We need police, there has to be some way to enforce the laws in this country, in our individual states. I am a law abiding citizen who does not break the law… well maybe a traffic law or two. I should have no reason to hate the police, but I really hate them. I can’t stand them, because of the mentality they possess and the power trip that possesses them. In my experience women cops are the worst. You don’t have to be mean to maintain authority and if you do maybe you shouldn’t be a cop. How do we fix this police power trip? For one, people need to better educate themselves of their rights and police need to have stricter punishments for infringing on them. Better screening of police recruits needs to be in place; some of these people want to be police just to have power over others. Maybe daddy beat them every Wednesday with the garden hose, maybe Uncle George should not have been the one babysitting them, or maybe Big Billy took there lunch money every day. It’s the most powerful job you can get with limited education required. I am tired of hearing the stories of police not following traffic laws, roughing up people, and abusing their power. Here are some of the latest stories.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/07/29/dcl.cop.decks.cyclist.cnn
http://www.startribune.com/local/south/24108139.html?page=1&c=y
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=police+brutality&search_type=&aq=f
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
Fannie and Freddie
Every time one of these bail outs is delivered I cringe. Why can’t we just leave the market alone? Why are we helping the private sector? Not only does a free market have to rise and fall on its own, but every time the government helps they always want more control.
The sad truth of the matter is this market has not been free for a very long time. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are fictitious entities created by the communist (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) that the scared American people let in the White House to rescue capitalism from itself. But is that true, did capitalism cause the great depression, or was it once again government interference? Did FDR rescue capitalism or did his government programs delay its recovery?
There are a lot of different opinions to what caused the great depression, but it seems obvious that the huge unsustainable boom created by trying to help Britain return to the gold standard probably had something to do with it. The Federal Reserve enacting the policies that where exactly opposite of what they should have been doing most likely made the unstoppable recession into a depression (i.e. limiting cash flow and raising interest rates).
"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again." Ben Bernanke
FDR programs did not turn the economy around WWII did. He took us from the gold standard and money was printed. He created many socialist programs, some so overt they were struck down by The Supreme Court as unconstitutional. In his misguided attempt to turn the economy around in 1938 he created the Federal National Mortgage Association AKA. Fannie Mae.
Fannie Mae was created because private investors were skittish (and rightfully so) on investing in home loans. So FDR created a government ran monopoly; borrowing from foreign investors and buying home loans and creating the secondary home loan market. Lyndon B. Johnson privatized Fannie Mae in order to remove it from the national budget. At this point, Fannie Mae began operating as a GSE, generating profits for stock. In order to prevent any further monopolization of the market, a second GSE known as Freddie Mac was created in 1970. Currently, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac control about 90 percent of the nation's secondary mortgage market.
Should the government bail private business out? I say absolutely not! But these are not private businesses and they were never meant to be private businesses; they where part of FDR’s new socialist deal. If they were so good at making money then why would Lyndon Johnson want to take them off the books during the Vietnam War to save money?
The secondary mortgage market monopoly was destined to fail because the government created it. And now that is has, they do have a responsibility to fix it. I don’t know how they can make it free again, but no one in government, or soon to be, is going to do it.
The sad truth of the matter is this market has not been free for a very long time. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are fictitious entities created by the communist (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) that the scared American people let in the White House to rescue capitalism from itself. But is that true, did capitalism cause the great depression, or was it once again government interference? Did FDR rescue capitalism or did his government programs delay its recovery?
There are a lot of different opinions to what caused the great depression, but it seems obvious that the huge unsustainable boom created by trying to help Britain return to the gold standard probably had something to do with it. The Federal Reserve enacting the policies that where exactly opposite of what they should have been doing most likely made the unstoppable recession into a depression (i.e. limiting cash flow and raising interest rates).
"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again." Ben Bernanke
FDR programs did not turn the economy around WWII did. He took us from the gold standard and money was printed. He created many socialist programs, some so overt they were struck down by The Supreme Court as unconstitutional. In his misguided attempt to turn the economy around in 1938 he created the Federal National Mortgage Association AKA. Fannie Mae.
