The past couple weeks have seen the liberals blame this banking crisis on Bush and the open-market system of economy.  They seem to think that speculation and greed were the only things causing this crisis.  How wrong they are!  The open market never performs well when it is regulated into doing things it wouldn't normally do.  This crisis did not happen over night, nor in 8 years.  This crisis has been brewing for decades. 

Check out this site...as I will be using this as a center piece of this article. 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html

Thomas DiLorenzo has many articles that are worth reading.  Proving capitalism over any other and the such.  Very informative.  This specific article covers how the government forced this crisis upon us. 

Here are a couple quotes from the piece:

"The thousands of mortgage defaults and foreclosures in the "subprime" housing market (i.e., mortgage holders with poor credit ratings) is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria."

"Banks have been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA: If they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don’t comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars. Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters."

It goes through ACORN as well.  Now, who do we know that is associated with ACORN?  anyone?  Maybe a liberal might know?  Ah well...you'll get it. haha

It of course does not rule other factors and he talks about how other factors have helped cause this crisis.  This crisis was 30 years in the making though, not 8.  This crisis is reaching far and wide across every banking spectrum imaginable.  It has spread across seas in some instances.  If you build a house of cards with 3 cards, then 3 cards will fall.  If you build a house of cards with 30 cards, then 30 cards will fall.  We have just seen 30 cards fall from our house of cards.  I believe this crisis is much more intertwined with the government than we think.  To add in my personal opinion, I think that when the government needed money, they simply added it to the computers and did not print any.  Now that is dangerous and can cause a bubble of cash in the economy, without putting any more cash in the economy.  When people then started needing their cash, there wasn't any to be had.  The numbers may be there, but they aren't actually there.  Thats just my opinion, so you can take that anyway you want. 

So my final destination of this piece.  Banking crisis = government regulation

Your comments are welcome.

The conventions went smoothly without unnecessary psychos interrupting their affairs....for one party.  The democrats didn't have to deal with psycho conservatives(and I say conservatives because only hardcore conservatives or hardcore liberals would protest since they are the only types that are passionate about their beliefs), but they didn't have to deal with psycho conservatives dropping bricks from overhead passes onto cars.  They didn't have to deal with psycho conservatives with balloons full of urine!  The republicans had to change around travel routes because of psycho vandals(not protesters...vandals).  Store owners came to shop with broken windows. 

Are these people REALLY advocates of allowing everyone their right to freedom of speech?  They are trying to suppress OUR right to free speech.  Notice on this site, liberals are free to express their views, while on HuffPo and co, conservatives are booted and banned.  These are the people that are trying to suppress our right to freedom of radio.  The fairness doctrine does what a protest could not do.  It forces us to relinquish our right to full freedom of speech and instead forces us to give time to other beliefs that would otherwise not be able to make it in the sector.  Liberals are free to start their own radio broadcasts, but they cannot compete.  Since they cannot compete, they will turn to unleveling the playing field in their favor.  But I digress.  I am sick of these psycho liberals running the show.  If Obama takes the presidency and begins his socialist drive, it is time for conservatives to play hardball.  In my eyes the march on Washington would be upon us.  Read the DoI and you will see the instructions for what we must....MUST do if the government becomes destructive to our life, liberty and our pursuit of happiness.  The time will come to show the world what America is all about. 

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

If we stand around and do nothing, the evils of socialism will be upon us!  If Obama takes the presidency we must fight tooth and nail against his policies.  We MUST inform our congressmen that they WILL be voted OUT if they do not fight socialism at every turn!  This must also happen if McCain gets in there!  Perhaps more so.  Conservativism must make a comeback and this next 4 years is the time!  Not only will our voices be heard, but it will force McCain(if elected) to see that we want Palin in 4 years.  He will see that he won by default.  He will see where this country will be heading!  If Obama gets in, it will show Jindal that he is a must for 2012.  We should be promoting him for 4 years!  Talk to your friends, especially conservative ones, about Jindal!  Promote him everytime politics come up.  Research his every issue so you know what you are talking about.  Know about his track record of cutting taxes 6 times since taking office as governor.  We must begin to act! 

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of 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."

Lets begin to live it!

