Jordy Blog

More School Brainwashing: Obama Kids

In keeping with my recent meme of covering public-school brainwashing, I give you the Obama Kids.

My favorite comment: “That must be the new ‘Future Czars of America’ class.”  Too true.

(Link via Campaign for Liberty.)

Green Eco-Capitalism as a Lever for a Marxist Revolution

This clip is an excellent lesson on the subversive strategies of Marxism. In it, the (now former) White House “green czar” Van Jones explains how the green movement will start out relatively benign, but will eventually transform into an engine for massive (socialist) societal changes.

A quote from the clip:

“Right now we’re saying we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to some kind of eco-capitalism where at least we’re not, you know, fast tracking the destruction of the whole planet.

Will that be enough? No it won’t be enough. We want to go beyond systems exploitation and oppression altogether; but that’s a process.

And I thing what’s great about the movement that’s beginning to emerge is that the crisis is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence, and now ecological threats that people are willing to be both very pragmatic and very visionary.

So the green economy will start off as a small subset, and we’re going to push it, and push it, and push it, until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.”

Yes, that’s the guy Barack Obama picked for his green czar. Any clues as to what made him so attractive? But he’ll just be replaced by somebody with like ambitions –only the next guy will not have made the mistake of divulging the specific game plan.

Sadly, the rhetoric employed by the likes of Van Jones discredits the whole green movement, which undoubtedly has some real merit.

Now, just a couple comments about the quote itself:

1. It’s interesting to see that saving the planet is not enough. What’s even more interesting is that the end game, a moratorium on capitalist “exploitation and oppression altogether”, actually has nothing to do with the initial pretenses at all.
2. It’s interesting to see Van Jones revel in delight at the size and scope of the crises. After all, the bigger the crises, the more heavy-handed the solution can be.

Lastly, this crisis-mongering reminds me of a couple favorite quotes (via quoty):

“Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things.”

Author: Rahm Emanuel (White House Chief of Staff under Barack Obama), Source: Inteview with CBS News program “Face the Nation”

‘We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.’

Author: David Rockefeller, Source: Statement to the United Nations Business Council, 1994

Pledging Allegiance to the President

As a follow up to yesterday’s post, at least one Utah School couldn’t wait until the 8th to let educational propaganda start rolling.

Here’s the video they showed in school assembly (which included 1st graders).

Overall, I thought there were several inappropriate parts (including a part about flushing “deuces”), but perhaps the most dangerous lines were:

“I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama.”

and

“I pledge to be a servant to our president and all mankind.”

Remember these are first graders here: impressionable sponges (and not too discerning). We ought to be indignant.

But those quotes seem to be in line with Obama’s compulsory service plan:

“Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.” (emphasis added)

I would be very surprised if Obama’s September 8th’s in-school address to students didn’t have similar sections, intended to grease the skids on the “Community Service” draft.

Regardless, we should never pledge allegiance to the president –particularly when that president willfully reneges on his presidential oath to uphold and defend the constitution. To me, this projection of blind subservience into the classrooms of our unsuspecting youth is profoundly disturbing.

“When an opponent declares,
‘I will not come over to your side.’
I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already…
What are you? You will pass on.
Your descendants, however,
now stand in the new camp.
In a short time they will know nothing
else but this new community.’”

–Adolf Hitler

President Obama’s Address to Students Across America

Obama will speak to public school children this Tuesday, September 8th. Here is the full text of a document issued by the U.S. Department of Education on how teachers can use the address as a “teaching” moment:

PreK-6 Menu of Classroom Activities: President Obama’s Address to Students Across America

Produced by Teaching Ambassador Fellows, U.S. Department of Education

September 8, 2009

Before the Speech:

• Teachers can build background knowledge about the President of the United States and his speech by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama and motivate students by asking the following questions:
  • Who is the President of the United States?
  • What do you think it takes to be President?
  • To whom do you think the President is going to be speaking?
  • Why do you think he wants to speak to you?
  • What do you think he will say to you?
• Teachers can ask students to imagine being the President delivering a speech to all of the students in the United States. What would you tell students? What can students do to help in our schools? Teachers can chart ideas about what they would say.
• Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?