Fannie Mae was created because private investors were skittish (and rightfully so) on investing in home loans. So FDR created a government ran monopoly; borrowing from foreign investors and buying home loans and creating the secondary home loan market. Lyndon B. Johnson privatized Fannie Mae in order to remove it from the national budget. At this point, Fannie Mae began operating as a GSE, generating profits for stock. In order to prevent any further monopolization of the market, a second GSE known as Freddie Mac was created in 1970. Currently, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac control about 90 percent of the nation's secondary mortgage market.
Should the government bail private business out? I say absolutely not! But these are not private businesses and they were never meant to be private businesses; they where part of FDR’s new socialist deal. If they were so good at making money then why would Lyndon Johnson want to take them off the books during the Vietnam War to save money?
The secondary mortgage market monopoly was destined to fail because the government created it. And now that is has, they do have a responsibility to fix it. I don’t know how they can make it free again, but no one in government, or soon to be, is going to do it.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
The Constitution of the United States of America
In 1777, after the Revolutionary War with Great Britain, The Articles of Confederation was written. They were dubbed a "loose confederation" or a "firm league of friendship," there was to be no executive branch. It sounds like it was more a League of Nations or the EU then a country. And there were obviously many problems with it, so the best and the brightest, the most trusted men of their time set out to fix it and instead made a new constitution. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton are a few of them. They had many different opinions, but they found common ground for the welfare of the entire country. The United States ratified the Constitution and instituted it as the supreme law of the land in 1789. Today, the United States Constitution is the oldest, written constitution that has continuously remained in effect in the world. It established the first federal form of government, the first system of checks and balances. The Constitution formed the three branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial.
The whole thing was in jeopardy of being thrown out due to the lack of a bill of rights and the difference in ideology between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists once again men were able to put the country above all else and the first 10 amendments were ratified in 1791 AKA The Bill of Rights. It continues to play a central role in law and government, and remains a fundamental symbol of the freedom for this great country.
Recently there have been two big rulings by the Supreme Court one on the second amendment and one a ruling on the writ of habeas corpus that I will tackle at a later time.
The second amendment provides: “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.
Ok, I know we are post Clinton era where we like to debate what the definition of is, is. But to me it’s obvious what this is saying. Because the revolutionary war was won by regular people taking there guns from over the fire place and grouping together to protect their state, their home, and their family; they made the right to keep and bear arms the second amendment not the eighth or the sixth. It’s second only to the freedom of speech, the press, and right to petition, and assemble. They deliberately made sure anyone was going to have a hell of a time taking the guns out of the homes of ordinary people, because this was our most powerful weapon to protect against invasion. Yes, times have changed and the most powerful weapon is now nuclear, the sediment is still the same. Individuals fighting for their country are still very powerful; if this was not true the war with Iraq would be a cake walk. The founding fathers were very smart and knew that a person will defend his home to his last breath.
But for you word splitters out there, here is what the Supreme Court ruling says: “the second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. Other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.”
So in other words first it’s a statement justifying the importance of the law, then the law itself.
It is not the supreme courts job to determine whether a law is still relevant in today’s society but to interpret the laws meaning and they did a very intelligent job. In the seventeen hundreds no one imagined the weapons we would have dreamed up by the year 2008. Taking that into account, the Supreme Court left it open to put restrictions on those weapons. So this is not a pass to own a missile but it should mean the right to own an M16 or M14.
Just as a side note: The poor republican has never owned a gun and does not hunt. But like many things in this world I support this ruling on principle. I love this country and share the ideals it was founded on. Without the Constitution it’s just a bunch of preoccupied people in the majority voting on things they half understand.
The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered... deeply, ...finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people. George Washington
The whole thing was in jeopardy of being thrown out due to the lack of a bill of rights and the difference in ideology between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists once again men were able to put the country above all else and the first 10 amendments were ratified in 1791 AKA The Bill of Rights. It continues to play a central role in law and government, and remains a fundamental symbol of the freedom for this great country.
Recently there have been two big rulings by the Supreme Court one on the second amendment and one a ruling on the writ of habeas corpus that I will tackle at a later time.
The second amendment provides: “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.
