christopher Probst were interrogated and harangued for defying the state in spite of their state provided educations.

How could they rebel against Germany after all Germany had done for them? With the continued intrusion of federalism in the United States into the educational system, the attempts to criminalize home schooling in California, and the control of the public (read “government”) education system by such liberal organizations as the National Education Association which allies itself with the Democrat party, our children may soon be asked the same question.

The education system envisioned by “Obama and Biden will create Early Learning Challenge Grants to promote state “zero to five” efforts and help states move toward voluntary, universal pre-school.” It was Kruschev who in 1960 declared before the United Nations General Assembly ”America will fall without a shot being fired. It will fall from within.”

He was referring to the Communization of America, extolling the bullet points of the Communist Manifesto. What we are interested in here specifically is plank five, “Free education for all children in public schools.” An Obama nation would provide “free” education to all children, starting at birth; to indoctrinate them in the glories of a government controlled society.

It’s not surprising that Obama would promote such a scheme in that his college years included a plethora of socialist connections that have continued in one form or another to today. Black Liberation Theology, espoused by Rev. Jeremiah Wright whose Trinity United Church of Christ Obama attended for years, is rooted in Marxist philosophy.

But getting back to Sophie Scholl, it is important, even more so as we approach this coming election, that we remind ourselves of the dangers of empowering one who lifts himself up as the answer to all societal needs and will administer those remedies via the power of the state.

When we assign to the state our right of self-determination, we assign to the state our freedom as well. Freedom is not easy; moreover, it is difficult to determine ones course for ones life and family. When government assigns to the people certain entitlements, with each entitlement comes a loss of freedom.

Incrementally since Roosevelt’s New Deal we are assigning our freedom and liberty to an increasingly socialist government. With Social Security, the expansion of government education, the welfare system, Medicare and Medicaid, now with the advent of corporate welfare in the recent bailout of Wall Street and the intrusion of government mandating private industry rewrite legal contracts and looming on the horizon the specter of national healthcare, the American electorate is blindly and ignorantly reducing themselves to wards of the state.

Alexis de Tocqueville, who lived from 1805-1859 stated, “The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.”

Sophie Scholl, as she headed to the guillotine said in part, “How can we expect righteousness to prevail when there is hardly anyone willing to give himself up individually to a righteous cause.”

de Tocqueville’s prediction is now coming true in America. The question is, is there anyone left who is willing to ascribe to Sophie Scholl’s admonition? I pray there is yet a remnant who will rise up stand. If not, it may soon be illegal to publish a dissenting article such as this.

Other sources:

Accuracy in Media – Obama’s Communist Mentor
Accuracy in Media – Obama’s International Socialist Connections
The New York Times – The Mask Slips
The Conservative Voice – Barack Obama Lauded by Marxists
American Thinker – Another Obama Marxist

“We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea and
we owe each other a terrible loyalty.” – G. K. Chesterson

An open letter to Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL),

While I am appreciative of your negative vote on H.R. 1424, I question whether your reasons were the same as mine.

The socialist shifts legislated in 1424 are an affront to our Republic and I fear that Section 110 will cause more damage to our nation and our economy than even the provisions of Section 101.

Short-term relief to mortgage holders who made poor decisions will result in undermining confidence in our nations banks and financial institutions even more so than current events have.

The underlying cause of the current financial and mortgage crisis originated in a Congress which, putting politics over the nations good, created legislation, the Community Reinvestment Act, that served to embolden activist groups to badger, sue and force institutions into making loans that were imprudent and unjustifiable.

It encouraged individuals to purchase homes far beyond their ability and means. Not unlike a Ponsi scheme, when the bubble burst, those caught in it’s midst found a hell hole where there should have been a castle.

Members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, voted to encourage and allow Freddie and Fannie to dangerously expose their portfolios to these sub-prime notes in an effort to further expand home ownership by many who could not afford the responsibility of such.

While the individuals were certainly to blame to letting their greed and dreams overcome commonsense, and the lenders are to blame for not resisting the dangers of making such loans on the promise of increasing profitability, it is squarely on Congress where the blame must fall for creating the social engineering scheme that created this mess.