During the Speech:

• As the President speaks, teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful. Students could use a note-taking graphic organizer such as a Cluster Web, or students could record their thoughts on sticky notes. Younger children can draw pictures and write as appropriate. As students listen to the speech, they could think about the following:
  • What is the President trying to tell me?
  • What is the President asking me to do?
  • What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?
• Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?
• Students can record any questions they have while he is speaking and then discuss them after the speech. Younger children may need to dictate their questions.

After the Speech:

• Teachers could ask students to share the ideas they recorded, exchange sticky notes or stick notes on a butcher paper poster in the classroom to discuss main ideas from the speech, i.e. citizenship, personal responsibility, civic duty.
• Students could discuss their responses to the following questions:
  • What do you think the President wants us to do?
  • Does the speech make you want to do anything?
  • Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?
  • What would you like to tell the President?

• Teachers could encourage students to participate in the Department of Education’s “I Am What I Learn” video contest. On September 8^th the Department will invite K-12 students to submit a video no longer than 2 min, explaining why education is important and how their education will help them achieve their dreams. Teachers are welcome to incorporate the same or a similar video project into an assignment. More details will be released via www.ed.gov.

Extension of the Speech: Teachers can extend learning by having students

• Create posters of their goals. Posters could be formatted in quadrants or puzzle pieces or trails marked with the labels: personal, academic, community, country. Each area could be labeled with three steps for achieving goals in those areas. It might make sense to focus on personal and academic so community and country goals come more readily.
• Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.
• Write goals on colored index cards or precut designs to post around the classroom.
• Interview and share about their goals with one another to create a supportive community.
• Participate in School wide incentive programs or contests for students who achieve their goals.
• Write about their goals in a variety of genres, i.e. poems, songs, personal essays.
• Create artistic projects based on the themes of their goals.
• Graph student progress toward goals.

This is dangerous, in my opinion.  I don’t care what party a public leader is from, they should not have direct access to children in their classrooms.

But this is what happens when your tax dollars are filtered through the leviathan state.  It inevitably uses them against you.

Why are we subsidizing this stuff?  And why do we not have a decent way to opt out (and into a private school) without incurring additional –dare I say punitive– costs?

All this reminds me of a couple of quotes I’ve used before:

If the only motive was to help people who could not afford education, advocates of government involvement would have simply proposed tuition subsidies.

–Milton Friedman, Economist. Awarded 1976 Nobel Prize in economics.

“The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother’s care, shall be in state institutions at state expense.”

Karl Marx – Father of Communism (1848)

Economic Woes: Understanding the Cause and the Cure

Robert Lefevre observed that “Government is a disease that masquerades as its own cure.“

Obama’s “Economic Stimulus” package, like Bush’s and Bernanke’s banking bailouts, typify this statement. No sooner is the economic knife twisted in on our belly than our haggardly assailant disappears into the night. Immediately our saviour appears, riding on his white horse and swearing revenge. But how did he get here so fast?

Obama’s Economic Stimulus Package

Let’s just look at the Obama’s so called “economic stimulus” package logically.

Was our current economic situation really caused by a lack of green energy? Did we really just not have enough STD prevention education? Was it all this really because we didn’t have enough high speed internet in rural areas? Was it because our current highway system is inadequate? Did we just not have enough food stamps?

If none of these problems were part of the underlying problem, how does fixing them constitute a solution? Yet that’s literally what we’re being billed. Government simply changes out the labels in its pork processing plant, and all-of-a-sudden we can’t get enough. In government, just re-brand whatever your selling as “Economic Relief”, “Stimulus Package”, or “Cure to Whatever Happens to Ail You Today”, and it’s bound to sail right through.

Sure, there’s much more to Obama’s “Economic Stimulus” plan than funding STD prevention education, but it’s all crap because it all ignores the recessions’ underlying causes. Even the tax cuts are crap because, just like the Bush tax cuts, there is no associated cut in spending. In fact, to say that we’re getting quite the opposite of spending cuts is a remarkable understatement.

Cutting taxes without cutting spending requires either inflation or debt. The former (like taxation) steals from current citizens, while the latter steals from future citizens. Both payment vehicles are immoral. Should income taxes be decreased or even eliminated? Absolutely. But the only lasting way that government can stop stealing the wealth of its citizenry is to stop spending it!

