Here is a little about the movie. Every American is about to decide if they want to see it (actually, not only Americans, but illegal aliens, bums, kids, the starting line up for the Dallas Cowboys, just to name a few more).
A community activist gets elected to the United States Senate and very soon after launches a campaign to become President of the United States. The liberal, left wing media instantly falls in love with the good looking and charismatic speaker, who has brilliant speech writers. He never provides details to his plans to “change” America, but simply pitches “change” itself. The American people become mesmerized and do not question anything about the Presidential hopeful. Because of their blind fascination with the rock star type icon, they completely ignore his close and personal associations with a known terrorist who bombed the Pentagon, as well as a “spiritual advisor” who screams racism and hate from the pulpit. They ignore his past interest in Marxism and his belief that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” He prey’s on the American people’s disdain for ineffective government and their inability to decipher the difference between America and the government that controls America. Soon, he has come to be known as “The Chosen One.”
Are you scared yet? Oh by the way, no matter how scary this gets, you can’t leave the theater. Oh sure, there are other movies playing at other theaters, but they are even worse. You have to sit this one out.
Not only does The Chosen One get elected as President, his political party gains 9 spots in the United States Senate for a total of 60 needed seats to block a filibuster from the opposing party. Now, the left wing liberals control everything. Now unopposed and uncontested, the liberals launch more social give away programs in the history of the nation, further securing their plan to grow their voting base by allowing people to vote themselves money from the wealthy. They kill their nemesis and only consistent, historical conservative communication conduit called “talk radio” by passing the so called “Fairness Doctrine.” To further crush political opposition, the President appoints the key Commissioner for the FCC so his party will control ALL communication in America, not just radio. During the course of his Presidency, he has the opportunity to appoint THREE very liberal Justices to the Supreme Court. Of course, they sail through the confirmation process since their party controls the proceedings. Now, the liberals control absolutely everything!!!! They control the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government! Everything!!! They begin to seize wealth and even property for redistribution to the masses. No one can rise up against this oppressive regime because the liberal controlled Supreme Court previously re-interpreted the 2nd Amendment and no law abiding citizens were allowed to have guns any longer.
Go ahead and scream!! Just try…..try harder! Nothing comes out! You are trying to scream, but nothing comes out and no one can hear you!!!!!
This movie has not yet been rated, but is not recommended for wussies, bed wetters, liberals, or anyone without a spine, guts, or resolve. If you fall into the 40% of Americans that do not pay Federal Income taxes anyway, you still need to see this movie because they will come after your income after the resources from the evil rich have been depleted and they choose to stop earning income to redistribute to everyone else.
It is coming. When you wake up and open your eyes on November 5th, The Chosen One will be there watching you!
Friday, October 31, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Feedback on My Last Post
Please allow me to pass along some thoughts from Jack Mitchell. Jack is probably the most brilliant person I know who allows me to call him a friend. I met him over 16 years ago at the church that we both still attend. As you will see from his commentary, Jack is a very clear thinker and effectively dissects the dilemma that we face with regard to our responsibility to our brothers and sisters in need.
Jack writes:
The guy who conducted the interview of Sen. Harry Reid regarding taxes being voluntary does a great job. He doesn't allow himself to become angry or agitated. Instead, he just keeps coming back to Reid's claim that America has a voluntary tax system and asking straightforward questions that clearly show the absurdity of Reid's position.
I wish all Americans would take the time and effort to think through issues like this.
The fundamental question is this: Where do I (and where does the government) get the moral right to forcibly take the property of one neighbor, who in my opinion has too much, in order to give it to another neighbor, who in my opinion does not have enough? Note the importance of the phrase "in my opinion" as the sole justification.
Unfortunately, many Christians support the confiscation of private property on the grounds that it shows love and compassion and that it results in social justice.