I recently found out my other blog was my main link.  No wonder my visits went down in here. So I will just post up my other blog and you can link to that.


http://liberaltownusa.blogtownhall.com/

Im also going to hold off my new series until TH gets this fixed.  Its no fun writing when only 20 views are coming in on it.  Once that gets fixed it will more than double the readers, so Ill wait until then.

I am taking an olympic break.  I didn't have much time before and with watching the olympics, well, I think its a good spot.  Ill start on that series just after that.  Just wanted to let my stoic followers know I wouldn't start on that yet. *laughs out loud* Like I have stoic followers.

What would happen if Iran or Syria or Saudi Arabia etc in ME, suddenly had the means to destroy us.  In essence, what if our power were reversed and they were most powerful while we just bought our oil from them.  I would assume we wouldn't be able to attack Iraq like we did, that goes without saying.  But, how would they react towards us?  Or what if in 10 years, by some major advances, Iran was more powerful than us?  Would they sit idly around?  Or would they destroy us?  Just something to think about :)  Have a nice day

I am going to do a series of posts in which I pit human nature against a type of government and speak as to why it would fail or succeed.  I will start each on off with a paragraph on human nature to remind everyone what I am basing my opinion on.  This post will simply rely on human nature and nothing else.  It is the underpinning of my arguments ahead and will be used for my comparisons. 


Human nature:
What exactly is human nature?  To care for others?  To bow to a ruler?  I will only compare human nature to government and not human nature as a whole. 

The ruled:  The people who are not in government and are of the middle class or lower make up a major portion of all societies, including the most successful.  So it only makes sense to use them as the people being ruled.  How does human nature play a part in how they react towards their government? 

They would expect their government to repel foreign invaders of course, but how about domestically?  I will start with freedom.  Through history some have said that certain people wouldn't be able to deal with freedom.  Many said it of the Black slaves that were freed in the civil war and given equal rights during the Civil Rights movement.  Many said Japanese wouldn't be able to cope with a free society after world war 2.  In both cases they were dead wrong.  The Japanese are one of the most prosperous nations in the world and the blacks here, with some draw backs from LBJ legislation, are coping with freedoms much the same way anyone else here does.  Humans want to be free!  They don't want a person telling them they must grow up to be a factory worker because their dad was.  They want to have the possibilities of owning the factory. 
How about government prosperity?  Through history many dictators and tyrants have built incredible castles and palaces.  Do the people care about those types of things?  I believe they do not.  The people would much rather have the money going to something that benefited the entire populace rather than the money building a palace for their prince.

I believe the ruled act in a very expected way.  They just don't want government getting in their way or pushing them to the ground.  The rulers are the ones that make or break the case for many governments.

The rulers:  What does a person do with power?  Do they take only what is good for the country?  Some do...some don't.  What about finances?  Do they again take what is good for the country, or horde as much as they can? 
If a single person is the ruler, they have supreme control to do what they like.  The country is at the mercy of one man.  Many people are corrupt by so much power and end up overextending principles that are otherwise good for the country.  Many turn their country into an oppressed population.  However, some do not.  Some will use what is given to its fullest extent and since they don't have to worry about another contradicting them, they bring prosperous times to their country. 

The Human nature of man with power is to become corrupt in it.  Through history many leaders have started out with good intentions and ended up bringing their country to their knees because of corruption.  They get power hungry.  Once they got power, they could never get enough.  Even the purest of heart were often corrupt in their last days.  Many become paranoid in how they will retain their power until their dying day and will do anything to keep it, even murder a rival if they must.  A single man at power puts the country at great risk since the country is at the command of a single opinion with no checks or balances to stop a bad decision. 

The human nature of man is only relevant to a single person and in each government I will delve into whether the multiple persons aspect of that particular government will help or not.

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." - John Quincy Adams, 6th President of USA.


I had a debate on another site (password protected site, so I can't really link it or I would) about the quote above.  He seemed to think the above quote shouted of theocracy.  I disagreed, and that gave me thought to write a short column on the reasoning of quote.  John Q Adams was not a founding father, but he was closely connected with one as his father.  I believe this quote to be 100% true and that truth is coming to light as America moves away from religion and into a secular country. 