Our Current Recession: the Cause and the Cure

If we really want to fix our economic problems, we need to fix them at the cause. But remarkably few people understand the cause –and that’s what makes us so vulnerable to government deception.

To understand the cause and the cure of our current recession, shouldn’t we look to the people with proven track records –you know, the people that actually foresaw the current crisis before it happened? Remarkably, the solutions offered by people like Peter Schiff and Ron Paul –people who were dead right about the economy even before the bubble burst– are still being relatively ignored. The alternative approach: what our economy really needs is more people teaching kids how to use condoms. Good grief!

If you want to understand the cause of recession, as well as its cure, Ron Paul says it pretty succinctly:

Cures for Our Economic Disease

I have recently had several opportunities on various news programs to discuss the economy and what is wrong with the so-called economic stimulus package. I have said over and over what we shouldn’t be doing, and now I’d like to explain what we should be doing.

But to improve the situation, you must first have a solid grasp of how we got here. Government policies and central planning created the housing bubble, now going bust. About a decade ago the government made expanded homeownership and affordable housing a public goal. Through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the secondary mortgage market the government incentivized creative, low down-payment, more widely available mortgage products, and discouraged the market-proven lending standards of the past. The Federal Reserve kept interest rates artificially low, which added more fuel to this fire. Many related sectors temporarily flourished because of this, and many people got into homes they otherwise could not have afforded. The increased demand for housing sent prices soaring until in many markets housing became even more unaffordable, necessitating even more creative mortgages, and impossibly leveraging homeowners. Many risky investment vehicles such as mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, credit default swaps grew out of this unsustainable situation. As the foreclosures began, the house of cards started to tumble. Too many people have confused the symptoms and the pain of the bust with the problematic policies that caused the bubble, which is really what needs to be treated.

First of all, just as the best cure for a hangover is not to drink so much, the best cure for a recession is a recession. It is time to sober up and return to free market sanity, risk and reward, supply and demand, without political intervention. Politicians are good at catering to the needs of special interests, but very bad at determining what needs to take place in the market. Government should stick to punishing fraud and enforcing contracts. When they use the tax code, bureaucratic departments and their manipulative rules and regulations to dictate social and economic behavior, we end up with distortions and malinvestments. Bailing out banks, continuing failed Fed policies and strapping the taxpayer with toxic debt will worsen the pain, and punish the innocent.

If Congress really wanted to do something helpful, it would cut taxes. Ideally, we would repeal the income tax altogether and get the IRS off the economy’s back, which would be a huge boon. We should also cut spending. Cut every unconstitutional department and program, every wasteful governmental encroachment on the people’s liberty and money, starting with our massive overseas empire. The cost of our empire is bringing us to our knees, just as the Soviets’ empire did to them. Congress should also abolish the Federal Reserve and take back its responsibilities to ensure sound money, safe from the manipulations of powerful banking interests.

These things would constitute real change, real economic stimulus. The plans being bandied about Washington are just more of the same. As long as no one seriously considers the cure, we are unfortunately destined to prolong the disease.

There it is, refreshingly simple.

Now that we’ve identified our assailants as big government and central banking, maybe we can go after them! Or wait, here come a couple brave knights who seems more than willing to do that for us. Hold on a second… Don’t we know you?

Debauching the Currency

I really like Glenn Beck when it comes to the economy:

This uncontrolled spending (and it’s underlying debasement of the currency) may well destroy us.

Inflation, as a means of overthrowing the free market:

Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens … Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of over-turning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose. – John Maynard Keynes (via quoty)

Inflation, as a means of overthrowing our nation and our liberties:

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. – Thomas Jefferson (via quoty)

Sadly the “change” mantra was nothing more than a seductive lie, because when it comes to the policies of spending and inflation, Comrades Obama and Bush (not mention McCain) are exactly the same.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. :(

Selective Constitutionalism

I don’t do this very often; but this article by Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party’s presidential nominee, is so good that I decided to re-post it in its entirety:

Selective Constitutionalism
by Chuck Baldwin
December 9, 2008

Many conservatives are up in arms regarding the charge that President-elect Barack Obama may not have been born in the United States and is, therefore, not qualified under the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United States.

