During the mortgage meltdown, it became blatantly obvious that Barney Frank, Democrat, MA, was one of those in Congress most culpable in the departure from common sense that precipitated the fiasco.  No secrets involved here, just publicly available films, speeches, Congressional voting records and the like.  A signed confession could hardly have been more damning.  Yet, Barney offered some nonsensical blather about it all being GW Bush’s fault.  No refutation of established facts, just some loud finger pointing.  The result?

First, Barney gets a major role in crafting the “bailout plan”.  For those of you not familiar with the plan, it is a system of rewards to the major financial institutions that participated in the meltdown.

Second, and worst of all, Barney gets re-elected with over 70% of the vote.  That is right.  Over 70% in an area that is known for the high quality of its educational facilities and for its sophisticated residents.

A similar story could be told about Christopher Dodd, the Senate version of Barney.

Never mind the evidence of outright wrong doing in the form of “favors”, campaign contributions, jobs for family and lovers, etc., etc.  The indisputable evidence in the public record was enough to condemn both these men.

Yet both were sent back to continue the good job they are doing for the country.

WHAT THE CRAP IS GOING ON HERE???

While I have no use whatever for the likes of Frank and Dodd, I find it hard to blame them for this travesty.  What can the voters who gave these crooks a vote of confidence and another shot at their wallets be thinking?  Indeed, is our condition so bad that major portions of our population simply cannot think at all?

Try as I might, I can find no rational explanation for such actions on the part of “we the people”.  But I have no problem whatever understanding where it leads.

Tweet This Post 

It is not the purpose of this blog to simply repeat the news but the latest updates from the world of “bailouts” is just too much to let pass.

It seems the original “plan” rushed through Congress over the objections of almost every American citizen, is not being “re-thought” by the Emperor of the Treasury, Hank the Bank Paulson.

To review: the original “plan” (read “load of crap”) was that the $700B, more or much more, would be “invested” in troubled paper with the expectation the taxpayers might one day get part or all of it back.  As noted, while the American people did not agree, our “representatives” in Congress bought it hook, line and sinker.  (Could they have been in a rush to repeat the periodic lies they use to get re-elected, over and over, no matter how sorry their job performance?  But, I digress…)

Well, now Hank the Bank has decided that buying that worthless paper was not such a good idea after all so, what the heck, lets just throw the money at anything that claims to be a bank and hope for the best.  Note further that he did not even bother to feed Congress a new set of lies.

Friends, we are talking about a starting figure of $700 BILLION, with the final figure not yet to be known.  Now tell me this: How many of you would just sit there doing nothing while a common thief stole a mere $700 from you?  Right.  Then why do we just sit here while these uncommon thieves steal our birthright?

At least, get mad.  Get really mad.  Whoops – you probably just recently helped send your thief back to the bank didn’t you?  Well, that’ll teach ‘em.

Tweet This Post 

I will start this diatribe by stating several known, easily observable  facts:

• Barack Obama has been elected President of the United States.
• I am very disturbed by fact #1.  (Nov 8, 2998 Meet The Press, Valerie Jarrett, Co-chair, Obama-Biden Transition Team told Tom Brokaw “given the daunting challenges that we face, it’s important that president elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one.” for instance)
• I am a racist.  No, I don’t care what race Mr Obama claims as his own.  Nor do I put much stock in skin color.  However, I realize that “racist” has been redefined to mean anyone who disagrees with Obama, therefore I accept that label without further argument.
• The United States is not, never has been and was never intended to be a democracy.  In spite of this, there is an elitist element in our country that has pretty much convinced the uninformed that it is.
• There is no Constitutionally guaranteed right to vote in the United States.  Don’t want to take my word for it?  OK, ask the Supreme Court.
• The “dumbing down” of America has worked beyond anyone’s dreams or expectations.

Why do I mention these particular facts and what have they to do with each other?  Obviously, I intend to explain.

The United States of America was founded as a Republic.  Along democratic lines to be sure, but a Republic, nevertheless and most certainly NOT a Democracy.  Indeed, some of the Founders equated pure Democracy with a form of mob rule.

