Here is a short video (4:26) that should really get your blood boiling:
The important question here--or at least the one that truly distinguishes an individuals mindset--is 'Who do you hold most responsible?' The criminals in Washington DC or those on Wall Street? In this case I don't think that anyone can help but choose either one or the other. One perspective I choose to use is 'who is--or is not--doing their job?'
The job of Wall Street is to 'maximize shareholder value', or to put another way, make money for those who own stock in the company (Goldman Sachs, in this case) without violating any laws.
The job of the FDIC--and the politicians in Washington who hire them--is to protect taxpayer money and get the economy working again.
In this case, Goldman Sachs did their job. The taxpayer got taken to the cleaners. Again.
Just as anyone else who can spend other people's money, the politicians care more about the appearance of 'doing something' than protecting our hard earned money.
So to sum up, the politicians created the problem, and then go to Wall Street and throw more of our money away so they can look good.
The news media routinely tries to conflate 'non-agression' with 'pacifism'. They are (what's new!) wrong. Pacifism is a renunciation of aggression; non-aggression is restraint from aggression. There is a big difference. The Quakers and some Buddists are a good examples of pacificism, as they will not respond to aggression under any circumstances. The Swiss, on the other hand, are a perfect example of the principles of non-aggression, as they will attack no-one, but will defend themselves if attacked.
Not surprisingly, the Swiss have their own equivalent to our 2nd Amendment. Take a look at this short video:
-- For Florida Broadside readers, here is a direct link to this post: http://ping.fm/YTd1y --
As the Health Care Freedom Amendment (HCFA) proceeded through the various committees, it has had two changes applied. When dealing with proposed legislation, changes can appear subtle but in reality can essentially gut the bill. This is what happened to one version of Ron Paul’s ‘Audit the Fed’ bill, which caused him to eventually vote against the final bill. Since even small changes can be so critical, I thought to convert the original and final versions of the HCFA and track the changes. The first page of the final version that is headed to the floor for a vote is displayed below, and all three versions are available for download in Microsoft Word format at the links below.
There appear to be only two substantive changes that could potentially affect the final bill. The first is the substitution of ‘may’ for ‘shall’. This can be a significant legal change as was shown in Concealed Carry law here in Florida. The simple substitution of ‘shall issue’ for ‘may issue’ is what compels the issuance of a concealed carry license to individuals if there is no reason to withhold it. On the other hand, in some cases, this type of substitution is legally insignificant; it all depends on the context. In the HCFA it appears that the simple substitution is not significant, but it will take an attorney to make a definitive call.
The next change that does have a substantial impact on the final Constitutional Amendment is the addition of section (c) (6) which allows the legislature to override the amendment with a law passed by a 2/3 majority in both houses of the Florida Legislature. This is a significant change which does dilute the final Amendment. It is, however a higher bar than a simple majority.
If anyone with more legal training than I reads this, I would appreciate their professional evaluation. You can get all the source files here:
I think I may be taking the current political situation too seriously, but when I start getting left-wing propaganda from ConsumerReports.org, I just can't let that go without some type of a response. I will leave it to you to decide if I need to take a breather.
I received this unsolicitied email from what appears to be the Consumer Reports PAC. ( must lead a sheltered life, but I had no idea that they had a PAC. I also can't fathom why they would need one--other than maybe to secure their income stream.)
Dear Steven,
What happened to getting a straight-forward home loan, a fair credit card, and respect for the value of the money we deposit?
Over the past twenty years, the big Wall Street financial companies devalued personal responsibility, fair play and thrift and substituted high risk, mind-numbing complexity, and excessive bonuses.
We're in the deepest recession since the Great Depression, with tens of millions out of work, because the incentives in our financial system changed. Financial firms reward people who gamble with borrowed money and show big paper profits for short-term gains — no matter what the long-term cost.
The Senate this week released a financial reform bill, and the banks' top brass know their big bonuses are at stake. Make sure your Senators know their responsibility to voters is at stake.