Article. II. Section. 1. of the U.S. Constitution states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .” Some accuse Mr. Obama of not being born in the State of Hawaii as claimed, but in Kenya, Africa. Several people have filed various lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama’s U.S. citizenship.

Historically, “natural born Citizen” has always been understood to mean someone born in the United States of America. If Barack Obama was not born in the United States, he is absolutely unqualified to be President. Hawaii’s secretary of state says Obama was indeed born in that state. However, to date, Obama’s actual birth certificate has not been publicly released, which only serves to add fuel to the accusations that he was not born in Hawaii.

Many conservatives seem to be obsessed with this controversy, calling it a “constitutional crisis.” The fact is, however, we have been in a “constitutional crisis” for years! The problem is, most conservatives only get worked up over a potential abridgement of constitutional government when it serves their partisan political purposes. In other words, when a Democrat appears guilty of constitutional conflict, conservatives “go ballistic,” but when Republicans are equally culpable of constitutional conflict, they yawn with utter indifference.

For example, the one man who has the notoriety and political clout to actually bring about some meaningful investigation and resolution to the Obama citizenship brouhaha is none other than Senator John McCain. After all, he was Obama’s principal opponent in the race for the White House. Plus, as the standard-bearer for the only other major political party, he has the attention of the national media, as well as the national legislative and judicial branches of government. So, why is John McCain not at all interested in the Obama citizenship issue?

Perhaps one reason that John McCain is so uninterested in where Barack Obama was born is because he, John McCain, was not born in the United States. He was born in the country of Panama. So, let me ask readers a question: Does anyone believe if John McCain had been elected President instead of Barack Obama that any notable conservative would have been distressed about a “constitutional crisis”? Get real!

Yes, I know McCain was born to a naval officer serving in Panama at the time. That fact changes nothing. John McCain was still born in a foreign country, and under a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, is not qualified to be President of the United States. Even our current State Department policy (7 FAM 1100) reads: “Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”

Does anyone not remember the controversy surrounding the potential Presidential campaign of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger? Born in Austria, Schwarzenegger is a naturalized citizen of the United States and is now Governor of California. However, since Schwarzenegger is a naturalized citizen, but not a natural born citizen, he is considered unqualified to run for President.

But, again, most conservatives care little about the Constitution’s requirement that a President be a “natural born Citizen.” Like liberals, most conservatives are afflicted with a very debilitating disease that I call Selective Constitutionalism. They only want to apply constitutional government when it helps Republicans or hurts Democrats. Most of them really could not care less about adherence to the Constitution. If they did, they would have been up in arms for the last eight years as President George W. Bush repeatedly ignored–and even trampled–the U.S. Constitution.

Where were these “constitutional” conservatives when George W. Bush was assuming dictatorial-style powers and contravening Fourth Amendment prohibitions against warrantless searches and seizures? Where were they when Bush was ordering our emails, letters, and phone calls to be intercepted by federal police agencies without court oversight? Where were they when Bush was obliterating the Fifth and Eighth Amendments? Where were they when Bush overturned Posse Comitatus by Executive Order? Where were they when Bush dismantled the constitutional right of Habeas Corpus? Where were they when Bush lied to the American people about the invasion of Iraq and took the United States to war without a Declaration of War from Congress? Where were conservatives when Bush turned nine U.S. military installations over to the United Arab Emirates? Where were they when Bush ordered his Department of Transportation to open up America’s airlines to foreign ownership? Where were they when President Bush nullified (using “signing statements”) over 1,100 statutes he did not like? Where were they as President Bush and his fellow Republicans reauthorized one of the most egregiously unconstitutional pieces of legislation in modern memory: the USA Patriot Act? Where were they when Bush signed the blatantly unconstitutional McCain/Feingold Act? I could go on and on.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party has been just as culpable in violating constitutional government as the Democrat Party has–maybe more so! If the Republican and Democrat parties had any allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, neither John McCain nor Barack Obama would have been chosen as their respective Presidential nominees.