While Democrats demonize the current administration and Republicans, and there is blame to go around, the record clearly shows that this administration and certain Republican members raised a clarion call several times since 2001. It was the Democrat members who, though in minority, used procedure to kill these efforts to reign in those out of control entities.

Mr. Barney Frank was a primary contributor to killing these attempts and he should be a primary target of investigation for deliberately ignoring his fiduciary duty to the American people.

But Mr. Frank is not solely to blame. Every member of Congress who participated in this social engineering scheme is a fault and in my opinion should be turned out of Congress.

It is imperative that if this Republic, this great American experiment in democracy, is to survive, the People need representatives who truly represent the interest of the people. I fear this Congress is enamored with their own selves, with their quest for power, and have lost that vision, assuming they ever subscribed to it.

Write your Representative: How did they vote?
Write your Senators: How did they vote?

“We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea and
we owe each other a terrible loyalty.” – G. K. Chesterson

An open letter to Sen. Bob Martinez (R-FL)

I am very concerned by your vote in the affirmative for H.R. 1424. This bill was rushed through the legislature and little time was given to investigate alternative solutions that would be more effective and less costly to the American taxpayer.

Even now our President and other leaders are backing off their urgent pleadings, telling us now that this bill will not be implemented for several months and will have little effect on our economic crisis.

I am very disturbed by the legislation provided in Section 110. It appears to me that this Congress has created provisions that, even more than Section 101, will advance socialism in the United States and the federalization of our financial markets.

I am surprised that your college, Mr. Nelson (D-FL), voted against this bill despite on its language that socializes the US financial markets and our banks via:

1) Government ownership of financial institutions, and
2) Unwarranted government intervention into private mortgage contracts.

This slippery slope will only become steeper if Democrats, now encouraged in their agenda, retain their majority.

I plead with you to set aside political considerations and make a stand for the future of our Republic.

Alexis de Tocqueville said, “The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.”

Our legislators discovered this long ago, the people are swallowing this hook into their collective gut that will eventually rip them inside out.

Write your Representative: How did they vote?
Write your Senators: How did they vote?

“We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea and
we owe each other a terrible loyalty.” – G. K. Chesterson

The 10 most feared words

The 10 most feared words, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” – Ronald Reagan

I missed this in my quick perusal of H.R. 1424 yesterday. Had I taken more time, looked closer and realized the greater implications of the following, I would have been even more adamantly against this piece of legislation.

The very important section is as follows:

10 (b) HOMEOWNER ASSISTANCE BY AGENCIES.—
11 (1) IN GENERAL.—To the extent that the Fed-
12 eral property manager holds, owns, or controls mort-
13 gages, mortgage backed securities, and other assets
14 secured by residential real estate, including multi-
15 family housing, the Federal property manager shall
16 implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance
17 for homeowners and use its authority to encourage
18 the servicers of the underlying mortgages, and con-
19 sidering net present value to the taxpayer, to take
20 advantage of the HOPE for Homeowners Program
21 under section 257 of the National Housing Act or
22 other available programs to minimize foreclosures.
23 (2) MODIFICATIONS.—In the case of a residen-
24 tial mortgage loan, modifications made under para-
25 graph (1) may include—
1 (A) reduction in interest rates;
2 (B) reduction of loan principal; and
3 (C) other similar modifications.

This section of 1424 in essence gives the US government the authority to modify the terms of any mortgage over which it has control under H.R. 1424. Since that includes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, this provision extends to the majority of mortgages in the United States.

This means that if you are unhappy with the terms of your mortgage and it is in a security under the authority of the US government, you can petition the appropriate authority and they can have the holder of your mortgage lower the interest rates, reduce the principle amount owed, change the length of the note, lower the points, or what ever they determine will make you happy.

One can infer that the opposite could also happen. If you are not a constituency of what ever party is in power, if you petition the government in your behalf, it is possible they could use their authority to punish you for not having the correct political leanings. Raising your rates, increase your principle, shorten the length of the note or what ever they wish to convince you to see it their way.