Banks dangled too good to be true offers in front of people who refinanced from a perfectly good loan into a risky one. Brokers got higher commissions for hard-selling risky, costly mortgages — like those where the payment didn't cover the interest and the loan actually got bigger over time.
The banks booked higher profits on those crummy deals, then sold the risky loans to investors. When it all fell apart, the mortgage brokers, bank CEOs and the Wall Street traders got to keep their fat bonuses, while millions of families lost their homes or their retirement accounts.
It's been more than a year since the economic meltdown, and needed changes are stalled. While politicians debate about which government agency should do what, there are a handful of common sense rules that would straighten out the incentives and reinforce the right values now:
Wall Street's financial titans oppose these reforms, and they're spending tens of millions lobbying and advertising against them. To them, that's just pocket change compared to the billions in bonuses they have at stake.
But this is a fight we can win because your anger at the banks is well known. Now they need to know that you are paying attention and you expect real progress — real reform with real teeth, and rules that will apply fairly to everyone.
So, after fuming about it for a while, I decided to respond:
Mr Guest,
I am sorry, but you must mistake me for a idiot. Either that or you are the idiot. Corporatism and government interference in the free market has 'devalued personal responsibility, fair play and thrift.' For profit companies in competitive industries have and will always use every possible mechanism to achieve their goal: profit.
Only government--big government--has the ability to give preference to favored companies. Only government has the power to make the playing field un-level, and thus short circuit the only true referee of participants in every market: competition. I find it difficult to blame the companies for exploiting government when they can. Your mistake is that you think giving government more power, making it bigger, more dangerous and more easily exploited, will somehow fix it! I cannot believe that someone could reach your position and not realize corruption originates in government, not the other way around.
Do you really think that government bureaucrats are more intelligent and more capable than the best in private industry? If so, you have not been around many bureacrats.
Do you think that government is the ruler of private industry? No! Competition is: Why do you think businessmen take advantage of every opportunity to enlist (read lobby or bribe) government's assistance in limiting competition?
Do you think that the government-created cartel in rating agencies--Moody's, S&P, and Fitch--had anything to do with the horribly inaccurate ratings that were given to the CDO, MBS, etc? I think it is easy to see: no competition means no quality.
How about the Federal Reserve which created the bubble to begin with?
How about Fannie, Freddie, et al. Which created the market in mortgages? Before that, most mortgage lenders & bankers (banks, S&L's, etc.) held the mortgages they funded to maturity. With the government created mortgage market, now brokers simply had to sell them. No risk.
So how about you do some research before spouting garbage--especially in spam.
Sincerely,
PS: Please cancel my online membership. Take me off any of your mailing or contacts lists. I don't do business with organizations who would make a socialist/fascist/progressive like you their President.
Since HR 3590 'The American Enslavement through Healthcare' Bill passed tonight by a vote of 219 traitors to 212 non-traitors (I can’t go so far as to call most of them patriots), I think it is time that we, the People, re-look the words which set some patriots on the path which allowed the creation of this once great and unique country:
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 of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a 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 shewn, 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 think it might be time for us to re-commit to these principles with as much dedication as those towering men to which we owe all. If we can re-commit, what can and should we do?
Since the foundation--the Constitution--is basically sound, we can safely tear it all down by eliminating about 80% of the laws and regulations and 90% of the federal government itself. As for the foundation, a few patches should do, like getting rid of the 16th & 17th amendments, the general Welfare clause for starters; add some things like establishing a real wall between Education and State similar to the imaginary wall between Church and State, jury nullification, State nullification, the right of secession and term limits; and clarify a few things such as the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause, and we will again have a functional national government that fulfills it proper functions in a free society.
But in my heart I know this is all a dream. It can never be accomplished because the one, critical element is missing: the popular will. Between government control of education (read that word 'indoctrination') and the bought and paid for slaves that constitute about 50% of the people in this country, there is no longer any real hope for these United States. It was a good experiment, though. America...Rest In Peace.
![clip_image001[7]](/images/stories/clip_image0017.png "clip_image001[7]")