If this is true, why then why would any elite group try to convince the country that it IS a Democracy, and that every living citizen, along with a significant number of non-living or non-citizens, has the right to vote, no matter how hopelessly uninformed they might be?  Simple.  And, probably not the reason most of us would guess.  The United States was not only founded as a Republic, that Republic was bound by a written Constitution.   A Constitution that makes every reasonable attempt to limit the power and reach of the government it describes.  As if that were not enough, the Founders also made the Constitution very cumbersome to change, hoping to ward off frivolous changes.  Most especially changes made to favor the power of government, ergo the power of those who administer government over that of the people.

In recent years, it has been popular, among the elite, to have de-facto changes made to the Constitution by the courts.  A court system whose own lust for power has made it forget its true role in interpreting what is already there, rather than digging into the Constitution to find “rights” that were never there, never intended to be there, and, usually, not even in a area of Federal responsibility.  While this method worked well for a while, and with a particular Court, the more recent appointment of more traditional judges has hampered it.

So, if the elite are to continue to keep our Constitution “alive” through changes that would never have a chance of making it through the official process, then a new approach is needed.  For this, I offer you the notion of Democracy.  You see, in a Democracy, whatever the majority of apparent voter says, is the law, is it not?  And Constitution be damned!

But, is this really true?  Does one segment of the population actually have the right to impose a new form of government on another?  I refer specifically to current attempts to convert the United States to a socialist state.  I argue that it does not.

To begin with, I submit that our Constitution cannot possibly describe a socialist state.  It has too much to say in favor of our individual rights to person, privacy and property for that (in a socialist state, the state owns everything, ergo no such rights belong to the people).

If that is not enough, I raise another very fundamental matter.  Since the Enlightenment, a number of thinkers have refined a new concept, ultimately stated by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence… “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”

Put as simply as it can be put, I, along with millions of other Americans, DO NOT consent to be governed by a socialist state.  Period.  End of argument!

Since I still may not have not gotten the point across, let me try another approach.  We (The United States) are a Republic, not a Democracy.  Fine, you say, so what and why do folks like me keep harping on this point – does it really make any difference?  It is as simple as this.  A republic is a rules-based entity while a democracy is not.  Imagine trying to play a game, a really important game, but one where the rules of the game are made up or changed as the game proceeds.  Winning could turn out to be very hard in this game, unless you are on the side that can make the most noise, can be the most intimidating to the other players,  or can overwhelm them with sheer numbers.  This, my friends, is democracy, pure and simple.  If it sounds a lot like mob rule, well…

Now consider playing that same game except, this time, the rules are set in advance, are tightly enforced, and can be altered only in the most extreme circumstances.  This is a republic.

It is obvious that the republican method does not improve any given player’s chances of winning the game.  What it does do is ensure the game is played in a fair fashion, per rules that can be known to every player, well in advance of the game (I say “can be” because one can still choose to be ignorant of them).

If the game being played is called “self rule” and is being played in a place called the USA, the rule book would be called the “Constitution”.

I don’t know any way to make it more simple, yet the majority of our people still cannot seem to grasp the concept.  And, it is killing us as a nation.  But, on to other thoughts…

I have stated elsewhere in this blog that my philosophy of life is Objectivism.  While I have no intention of teaching a mini-course in Objectivism, I will tell the uninitiated that the most basic principles of Objectivism are:

• That I own myself.  Not some God, not some king, not some dictator, not some head of government, however chosen.  Nope.  Just me.  I belong to me and me belong to I.  From this simple notion I can go on to say that, if I own me, then I must also own the products of me.  Particularly, the fruits of my thoughts and my labor.  I can further surmise that since I own me and what I produce, I also have a responsibility to myself.  That responsibility is to act in my own self interest.  That is to say, I should live my life for me.
• That man’s rational mind is his only hope.  That is to say, success in life is based on thinking, using reality as the fodder for our thinking mill, not emotion, superstition or other such childish notion.  It then follows that if rational thought is the basis of a good life, teaching our young the basics of rational thought must be our most important responsibility.
• That each thing is what it is.  That reality is real, not the result of anyone’s imagination, wants, fears, etc. Further, that reality can be known and understood by a rational mind.