While we are on the subject, if anyone cared about constitutional government, Hillary Clinton (or any other U.S. Senator or House Member) would obviously be determined as ineligible to be given any appointment in the Obama administration under Article. I. Section. 6. of the U.S. Constitution. Why? Because the Constitution prohibits House or Senate members taking Presidential posts if the salary of the job they would take was raised while they were in Congress.

However, several past Presidents have skirted this constitutional prohibition (including Presidents Taft, Nixon, and Carter) by lowering the salary of the job back to what it was so the nominee could accept the job without receiving the pay increase that was approved while the appointee was in Congress. In fact, this sleight of hand actually has a political name. It is called “the Saxbe fix,” after Nixon’s appointment of Senator William Saxbe to be attorney general.

Do we have a “constitutional crisis”? You bet we do; but it is not limited to Barack Obama or the Democrat Party. The real constitutional crisis is the manner in which the American people have, for years, allowed civil magistrates from both major parties to routinely violate their oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. God help us!

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20081209.html

If you liked this article, please consider signing up for Chuck Baldwin’s newsletter.

Chuck Baldwin 2008

I dislike both major-party presidential candidates so profoundly that I would feel extremely uncomfortable giving my vote to either of them. Sure, I like Obama even less than McCain, but luckily I live in a “landslide” state where I don’t have to make the difficult decision of whether I’ll vote for the proverbial “lessor of two evils”. In Utah, I can vote my conscience with a pretty solid confidence that the direct outcome will be exactly the same; Utah will see a landslide win for McCain either way, so why marshal support for someone I don’t even like?

Instead, I’m voting for Chuck Baldwin.

“Why haven’t I heard of Chuck Baldwin”, you ask. Well, it’s either because the main stream media thinks you’re stupid, or because it wants you stupid. I’ll let you decide which.

Chuck Baldwin is the Constitution Party’s candidate for president. If he won (which he won’t) I would be comfortable that our nation would be in good hands.

“But why vote for someone who can’t even win?” Well, technically he could win, but he won’t. Either way voting for someone you like makes a heck of a lot more sense than voting for someone you don’t like –especially if you live in a state (like Utah) where your vote is mostly symbolic.

My vote is a protest: I’m sick of big government Republicans that are nothing more than socialists in sheep’s clothing. They’ve done our country harm, they’ve done my party harm, they’ve done my family harm, and I want them out.

I’ve got a lot to say about how the Republican party has lost its way, but I’ll forbear for now. Suffice it to say that I think it may very well cost us this election –and we deserve to lose. Not that the Democrats are any better (in fact, they’re much worse).

I’ve also got a lot to say about our current voting system, but I’ll forbear for now. (Watch for my upcoming rant.) Until then if you live in a relatively uncontested state, you really should look at your real options: Check out Chuck Baldwin!

In the recent bailout fiasco, while both major-party candidates were using scare tactics to push pork legislation through –chiding each other all the while for not being socialist enough– Chuck’s stance against the banking bailouts was constitutional and exemplary. No wonder they didn’t want to invite him to the debates.

Now that’s leadership.

Happy voting!

Knight of the Old Republic

This is who I’m being for Halloween.  :)

Ron Paul was dead right about the economy. If you haven’t watched his videos on YouTube, you should. He was calling the bursting of the housing bubble well before it happened. And the credit crunch? Yep, he’s warned of that too.

Ron Paul would have smoked Obama in the debates, especially on questions regarding the economy. Anyway, there certainly wouldn’t have been any bantering about who didn’t support the bailouts enough. Good grief!

Sadly, the way things are looking I think we’re in for more of the same at best, no matter which major party candidate wins. Now that’s scary.

Happy Halloween!

Ask Congress to Stop Socialist (Fascist) Bailouts

Today the US House of Representative is very likely to pass one of the most stupid pieces of legislation I have ever seen. They’re getting MAJOR pressure by the president, majority and minority leaders in congress, both major party presidential nominees, the Federal Reserve, and everyone else you can think of to pass an “emergency” bill that does NOTHING to help people stay in their homes.

Instead the proposed bill introduces liquidity into the market by purchasing garbage mortgage-backed securities from private companies, thereby socializing their risks while privatizing their profits. Warren Buffet described the derivatives we are to buy as financial weapons of mass destruction. Incidentally, they’re the same kind of stuff that brought Enron down, but do you see anybody going to jail from our current scandal? No, instead we reward them purchasing these bad assets at above-market prices.