Ok, I know we are post Clinton era where we like to debate what the definition of is, is. But to me it’s obvious what this is saying. Because the revolutionary war was won by regular people taking there guns from over the fire place and grouping together to protect their state, their home, and their family; they made the right to keep and bear arms the second amendment not the eighth or the sixth. It’s second only to the freedom of speech, the press, and right to petition, and assemble. They deliberately made sure anyone was going to have a hell of a time taking the guns out of the homes of ordinary people, because this was our most powerful weapon to protect against invasion. Yes, times have changed and the most powerful weapon is now nuclear, the sediment is still the same. Individuals fighting for their country are still very powerful; if this was not true the war with Iraq would be a cake walk. The founding fathers were very smart and knew that a person will defend his home to his last breath.
But for you word splitters out there, here is what the Supreme Court ruling says: “the second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. Other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.”
So in other words first it’s a statement justifying the importance of the law, then the law itself.
It is not the supreme courts job to determine whether a law is still relevant in today’s society but to interpret the laws meaning and they did a very intelligent job. In the seventeen hundreds no one imagined the weapons we would have dreamed up by the year 2008. Taking that into account, the Supreme Court left it open to put restrictions on those weapons. So this is not a pass to own a missile but it should mean the right to own an M16 or M14.
Just as a side note: The poor republican has never owned a gun and does not hunt. But like many things in this world I support this ruling on principle. I love this country and share the ideals it was founded on. Without the Constitution it’s just a bunch of preoccupied people in the majority voting on things they half understand.
The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered... deeply, ...finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people. George Washington
Friday, June 6, 2008
Bill of Rights vs. Public School
Three seniors at Bloomington's Kennedy High School have been suspended for waving Confederate flags in the school parking lot Tuesday morning. The prank, as the students called it, kept them from participating in their graduation ceremony Wednesday night.
http://www.twincities.com/crime/ci_9482777
In my understanding the civil war was wholly about slavery. For the north it was fueled by Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown’s Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act. For the south it was fueled by money, power, and a history of wanting more state rights and less government control dating back to the creation of the constitution. But the modern confederate flag was never used in that war. So what does the Confederate flag symbolize? To many different people it symbolizes many different things like solidarity, belonging to the south, and rebellion against the federal government, but to others it represents racism, slavery, and was seen as a symbol of hate during the adoption of the Jim Crow laws and the civil rights movement.
It is protected by the first amendment, everything else aside these kids are dumb asses. They don’t even live in the south. The question is… What power does a public school have to censor the first amendment? Here is the answer; please read this, it is extremely interesting!
http://www.princeton.edu/~lawjourn/Fall97/II1weissman.html
For people who don’t have the time right now to read it. The summary is this; yes kids have first amendment rights and when push comes to shove they will be up held as long as the act in question is not preventing the other kids from daily routine and learning. It’s very important to understand it’s a two way street, it’s in everyone’s interest to up hold students first amendment rights. If you read the civil rights cases in the Princeton link I provided you will understand what I mean.
Republicans opposed the expansion of slavery into territories owned by the United States, and their victory in the presidential election of 1860 resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even before Lincoln took office.[1] The Union rejected secession, regarding it as rebellion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
http://www.twincities.com/crime/ci_9482777
In my understanding the civil war was wholly about slavery. For the north it was fueled by Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown’s Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act. For the south it was fueled by money, power, and a history of wanting more state rights and less government control dating back to the creation of the constitution. But the modern confederate flag was never used in that war. So what does the Confederate flag symbolize? To many different people it symbolizes many different things like solidarity, belonging to the south, and rebellion against the federal government, but to others it represents racism, slavery, and was seen as a symbol of hate during the adoption of the Jim Crow laws and the civil rights movement.
It is protected by the first amendment, everything else aside these kids are dumb asses. They don’t even live in the south. The question is… What power does a public school have to censor the first amendment? Here is the answer; please read this, it is extremely interesting!
http://www.princeton.edu/~lawjourn/Fall97/II1weissman.html
For people who don’t have the time right now to read it. The summary is this; yes kids have first amendment rights and when push comes to shove they will be up held as long as the act in question is not preventing the other kids from daily routine and learning. It’s very important to understand it’s a two way street, it’s in everyone’s interest to up hold students first amendment rights. If you read the civil rights cases in the Princeton link I provided you will understand what I mean.