This is a gross violation of both the rights of the property owner and the mortgage holder. If you are holding a note in the sale of property while you have a mortgage covered under this section, while you may be able to secure a reduction in the terms of the mortgage you owe, you may be required to reduce the terms to the individual to whom you are selling the property as well. In effect, reducing the income you receive from the sale of the property.

This is a huge socialization of the mortgage industry that very well may have implications far beyond the $700 Billion bailout of the financial markets. If you think this analysis is overblown, consider that lines 15, 16, and 17 state that “…the Federal property manager shall implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners and use its authority to encourage…”

That is a mandate, not a suggestion, to federal officials to secure the very best situation for the homeowner. There is no mandate to ensure a fair process, to take into consideration the costs, risks or profits of the holder of the mortgage.

And that last part, “use it’s authority to encourage.” As we all know, the federal government doesn’t “encourage” anything. They “mandate, direct, require.” Does the IRS “encourage” you to pay your taxes?

Does the State Department “encourage” you to get a passport if you wish to re-enter this country after you visit a foreign nation? Does the military “encourage” you to serve you full term of enlistment?

While many parts of this bill are legislated to expire at a date certain, and there are provisions to extend the authority set in the bill, there is no sunset provision of the authority given in Section 110. Therefore, without specific legislation by Congress, this authority will extend for as long as the federal government holds interest in any mortgages, either directly or by proxy via an institution in which it holds interest.

No, our representatives have not voted for a bailout of the financial system, they just voted in a far more sinister move to socialism than the original bill rejected by the House on Monday.

We all need to take a very jaundiced look at our Washington legislators and put them and the legislation they consider under the microscope of democracy. The actions they are taking, some with cunning and guile, others by misguided counsel and poor oversight, is taking us in a direction where we will lose the ability to live our lives in freedom.

With freedom comes responsibility. When we accede responsibility to a higher authority, we also give up our freedom.

Download and read the full text of Section 110
Read the full text of H.R. 1424

“We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea and
we owe each other a terrible loyalty.” – G. K. Chesterson

An open letter to Congress…

I am very concerned about the legislation currently being drafted to socialize the US financial markets. The primary reason for the current financial crisis is the manipulation of the financial system by Congress through entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

An additional primary factor is the decade old legislation such as HOPE IV promoting home ownership by all that provided stiff penalties to “unfair” practices in mortgage lending. Those unfair practices were left ambiguous enough to force banks and institutions to make unsound loans to unqualified applicants in a bid to protect themselves from lawsuits.

Secondarily, giving taxpayer funds to activist agencies such as A.C.O.R.N. is a travesty. A.C.O.R.N. has been a major player in creating this crisis taking advantage of the aforementioned legislation. Included in recent drafts of the bail out legislation is language giving them 20% of any profits. This is like allowing a convicted murderer to profit from books written about his crime.

A major initial concern of my was what Congress would do with any “profits” from this supposed “investment.” I had no faith they would actually return it to the people from whom they took it. There is no precedence for that. Now we know what their intent is.

Ayn Rand said, “One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary.”

The Congress has done that to our financial systems through demands for housing loans to many who cannot afford it, in the process encouraging the “cooking of the books” and fraudulent application and approval process that Congress now rails against.

The creation of GSEs Freddie and Fannie, then failing to provide strong rules to prevent them from buying up weak mortgage packages while allowing them to enrich members of Congress through lobbying and contributions has only created an incestuous and disastrous relationship.

Instead of a rush to create another monster that may address the short term “crisis” but in the process create unintended consequences that will irreparably damage our financial systems for decades to come and take us dramatically into socialism, the Congress needs to step back and breath deeply.

The American people in their intuitive grasp of this problem has said, “slow down and back off!” Congress needs to do just that. The major players in the financial system are sitting back to see what Congress is going to do.

If Congress stands down, the financial players will step up to the plate. But why should they if there is a socialist Congress willing to commit the wealth and treasure of ordinary Americans to the task.

I’ll do my own investing; I don’t need Congress to do it for me.

“We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea and
we owe each other a terrible loyalty.” – G. K. Chesterson