Almost immediately, one can see a chink in my armor.  If I have only my own self interest at heart, what could be better than a socialist state that can give me anything I want or need at little or no effort to myself, leaving me free to enjoy myself to the fullest?  Well, if you are a sucker (or emotion driven), then, for you, this may well be true.  For the rest of us, truly knowing what is in our own self interest might be the hardest thing we will ever try to learn.

Now, being a practical sort, I want my own self interest to be served for the entire length of my life, which I want to be as long as reasonably possible.  And, I want my self interest served at a minimum cost to myself.  I want it to be relatively easy and totally sustainable and long lasting.  This pretty much lets out simply taking whatever I want from others.  Indeed, this means that the method I choose for my own satisfaction must be agreeable to others!

But, even this will not discourage me because:

• I have a rational mind.  Something that, to my knowledge, is possessed only by humans, even if used by the few.
• I know of a game we can play that will allow all the players to win, at the same time.  In fact, it is the nearest thing to magic that the human mind can conceive.  No, it is not a secret.  The game is called Marketplace.

So, equipped with a rational mind and a game where everyone can win, is there anything I cannot accomplish?  No.  But only so long as I am free.  Free to exercise my ownership of myself with all that entails.

Free.  What a concept.  Does this mean I can do anything I want?  No it does not.  What is means is that I can do what I want with ME.  Why?  Because the only way I can be free is to allow everyone else to also be free.  In doing that, I allow them to exercise their ownership over themselves, and their products, just as I do over me and mine.  To do it any other way would simply mean that only the most powerful could be free.  Since “most powerful” is a concept that must be proven over and over again, all it ensures is constant turmoil.  Just mentally picture a country (of your choosing) that currently practices “strong man” government.  Enough said.  I am sure I don’t want that and I doubt you do either.

So, where are we now?  Oh yes, we all have to be free and we must all exercise our ownership over ourselves in a rational fashion and we have a marketplace to play in.  So far, so good.  Now, shouldn’t we all also be equal?  Funny you should ask.  There is a secret, evidently known only to those who actually use their reasoning ability.  For the rest of you, the “secret” is this… free and equal are opposites.  To have one, you must give up the other.  Bummer of a choice, but that is just the way it is.  If people are left free, they simply refuse to remain equal.  Likewise, to ensure people remain equal, their freedom must first be taken from them.  But, you say, didn’t Mr. Jefferson himself claim that “all men are created equal”?  Yes, he did.  But note that tricky word “created”.  What he did not say, imply or even hint at was the notion that “all men are created equal and must remain that way forever and in every respect and in every outcome”.  Indeed, the scope of Mr. Jefferson’s idea was only as applied to the laws men mutually agree to.  Simply put, if we are to be a nation of laws, said laws should apply to us all, equally.  Somehow, we have allowed that simple idea to expand into areas where it simply cannot apply.

I maintain that the concept of “equal” is best left to mathematicians and kept as far from governance as possible.  So, doesn’t this allow one person or group of persons to have an advantage over other persons or groups of persons?  Yes it does.  And, there is no rational remedy for this.  The gal with the better voice is more likely to end up a musical star.  The guy with extra long legs is more likely to end up a sports star.   The person with the big brain is likely to contribute more than the rest of us. The guy or gal born into a rich family is more likely to get into the best schools.  Indeed, the babies most healthy at birth are more likely to even live.  Personally, so long as we don’t use our natural advantages to harm others, I see no real problem with this.  It is simply part of the kaleidoscope we call life.  I say, get over it and focus on things that really can be changed!

So, again we ask, what can we do?  The truth is, I am not sure.  That is why I am soliciting your input.

My first thought was secession.  Let the socialists have their section of the country and let the free individualists have another.  While this does seem simple, in actual practice, it splits states, communities, even families.  The good side is that those who want a state that caters to their every whim would surely get the fastest, cheapest lesson in the history of mankind.  For that reason alone, I still tend to favor secession.

At some level, I suppose I have always favored secession.  I think it was the correct remedy the last time (e.g. Civil War).  The problem then was that the people on the states rights side of the argument chose perhaps the worst possible cause on which to bring their complaint – that of slavery.  Not only did this taint cause the states rights people to lose everything, it still hampers a rational discussion of states rights, due to the residue we have yet to purge from our system.