But the eighth commandment given by God to Moses says: "You shall not steal" Exodus 20:15). Webster's Universal Collegiate Dictionary defines "steal" as "to take the property of another or others without their permission." This seems rather clear. If God meant to endorse modern socialism, he could have modified the eighth commandment to" "You shall not steal, except when you intend to give the stolen property to someone in need." But that is not what God instructed.
When you debate this issue with liberals, they will ultimately argue that government has the right to forcibly take property from some and redistribute it to others because the legislative system has bestowed that right through the process of law and that the public has affirmed it through the electoral process. Two points need to be made in response to this argument. First, we need to concede that government has the legal right to forcibly take property from its citizens, as this has indeed been conferred by our legislative branch and upheld in various court decisions. But there is a major distinction between legal right and moral right; the two are not synonymous. Many things are legal but not necessarily moral. So the fact that the government has the legal right to confiscate property from its citizens does not answer the question about the source of the moral right.
Second, and equally important, no citizen has the moral right to forcibly take property from another citizen, no matter the purpose to which the confiscated property is to be put. Now, if I do not have this moral right, how can I possibly convey the moral right to the government through my vote? I cannot give something that I do not myself possess. Government derives its powers from the people, and the only just powers possessed by government are those first possessed by the people and conferred upon the government (see the Declaration of Independence). So the liberal argument that the moral right for wealth redistribution comes from a vote of the people does not stand up to scrutiny.
Bottom line, both arguments offered by liberals fail to answer the question about moral authority.
The Bible clearly teaches that we are to help the needy. But over and over again, help for the needy is presented as a voluntary act. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), the Samaritan voluntarily comes to the aid of the injured man. He does not flag down a passing caravan and forcibly take some of their property in order to render aid. The beauty of this story is the selfless act of the Samaritan, who used his own resources to assist a person in need who lay outside his normal social circle.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus says, "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets...But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing so that your giving may be in secret." (Matthew 6:2-4). This clearly seems to portray helping others as a voluntary act and one that should be done without fanfare.
Leviticus 19:18 tells us to "love your neighbor as yourself." Again, this seems to portray an individual obligation whereby one uses his own resources to provide for his neighbor. It in no way confers the right to take from one neighbor in order to give to another.
In Romans 13:9-10, Paul writes, "The commandments, 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not covet,' and whatever other commandments there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to its neighbor."
The concept of putting a gun to a neighbor's head in order to forcibly take property that I will then give to another neighbor does not seem consistent with Paul's views. Substituting government force for a gun does not solve this problem.
Jack
John "Jack" A. Mitchell III
Jack writes:
The guy who conducted the interview of Sen. Harry Reid regarding taxes being voluntary does a great job. He doesn't allow himself to become angry or agitated. Instead, he just keeps coming back to Reid's claim that America has a voluntary tax system and asking straightforward questions that clearly show the absurdity of Reid's position.
I wish all Americans would take the time and effort to think through issues like this.
The fundamental question is this: Where do I (and where does the government) get the moral right to forcibly take the property of one neighbor, who in my opinion has too much, in order to give it to another neighbor, who in my opinion does not have enough? Note the importance of the phrase "in my opinion" as the sole justification.
Unfortunately, many Christians support the confiscation of private property on the grounds that it shows love and compassion and that it results in social justice.
But the eighth commandment given by God to Moses says: "You shall not steal" Exodus 20:15). Webster's Universal Collegiate Dictionary defines "steal" as "to take the property of another or others without their permission." This seems rather clear. If God meant to endorse modern socialism, he could have modified the eighth commandment to" "You shall not steal, except when you intend to give the stolen property to someone in need." But that is not what God instructed.
When you debate this issue with liberals, they will ultimately argue that government has the right to forcibly take property from some and redistribute it to others because the legislative system has bestowed that right through the process of law and that the public has affirmed it through the electoral process. Two points need to be made in response to this argument. First, we need to concede that government has the legal right to forcibly take property from its citizens, as this has indeed been conferred by our legislative branch and upheld in various court decisions. But there is a major distinction between legal right and moral right; the two are not synonymous. Many things are legal but not necessarily moral. So the fact that the government has the legal right to confiscate property from its citizens does not answer the question about the source of the moral right.