Our constitution gives unbridled freedom, seen only by few civilizations in the history of the world.  With that freedom the people have the authority to do many things unseen in the rest of the world.  For example, a person can stand in the street and speak out against America, without fear of being arrested.  A man has the right to bear many types of weapons that would not be allowed of him in other countries.  With freedom comes responsibility to act in such a way as to contribute to society.  If everyone fully exercised their freedom, causing harm to this country, we would fall from power at a feet of a citizenry that wished harm on this country. 

What a religion does is give people a moral code to live by.  People of Christianity do their best to live by the life of Jesus.  If our population had 300 million people striving to live their life as Jesus led his, would there be as many problems as we have today?  With religion comes an example of how we should live our lives.  Humans are by nature not perfect and we will never be close, but if everyone was trying to leave a positive footprint, well you see where I am going with this.

Now we must connect the dots here and show how our constitution is made for religious people and would fail under all others.  With the freedom our constitution gives, people will all live their lives according to how they would like to live them.  Government forces the hand of no person concerning personal decisions.  If people do not live by a moral code of a religion, then what code will they live their lives by?  Surely some people will live their lives with the same positive morals of religion, even if they do not believe in a higher being, but how many would?  The effects of America moving towards secularism is already beginning to show.  Abortion is legal, same-sex marriages is now moving from state to state, in Colorado if a person feels they are a woman that day, they can go into the womans locker room even if they are a man.  In the schools, ever since the removal of God from schools, our violence rates in the schools has reached higher levels than seen before.  School shootings have been happening at an increasing rate.  Our country is moving away from having a moral code and moving towards an "anything goes" country.  With that comes a more selfish and individualistic society, where people have no common set of values to live by.  This weakens a country by breaking apart the population from common beliefs and views of where this country should go.  If a populous does not have a common goal for the country, then how is the country to move forward?  If there is no foundation upon which the population can together stand, where is the groundwork we can all stand on?  What binds us together as a people?

Thank you for your time, please respond if you have anything to add, your opinion is most welcome.

Now, for those of you who played sports, you know exactly what this mean.  For those of you who didn't, you may still know, but if you do not...  Basically it's saying that if you are focused on your task at hand and confident, you have won half the battle.  Obviously physical skill plays a part, but mentally strong athletes will succeed far more often.  If you are confident in yourself, you take your physical steps without hesitation or worry and that causes you to beat your opponent if you are equally matched physically.  Ok, I hope you all get that...because now I'm comparing this to our economy.

For the last couple years the MSM and democrats have been predicting this recession and even saying we were currently in one.  Neither were true, but they hammered at it.  I would get you quotes and whatnot, but even the liberals reading this know its true.  So with that in mind, how did that affect our economy?

Our economy was going along fine when they started in with their recession talk.  Our tax breaks recovered our economy spectacular after 9/11.  The recession Bush took from Clinton was turned into positive results.  Now, picture yourself as an investor.  You are hearing from NBC, MSNBC, CNN, etc etc, that a recession is looming.  What do you do?  You reel in some of your investments fearing it could drop in value, maybe you sell your extra property?  Picture yourself as a middle-class family parent.  What do you do?  Instead of buying that boat you could finally afford, you save your money since you heard there was a recession looming.  The lower income families are already saving all they can and hardly making it.  My point is, their rants about a recession caused people to fear for the recession.  Our physical attributes were moving along at a great pace, but our mental game was in the tank.  We were then not able to perform at our best without 50% of what is needed for 100% total. 

So, in my opinion, the democrats ranting and raving of a recession got their wish in forcing one upon themselves.  If you shoot a basketball with the expectation to fail, you will miss.  If you swing at a baseball with the expectation to fail, you will swing and miss.  If you shoot a penalty shot in soccer with the expectation to miss, you will not score.  If you look at our economy and inform the people that a recession is looming, a recession will occur. 

You thoughts and response is welcome.

With the Supreme court decision to ALLOW us to keep our rights given to us, I thought I would write a little on what I think about the 2nd amendment using other important documents written around the same time.  The Supreme court is there to interpret the Constitution, not to legislate on it.  Therefore, I am going to prove what our founding fathers were thinking when they wrote the 2nd amendment. 

To do this I will first bring us to a time before we had written a Constitution.  A time before there was a United States.  A time where there was a small committee of 3 looking over a document called the Declaration of Independence.  I know its just another small document that doesn't have much to do with anything now right?(or so the libs may say)  hehe, but I am going to use it none the less.