Good news though!  The secession I propose has everything to do with one’s view of freedom and government and nothing whatever to do with one’s view of another’s race.  Indeed, were we able to implement a rational secession, I would very much hope that any remaining racists end up on the other side (I refer to real racists, not the artificial kind I confessed to, tongue-in-cheek, at the start of this rant).

So, there you have it.  I am proposing a new country, built out of part of the old.  I further propose that we base it on the “original” Constitution (the base document and the first 10 amendments).  I propose that we call it the United States of America, since we will be using a Constitution that already calls it that.

Some may wonder whether an attitude such as mine is not somehow unpatriotic.  Quite to the contrary, I consider myself the ultimate patriot.  The America that prior generations fought to create and to preserve is exactly what I want to see again.  For totally selfish reasons.  I have lived a wonderful life in this land and I wish nothing less for my children, grandchildren and so on.  And, to openly reject being ruled, reigned over or otherwise subjugated is perhaps the finest expression of patriotism one could exhibit.

In fact, I contend that no actions opposing the actions of our current government can be considered unpatriotic for the simple reason that the government described by our Constitution, the one to which we extend our patriotism, no longer exists.  That is right my friends, the United States of America that we fought for, that we love sometimes more than life itself, has been destroyed.  Yes, the final collapse might take a while but it is inevitable.  Just look about you… and you will see:

• A so called “government” that has destroyed its country’s economy and that hasn’t a clue what to do about it other than go on a spending/bailout spree using money that simply does not exist.  This alone will seal our fate.
• A system of “education” that turns out hordes of functional illiterates, many if whom can’t find Canada on a map.An uninformed horde that knows nothing of  our intended system of government, of our economic system, yet are given the power to choose the future direction of the country.
• A business community that is, increasingly, devoid of ethics.
• A president elect who openly, vocally calls for a “Civilian Defense Force”, every bit as powerful as our military.  And the listeners cheered.  Not a single member of the so called “free press” bothered to ask who this force is intended to defend and from whom.  Before you let emotion get ahead of rational thought and accuse me of being extremist, please consider that Adolph Hitler published a book (Mein Kampf) in which he described his whole plan for the future.  Millions bought it, a few probably read it.  And still, these same people would gather by the hundreds of thousands to cheer madly over their own impending destruction.
• A president elect who embraces a “spread the wealth” philosophy. Indeed, who embraces most every Marxist theory of economics.
• A government that exists for its own benefit, not that of the people it presumes to govern.
• A republic trying to behave like a democracy.

And on, and on it goes.  Much more could be said but this should suffice to make the point.

So, here we are.  All I need now is for all of you to tell us how to get back to the world of the free and the rational.  Really – I am actively soliciting your input as well as your comments on what I have said.  All I ask is that your input be rational rather than emotional and serious rather than frivolous.

Tweet This Post 

Seems the other day a fellow who claimed to be “Joe the plumber” blindsided Senator Obama with a question about taxes and how raising them might affect his dreams of owning his own business.  The Senator replied to the effect that is would be a good thing to “share the wealth”.

Before we go on, I am aware that Joe was not his real name.  Well, it is his middle name but, in the Obama camp, middle names don’t count.  Add to this the fact that “Joe” is not licensed and that he owes the IRS, although not as much as Congressman Rangel, head of Ways and Means, and you can see that this was plainly a setup.

Yet, I am still troubled by the Senator’s answer.   You see, he referred not to his wealth, but to the wealth.  Now, I can’t prove that there is not a blob of wealth out there floating in the ether, and, if there is, and we can recover it, it damned well should be shared.  But, somehow I get the uneasy feeling that “the wealth” in question is “my wealth”.  If that is the case, then I strongly object.  Since it is, be definition, MY wealth, I choose to be the one to decide if, and with whom, it should be shared.

But, I have a suggestion… the Congress is full of very wealthy Democrats.  (We can discuss how they got that way in another rant.)  Anyway, I propose that all the wealthy Dems pool all their wealth, share it all, then let us gauge the overall effect.  If that effect really made a positive difference, then maybe I will be willing to discuss sharing some of my own.  Until then, please get your sticky mitts out of my wallet.

As you probably know, Senator, all the wealth I can spare at this moment is being used to help greedy derivatives traders who might otherwise lose their homes in the Hamptons.