Second, and equally important, no citizen has the moral right to forcibly take property from another citizen, no matter the purpose to which the confiscated property is to be put. Now, if I do not have this moral right, how can I possibly convey the moral right to the government through my vote? I cannot give something that I do not myself possess. Government derives its powers from the people, and the only just powers possessed by government are those first possessed by the people and conferred upon the government (see the Declaration of Independence). So the liberal argument that the moral right for wealth redistribution comes from a vote of the people does not stand up to scrutiny.
Bottom line, both arguments offered by liberals fail to answer the question about moral authority.
The Bible clearly teaches that we are to help the needy. But over and over again, help for the needy is presented as a voluntary act. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), the Samaritan voluntarily comes to the aid of the injured man. He does not flag down a passing caravan and forcibly take some of their property in order to render aid. The beauty of this story is the selfless act of the Samaritan, who used his own resources to assist a person in need who lay outside his normal social circle.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus says, "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets...But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing so that your giving may be in secret." (Matthew 6:2-4). This clearly seems to portray helping others as a voluntary act and one that should be done without fanfare.
Leviticus 19:18 tells us to "love your neighbor as yourself." Again, this seems to portray an individual obligation whereby one uses his own resources to provide for his neighbor. It in no way confers the right to take from one neighbor in order to give to another.
In Romans 13:9-10, Paul writes, "The commandments, 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not covet,' and whatever other commandments there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to its neighbor."
The concept of putting a gun to a neighbor's head in order to forcibly take property that I will then give to another neighbor does not seem consistent with Paul's views. Substituting government force for a gun does not solve this problem.
Jack
John "Jack" A. Mitchell III
Saturday, October 11, 2008
My First and ONLY Public Thoughts on Sub-Prime
Alright folks, I have been notably silent over the last few weeks. Quite frankly, all of this global economic instability, combined with our pathetic and downright disastrous choices for President, have effectively stepped on my quan and curbed my narcissistic inspiration. What a shame.
Click here for the urban dictionary if you are not sure about my "quan."
I am also employed at the present and the feeling of hope always has a way of interfering with cynicism. You might say that I have been biting my tongue! Here’s why. Whenever the topic of our current economic situation is discussed, a subsequent unleashing of the history of subprime mortgages quickly ensues. Well, as you may know, I used to be one of those big, evil, predatory lenders that would concoct ways of extorting signatures from ignorant Americans. Sort of like ACORN, except those folks will later receive money from the government that they are not expected to re-pay so long as they are successful in touching the right name on the voting screen. By the way, I predict the next step is to have a color picture of the candidate on the screen just so no one is confused about the guy that looks different from those guys on the U.S. currency. That should prove helpful for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys when they show up in Vegas to vote. Ooops. Got off track there on another rant….maybe my quan is back after all. Until now, I have chosen to not rant or publish my thoughts on the subprime issue. There are several reasons for my rare and oft-ignored flash of wisdom. First of all, I am far from unbiased. Second, everyone in America has already become an expert on something they don’t even understand so why would they listen to me? Lastly, and most important, I am immeasurably worn out on the topic. Just for perspective, I would rather be subjected to the continuous loop of that film clip of Britney Spears on a stretcher getting her happy butt rolled to an ambulance over a 30 second clip of some idiot pontificating about the subprime issue. This includes, but is not limited to Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Chris Dodd (I have a humorous clip of Harry Reid to share once I am done with this rant). In this post, I will offer just a few, shallow, biased, and mildly tame thoughts. Afterwards, I will be done for good and back to watching that Britney Spears clip.