Republicans opposed the expansion of slavery into territories owned by the United States, and their victory in the presidential election of 1860 resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even before Lincoln took office.[1] The Union rejected secession, regarding it as rebellion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Who has more morals... democrats or republicans?
Is it OK to cheat on your taxes? A total of 57 percent of those who described themselves as “very liberal” said yes in response to the World Values Survey, compared with only 20 percent of those who are “very conservative.” When Pew Research asked whether it was “morally wrong” to cheat Uncle Sam, 86 percent of conservatives agreed, compared with only 68 percent of liberals.
Ponder this scenario, offered by the National Cultural Values Survey: “You lose your job. Your friend’s company is looking for someone to do temporary work. They are willing to pay the person in cash to avoid taxes and allow the person to still collect unemployment. What would you do?”
Almost half, or 49 percent, of self-described progressives would go along with the scheme, but only 21 percent of conservatives said they would.
This is from http://www.examiner.com/a-1419425~Peter_Schweizer__Conservatives_more_honest_than_liberals_.html
I encourage you to read the whole story. Yes some of this has to do with the strong presence of religious people who are conservatives due to social issues, but that aside, these questions have to do with not just moral issues but the fundamental difference in views about the national purse and our own responsibility to keep taxes down. The people who cheat welfare and don’t need it, but take it because it’s there and they qualified for it are raising the taxes. The thought among some is… it’s there and you’re stupid for not taking it. Hell, I got a TV that needs one of those boxes for the HD signal and I can’t bring myself to get the little $40 dollar check from the Gov. because I know that I can find $ 40 dollars somewhere. It’s not because I'm more moral then anyone, it’s only because I think of the money the government has differently. It’s not their money, it’s ours and it needs to be spent wisely, especially at the federal level. If we didn’t have programs like this in the first place I would have that $40. Not only would I have it, I could decide what to do with it. Maybe I want to put it towards a new TV instead of a box to make my old one work or maybe I’d decide I don’t need two TV’s in my house and I put it in my gas tank. They take money from us and then give it back with conditions on how it’s used.
There are people in this world who really do need help. The democrats think it’s the responsibility of the government to help these people where as the republicans think it is ours. We should be able to chose who we help if we’re going to give to charity, where the biggest portion is going to the actual people who need it. I think we can all agree the government is not it.
washingtonpost.com — Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227)
It’s not that republicans are categorically more moral then democrats and it’s not that democrats want all these programs to help people because they care more. It’s a fundamental difference in how we view the money the government is spending and a difference in opinion on who should have control over how the money Americans make is spent. Do we pool it together (cough, cough socialism) or do we spend it individually?
Ponder this scenario, offered by the National Cultural Values Survey: “You lose your job. Your friend’s company is looking for someone to do temporary work. They are willing to pay the person in cash to avoid taxes and allow the person to still collect unemployment. What would you do?”
Almost half, or 49 percent, of self-described progressives would go along with the scheme, but only 21 percent of conservatives said they would.
This is from http://www.examiner.com/a-1419425~Peter_Schweizer__Conservatives_more_honest_than_liberals_.html
I encourage you to read the whole story. Yes some of this has to do with the strong presence of religious people who are conservatives due to social issues, but that aside, these questions have to do with not just moral issues but the fundamental difference in views about the national purse and our own responsibility to keep taxes down. The people who cheat welfare and don’t need it, but take it because it’s there and they qualified for it are raising the taxes. The thought among some is… it’s there and you’re stupid for not taking it. Hell, I got a TV that needs one of those boxes for the HD signal and I can’t bring myself to get the little $40 dollar check from the Gov. because I know that I can find $ 40 dollars somewhere. It’s not because I'm more moral then anyone, it’s only because I think of the money the government has differently. It’s not their money, it’s ours and it needs to be spent wisely, especially at the federal level. If we didn’t have programs like this in the first place I would have that $40. Not only would I have it, I could decide what to do with it. Maybe I want to put it towards a new TV instead of a box to make my old one work or maybe I’d decide I don’t need two TV’s in my house and I put it in my gas tank. They take money from us and then give it back with conditions on how it’s used.