Tweet This Post 

I have put off commenting on the “bailout” because I want to discourage the use of vulgar language in the blog.  But, I can’t silently let some of this go by.  For instance, this article from CNNMoney.com. My comments are embedded in italics…
U.S. to buy into top banks
Tuesday October 14, 9:55 am ET
By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer

The federal government on Tuesday announced an extraordinary and historic investment in the nation’s banks – the biggest bet ever made with taxpayer dollars on the U.S. financial system.  Bet?  They are betting with my money?  I thought they had a plan, not a wager.

As a start, the Treasury will pump $250 billion into financial institutions. Nine of the nation’s largest banks have already agreed to take the capital (I’ll bet that took some arm twisting) and in return will give preferred shares to taxpayers and limit on executive pay. (How much is this “limit” and how will we know if other more creative forms of compensation are used to bypass this “limit”?) It is widely expected that half of the $250 billion will go to those nine banks.  (That comes out to nearly $14B per bank.  When did you last get a $14B reward for mismanaging a business?)

“This is an essential short-term measure to assure the viability of American’s banking system,” Bush said in comments outside the White House. “These measures are not intended to take over the free market, but to preserve it.”  (First, nothing lasts longer than a “temporary” or “short term” measure.  Second, why is my money being used to fund an otherwise non-viable bank?  Before one more penny of my money is used, I want to see the crooks who caused this disgrace fined until they haven’t a cent left.  A bit of prison time would be in order as well.)

In addition, the president made a formal request for an additional $100 billion to help out financial institutions. Congress authorized up to $700 billion as part of the financial system bailout enacted on Oct. 3, but it required the president to certify the need for any amount above the initial $250 billion.

The government can use the additional $100 billion to buy troubled assets held by firms (by “troubled” they actually mean “worthless”.) or to make additional capital infusions into banks.  (In case the original $14B did not satisfy their endless greed.)

The president also announced insurance on all deposits in non-interest bearing bank accounts, a move that should calm businesses worried because their payroll and checking accounts exceed the limits backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. And the government will also back most new bank debt – a change designed to spur more lending between banks.  (Of course, this totally ignores the fact that the FDIC itself is broke!)

The package represents the government’s most extensive attempt yet to unfreeze frozen credit markets. The aim is to give banks the confidence to make loans to one another and their customers and help provide the economy the source of funds it needs to operate.  (This is based on an obscure theory of economics, understood only by thieves and people with advanced degrees in economics. Essentially, the theory states that while a little government interference can destroy the economy, a lot of government interference can put Humpty Dumpty together again.)

The move was something that the Bush administration and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson resisted even as the crisis in the nation’s financial system mounted over the last month.  (Resisted as in “please don’t throw me in that briar patch”.)

“Government owning a stake in any private U.S. company is objectionable to most Americans – me included,” Paulson said. “Yet the alternative of leaving businesses and consumers without access to financing is totally unacceptable.”  (Secretary Paulson came from the very industry being bailed out.  In fact, he was one of the over-paid executives.  Remember that his current job ends in just a few weeks.  Anyone want to bet where he will go then?)

The previously announced plan to simply buy the bad mortgage debts held by major banks and Wall Street firms had done little to assure investors or get financial institutions providing the loans necessary to keep the U.S. economy functioning.  (Everything about this “plan” (or “bet” if you believe the opening paragraph) has been an exercise in deception, deflected responsibility and outright fraud.)

U.S. stocks had their worst week in history last week, and most measures showed lending by financial institutions remained frozen despite moves by the Federal Reserve to pump potentially trillions of new dollars into the system. (You did not believe that $700B was the end of it did you?  That was only the down payment.)

This is the biggest transfer of wealth from the honest to the guilty since the S&L bailout.  And, there is no guarantee whatever that our nation’s economy can survive it. If it does survive, I fear it will be at the cost of free enterprise and open markets, taking us one giant step further toward socialism.

All of you who wanted more non-partisan cooperation in government are getting it now.  You see, they are partisan only when fighting over the spoils of power.  When it comes to screwing we the people, they have always been non-partisan.

The Marx Brothers would be proud.  Especially Karl.

Tweet This Post