Anyway, I stumbled across an article from the New York Times published in 1999 that is quite interesting. I will leave it at that and you can cast your own opinion. I will only add that the New York Times is not exactly known for its’ conservative viewpoints. In fact, this almost reads like a victory dance for Liberals in the article that is called “Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending.” Keep in mind folks, this is not a true and blue business that competes with other businesses in the free marketplace. During the Clinton administration, Fannie and Freddie were granted permission to hold only 2.5% of capital to back their investments. Of course, banks were still required to hold 10%, but what the heck. When you are backed by taxpayer money, who cares?
Here are the first three paragraphs of the article:
(click here for the entire article)
“In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.”
See folks, once upon a time, mortgage companies and banks did not lend money to people who they thought might not pay it back. Unfortunately, minorities comprised a disproportionate piece of this denial pool. As is usually the case, the government ignored the fact that most mortgage applications are taken over the phone and that credit reports do not show a person's race. Instead, they concluded that minorities are entitled to the dream of home ownership (not the opportunity at home ownership) and mandated…yes mandated that lenders provide loans to individuals with a track record of not paying bills. Unfortunately, this also forced lenders to give the same opportunity to non-minorities that did not pay their bills also. Numerically, this is a far larger population pool than minorities with bad credit. This started the ball rolling. The rest of this historical disaster is a discussion about the evolution of collateralized mortgage obligations, special purpose entities, bond rating agencies, and good old fashioned greed (Liberals only can talk about the greed part since they believe it is synonymous with capitalism…a concept they want to destroy). Go ahead and do your research on the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) during the Carter administration and also how it was greatly expanded during the Clinton administration. During this time, if lenders did not give enough money to people with bad credit, they were penalized. Once the money started flowing, the government accused them of being “Predatory Lenders.” That’s the government folks! You can’t win for losing.
The very regulations that are allegedly aimed at protecting people from their own stupidity actually serve to confuse them. Don’t believe me? Apply for a mortgage loan and see what shows up in the mail about 4 days later. Read through that 1-2 inch thick set of Federal and State required regulatory disclosures. If you are sharp, you will be able to glean out your loan amount, interest rate (if you can understand the difference between interest rate and APR), and maybe your payment and loan term. The layers of Government intervention that the real estate and mortgage industry faces even at the local level is what creates the complicated process that confuses most consumers and drives up fees. Plan on buying a home in Louisville, Kentucky? You better make sure the home has upgraded smoke detectors (not those with a 9 volt battery). If you don’t sign the affidavit swearing to it, you don’t get the home. Don’t know if the home has the right smoke detectors? You better be sure or you will pay a fine. Okay, maybe this is not the best example, but for some reason it just burns me up :-) Yeah, that was bad wasn’t it?
Now for some real fun. Speaking of painful video clips and Senator Harry Reid; Just watch this interview with Harry (a.k.a. “Dirty Harry”) trying to say that paying taxes is voluntary. Folks….this man is the Senate Majority Leader. Oh, by the way, the Liberal media won’t tell you that Dirty Harry is Mormon, which is somehow a headline story if you are a Republican and want to run for President. Truthfully, I am thankful this idiot is a Mormon and not Baptist. Jimmy Carter is embarrassment enough.
Click here to see Dirty Harry in action
By the way, I cannot stand behind anything on the website that published this interview. I have never heard of them. At a glance, they appear to be an offshoot of some Libertarians, but way more nutty.
Click here for the urban dictionary if you are not sure about my "quan."