I will scan down and find a paragraph that contains a mention of us securing our rights and what to do if government becomes destructive. 

"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 of 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."

Now, I think to myself.  How, if under any circumstances, would the people abolish a government that is becoming destructive, if we don't have arms to do it?  Throw pitchforks?  Maybe fling snowballs at them (for those of you who have seen John Adams haha).  Perhaps a club will do.  I think not.  The only way for the people to rise up and defeat the national government is to use arms.  The military would be much too strong to overcome without, and if the government is becoming destructive, I very much doubt they wouldn't be using the military to do their bidding.  To that point, I argue that Thomas Jefferson supports the people having arms to defend themselves from the government.  How could any sane person object to that argument. 

I now move to another of our founding fathers using yet again, a different such document than the Constitution.  Again, a time before televisions, a time before the Constitution.  The Federalist Papers have three such names in them and all of them did great things for our country.  Alexander Hamilton set a foundation of credit our country has built upon until today, James Madison Jr. was our 4th president and John Jay was our first chief justice.  All of which had a hand in the writing of the Constitution.  These are hardly people you can ignore when interpreting the intended meaning of our amendments.

I turn our time to Federalist Paper #28.  Written by Alexander Hamilton to the people of New York.  I will go straight to quotes:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

Here he speaks of the people needing to take to arms if congress or the President betray us.  Now, he speaks specifically of arms in this statement, so there can be no other means by which he says the people could overthrow the government, if need be.  We must rush tumultuously to arms...Tough to argue against that.  Again, any sane person could not possibly do so.

I now move onto the 2nd amendment itself.  Now, the parsing of the sentence in question is causing many of these problems.  I will try to prove why I think the way I do on this subject.

"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."

Here is how I interpret the law.

Subject, what its for, what it is, final solution.

Throughout the Federalist papers, PUBLIUS creates many sentences in which you have to parse them carefully and correctly to have the desired outcome of the sentence.  Reading the above paragraph you must be able to see that.  They use commas much differently than we do today on a regular basis, and that is what makes this so hard to interpret.  They constantly use them as sub-sentences or describing areas for the previous parse.  I think it is fairly obvious that the second portion is directed at the first.
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...  It is describing what a militia is used for or why we need it.  For the security of a free state.  The third part is where many people have many different thoughts.  I believe it describes what a militia is.  A militia is the right of the people to bear arms.  Without that right, there would be no militia.  The third applies to the subject.  Since a militia is the right of people to bear arms, then the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed. 
I for one believe the common sense interpretation makes perfect sense, but where people can skew the law, they will do so. 

Since the ruling came out that the 2nd applies to the individual, doesn't that mean that all federal gun laws are unconstitutional?  SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!

The job of the Supreme court is to interpret the original meaning of the law, not create their new meaning of it!

Using other historical documents written by our founding fathers, along with the obvious meaning.  How can anyone argue that the 2nd amendment doesn't mean exactly what it says?  We get guns!!!

Sources:
Declaration of Independence
Federalist Paper #28

Isn't it obvious?

If were talking of a new party...The Crawfish has a great idea on its beginnings.

Party Platform and such can be found here:
http://constitutionalcrawfish.blogtownhall.com/2008/02/25/part_2_of_the_2008_american_tradition_party_platform.thtml

Now, I was thinking of an animal.  Republicans have elephant.  Democrats have donkey.  How about the good ole snake?
It was on our 'Don't Tread On Me' flags.  It will show the tenacity we intend to use when taking back our country.  What do y'all think?

Did anyone watch the O'Reilly factor last night?  Boy did he make these students look like fools.  And democrats say they aren't socialists!  pfft! Thats what I say about that! haha

What I did was search for liberal cars through google images.  I took the first ones I could find and posted them up.  They had to have multiple stickers and had to stand for things liberals stand for...such as peace, gays, impeach bush etc etc.  Now I wanted you to think what these pictures have in common.  I know they stand for something...but what thing is it that they lack on their cars?  This is something that is not a bi-partisan issue of any kind.  It is something that should be held high by all Americans.  Can you guess it?











Below is the answer...so don't look any lower unless you cannot think of it.




.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

An American Flag!!!!!