Believe me, if these things had real value, the free market would be forking out the dough for themselves. Ask yourself, “Why in the world should you and I be forced to purchase ‘securities’ that cannot sell on an open market?” It’s analogous to having congress force you to buy every car in the junkyard and then have the nerve to tell you it might actually be a good investment.

“But surely,” you ask, “people who are upside-down in their homes will finally get some much-needed relief?” Absolutely not! This bill does nothing for them –not that it should. But since the whole seductive point of socialism is supposedly to benefit the working class, you would think they would make some effort at it. This bill actually hurts upside-down buyers because it reduces their bargaining power by flooding the coffers of their debtors.

“You mean that congress might not be acting in our best interests?,” you ask.

The Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington nonprofit group that studies money and politics, reports that on average, lawmakers who voted in favor of the bailout bill have received 51 percent more in campaign contributions from sources in the finance, insurance and real estate industries.

Hmmm… Could congress possibly be acting in their own interests? Might those be directly opposite yours? One commenter hits it right on:

Why wouldn’t America, the greatest nation on earth, have the best congress money can buy?

This is especially true considering the sheer amount of pork added to the bill to insure that it passes in the house.

Wait, you thought the a motivated Senate might insuring passage by actually adding something substantive to the bill, or maybe cutting out some of it’s blatant threatening verbiage? Nope, too hard. Just throw on a bunch of tax-credits from a completely unrelated bill to make sure it has enough earmark grease to squeak through. Tax credits for green appliance manufacturers? That should get some Democrat votes. Oh NASCAR needs some tax credits? Republicans will like that. Tax rebates for Puerto Rican rum duties? Sure, throw it in. All of a sudden the bill is 451 pages of meaningless pork, which by the way our maverick hero John McCain swore to veto. Can you say double-speak?

Seriously, any house member who changes to an approval vote this time around has clearly been bought and sold. There are almost no differences whatsoever that relate to the main subject matter at all. Just more grease.

Want more?

This bill rewards companies that behaved foolishly (and probably dishonestly). It consolidates unprecedented power to the Federal Government, the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve. It increases the average American citizen’s tax burden. It grants unprecedented power (with no oversight whatsoever) to a consummate banking insider. And it undermines our so-called “Free Market” system at every step of the way.

And just in case you thought I was kidding that there’s no oversight whatsoever in how the $700 billion is spent, here’s the verbiage directly from the bill:

“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

By the way, how did they come up with the $700 billion figure in the first place? The answer: it had to be a lot. Now that’s good math in action. What’s it for? Well, if we knew we could have come up with a real number by now.  Besides, wouldn’t you rather leave that up to one man with no recourse to the American people whatsoever. He alone decides who wins and who looses. Checks and balances be damned!

Oh yeah, and did I mention that nobody is saying that this thing will work? It’s always pitched as a “band-aid” at best. But when this $700 billion band-aid is saturated with blood, it will need to be ripped off so another one can be applied. This is a slippery slope, a terrible precedent. Bad companies need to be allowed to fail so that markets can adjust gracefully, and so that basic market principles can be reinforced.

Make no mistake: this is power grab, a consolidation of wealth, and a giant step toward socialism. Furthermore, it does NOTHING to address the actual problems at their source. This bill actually prolongs the problem by side-stepping the free market with heavy-handed government intervention. And on top of everything it’s blatantly unconstitutional! No wonder everyone is in such a hurry to get it passed! But seriously, if people took time to read and think about this, it would never pass; thus the rush.

Please tell your congressmen that failure to honor their oaths to uphold the defend the constitution will disqualify them from every getting your vote again. They already know that this bill is vastly unpopular, but they need to hear it from you. They actually do keep a tally, and letting them know how you feel really can work –so long as their phones are ringing off the hook.

For background, here’s how House members voted last time around (when it failed). Here’s how the Senate voted on the bill that they will try to jam through the House today.  Here’s a list of House members that may change their vote. Here’s a list of all congressmen with their contact info.

Please contact House members first since this bill has already sailed through the Senate.  A simple 2-line email will do. This legislation is insideously dangerous, so please contact them right away.