There are people in this world who really do need help. The democrats think it’s the responsibility of the government to help these people where as the republicans think it is ours. We should be able to chose who we help if we’re going to give to charity, where the biggest portion is going to the actual people who need it. I think we can all agree the government is not it.
washingtonpost.com — Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227)
It’s not that republicans are categorically more moral then democrats and it’s not that democrats want all these programs to help people because they care more. It’s a fundamental difference in how we view the money the government is spending and a difference in opinion on who should have control over how the money Americans make is spent. Do we pool it together (cough, cough socialism) or do we spend it individually?
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
McCain vs. Obama
This is a good match up. I spent the better part of my life arguing politics with my father (a diehard democrat). It’s not easy to argue with an experienced, older, and wiser person even when you’re right (a luxury Obama doesn't have). I would have to do my home work when arguing with my old man, because living the politics of yesterday is much different then reading about them. Recalling facts of events and failed policies is much easier when you were there. Obama is obviously going to get the younger vote; young people are lacking wisdom and are full of misguided ideals, so it’s a perfect fit. I don’t think the public is nearly as racist as the press wants us to believe and even people with hesitation about Obama’s race are going to see past it as they get to know him. If their misguided ideals are in line with his they will vote for him. It’s the same with McCain; about his being a senior citizen and all. I think this race is going to be another party line vote. The educated people will vote with the party they always vote with, because they have issues they care about and those issues haven’t changed parties. The undecided retards will vote for… well who knows even they don’t. I don’t really know who is voting for whom and why. I can only truly understand like minded people, but I don’t think the press has a handle on it either. They’re so gun hoe on exploiting a racial divide that they’re crediting a huge portion of Obama’s support to white intellectuals. I must be one of the stupid white people because I have no idea who these people are. Are they the cappuccino drinking, BMW driving yuppies, which look down on everyone and everything? Are they the old hippies with their long silver hair screaming and yelling at these rallies? Because I’ve seen them on TV and intellectual doesn’t come to mind. Is it the college professors who are turning out these bleeding heart crybaby kids into the world, where after a few years of paying taxes they see the true story and many turn to the ignorant side of the fence? Is it the European loving, art appreciating, tree huggers? Is it the celebrities who feel guilty about being rich? Where’s this huge population? What is intellectual about the Democratic Party as it stands today? If you had intellect, you would see socialism doesn’t work. Global warming is not in our control. The European way of doing things does not work; if it did they would be in our position, instead of the other way around. Some people vote on social issues or the war in Iraq, but most modern democrats are socialists, not intellectuals. They are either bleeding hearts or they need a hand out.
Socialism refers to the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1 This control may be either directly exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils or indirectly exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by collective ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history, due to this, socialism has been identified with communism mainly because the distribution of wealth is controlled as a whole and not individually. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Socialism refers to the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1 This control may be either directly exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils or indirectly exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by collective ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history, due to this, socialism has been identified with communism mainly because the distribution of wealth is controlled as a whole and not individually. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Go Hillary!!
I am fully on board with Clinton; let’s take down the entire Democratic Party! Our motivations may be different; mine are for entertainment and enjoyment where Clinton’s are purely to win. Clinton wants to win no matter what the cost because it’s not an idea she cares about, it’s not a principle, and it’s not helping the middleclass or the poor; it’s purely her obsession with being President.
Obama has 1,962 delegates and Clinton has 1,777 according to a CNN. You need 2,026 to be nominated. She claims to have the lead in the popular vote, but its fuzzy math to say the least. Haven’t these democrats learned that the popular vote doesn’t win elections? Well, what ever, keep up the good fight Clinton I’m root'in for you.
Obama has 1,962 delegates and Clinton has 1,777 according to a CNN. You need 2,026 to be nominated. She claims to have the lead in the popular vote, but its fuzzy math to say the least. Haven’t these democrats learned that the popular vote doesn’t win elections? Well, what ever, keep up the good fight Clinton I’m root'in for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)