Can you believe that?  Not one liberal car I found had an American Flag on it.  Amazing since they constantly say they want a better America, or that they support our troops.  It seems to me that they dislike America and would rather we merge into a global country.  See the American flag is not a symbol of Bush or any president.  It is a symbol of our country.  They clearly do not like the thought of a powerful United States of America!  What do you say?

Correction...I found one with one in there.  It is very faded...so in case you missed it...look again.

So while one does.  How come more don't?  What I said still stands.  It is a symbol of freedom around the world and they continue to hate America on the whole. 

Update:

Take a look again and if you thought "Support our troops" then you were correct.  Looking through I didn't see one!  Yet they will claim on every thread and every argument that they support them!  Rubbish!

So, today I was wondering how a person such as Obama could possibly be the candidate of a major party.  When I mean a person like Obama I am talking about a couple things I never would have thought would leave him as a running mate. 

Firstly his beliefs are so unbelievably like Jimmy Carter Im surprised anyone over 50 is voting for him.  We can't have our houses at 72?  How about if our government buildings aren't made out of marble or stone anymore.  I went to the Minnesota History Museum this weekend and the building is massive.  I could be exaggerating, but to say it took up half a city block might be about right.  The building is made out of stone and brick solid.  Then I get inside and marble walls and flooring.  Maybe they are afraid a tornado might hit, because if it did, I think that building might withstand an F5.  To make matters worse I, as a taxpayer, have to pay to get in.  So not only do I pay the employees and for the building, but I have to pay for parking and visitation of the very building.  But, Im getting off track, sorry. 
Continuing on...
The consuming attitude of this candidate is of the Jimmy era where we had lines at gas stations.  There is no pride of Americans, but only of how we can we can change everything about this country. 

Which leads me to my second point of his Pride and Respect for our country.  He refuses to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem.  Does he lack respect for our flag and country that much?  His free calling circle from Alltel is filled with anti-American terrorists and racists.  Not only is he buddy buddy with them, but he has provided pork for them as well.  Pfleger received $225,000 pork from Obama, so don't even say they aren't linked in any way, for you liberals. 

His very wife who probably shares his views, let slip through loose lips, shares the racist views of Wright.  Now that there is a black man up for president, and especially since its Obama, she is now proud of our country.  Is that all it took?  Our freedom of millions around the world:  $100    Her husband being up for president:  Priceless.....apparently haha.

As my last post said I  have started watching "John Adams" from HBO and it got me thinking on the sacrifice our founding fathers had to endure.  John Hancock has a quote from a previous post of mine which states:
"There! His Majesty can now read my name without glasses. And he can double the reward on my head!"
John Hancock, upon signing the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

These men were the richest and most powerful people in the colonies and didn't have nearly as much to gain as the average person.  They could have talked to England and asked for bribery if they muffed the rebels.  Would that not have been more advantageous for them?  Washington was the richest man in the country and to this day is known as the richest president we have ever had (modified worth of money of course).  So why would they stick their necks out?  They did what they knew was best for our country and the children of our country at the risk of their own lives.  Can anyone actually picture any one of our congressmen doing that for us today if needed?  Would they risk their power and money for the good of the country?  George Washington refused to be President when it was offered to him the first time.  He did not want a single ruler for this country, even if it was him!  Can you imagine, if given the option, Obama or McCain or any congressmen today refusing the presidency if they knew it would be good for our country?  I can't see it of any of them. 

I recently heard of the John Adams show on HBO and decided to check it out.  I thought it fairly good.  I haven't researched all that went on in that time frame to know enough to come to my own conclusion.  I thought it covered the US in a light not too bright or dim.  It seems to have been done without an agenda, but instead for entertainment and to tell the story.  I haven't watched that much and mainly scanned through it.  If you haven't checked it out I suggest you give it a shot.  To those of you who have watched it, what do you think of it?  As I said I haven't done enough research of my own on the subject, but perhaps one of you have and can educate me a bit. ; )

I just watched Harry Potter: The Order of the Phoenix today and I wanted to run something by people.  Is the liberal mindset that of Dolores Umbridge and the Ministry of Magic.  I mean wow, the similarities are uncanny.  Ignore all threats, incarcerate when possible all people against your mindset, and last but not least, brainwash the children! haha