I am also employed at the present and the feeling of hope always has a way of interfering with cynicism. You might say that I have been biting my tongue! Here’s why. Whenever the topic of our current economic situation is discussed, a subsequent unleashing of the history of subprime mortgages quickly ensues. Well, as you may know, I used to be one of those big, evil, predatory lenders that would concoct ways of extorting signatures from ignorant Americans. Sort of like ACORN, except those folks will later receive money from the government that they are not expected to re-pay so long as they are successful in touching the right name on the voting screen. By the way, I predict the next step is to have a color picture of the candidate on the screen just so no one is confused about the guy that looks different from those guys on the U.S. currency. That should prove helpful for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys when they show up in Vegas to vote. Ooops. Got off track there on another rant….maybe my quan is back after all. Until now, I have chosen to not rant or publish my thoughts on the subprime issue. There are several reasons for my rare and oft-ignored flash of wisdom. First of all, I am far from unbiased. Second, everyone in America has already become an expert on something they don’t even understand so why would they listen to me? Lastly, and most important, I am immeasurably worn out on the topic. Just for perspective, I would rather be subjected to the continuous loop of that film clip of Britney Spears on a stretcher getting her happy butt rolled to an ambulance over a 30 second clip of some idiot pontificating about the subprime issue. This includes, but is not limited to Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Chris Dodd (I have a humorous clip of Harry Reid to share once I am done with this rant). In this post, I will offer just a few, shallow, biased, and mildly tame thoughts. Afterwards, I will be done for good and back to watching that Britney Spears clip.
Anyway, I stumbled across an article from the New York Times published in 1999 that is quite interesting. I will leave it at that and you can cast your own opinion. I will only add that the New York Times is not exactly known for its’ conservative viewpoints. In fact, this almost reads like a victory dance for Liberals in the article that is called “Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending.” Keep in mind folks, this is not a true and blue business that competes with other businesses in the free marketplace. During the Clinton administration, Fannie and Freddie were granted permission to hold only 2.5% of capital to back their investments. Of course, banks were still required to hold 10%, but what the heck. When you are backed by taxpayer money, who cares?
Here are the first three paragraphs of the article:
(click here for the entire article)
“In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.”
See folks, once upon a time, mortgage companies and banks did not lend money to people who they thought might not pay it back. Unfortunately, minorities comprised a disproportionate piece of this denial pool. As is usually the case, the government ignored the fact that most mortgage applications are taken over the phone and that credit reports do not show a person's race. Instead, they concluded that minorities are entitled to the dream of home ownership (not the opportunity at home ownership) and mandated…yes mandated that lenders provide loans to individuals with a track record of not paying bills. Unfortunately, this also forced lenders to give the same opportunity to non-minorities that did not pay their bills also. Numerically, this is a far larger population pool than minorities with bad credit. This started the ball rolling. The rest of this historical disaster is a discussion about the evolution of collateralized mortgage obligations, special purpose entities, bond rating agencies, and good old fashioned greed (Liberals only can talk about the greed part since they believe it is synonymous with capitalism…a concept they want to destroy). Go ahead and do your research on the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) during the Carter administration and also how it was greatly expanded during the Clinton administration. During this time, if lenders did not give enough money to people with bad credit, they were penalized. Once the money started flowing, the government accused them of being “Predatory Lenders.” That’s the government folks! You can’t win for losing.
The very regulations that are allegedly aimed at protecting people from their own stupidity actually serve to confuse them. Don’t believe me? Apply for a mortgage loan and see what shows up in the mail about 4 days later. Read through that 1-2 inch thick set of Federal and State required regulatory disclosures. If you are sharp, you will be able to glean out your loan amount, interest rate (if you can understand the difference between interest rate and APR), and maybe your payment and loan term. The layers of Government intervention that the real estate and mortgage industry faces even at the local level is what creates the complicated process that confuses most consumers and drives up fees. Plan on buying a home in Louisville, Kentucky? You better make sure the home has upgraded smoke detectors (not those with a 9 volt battery). If you don’t sign the affidavit swearing to it, you don’t get the home. Don’t know if the home has the right smoke detectors? You better be sure or you will pay a fine. Okay, maybe this is not the best example, but for some reason it just burns me up :-) Yeah, that was bad wasn’t it?
Now for some real fun. Speaking of painful video clips and Senator Harry Reid; Just watch this interview with Harry (a.k.a. “Dirty Harry”) trying to say that paying taxes is voluntary. Folks….this man is the Senate Majority Leader. Oh, by the way, the Liberal media won’t tell you that Dirty Harry is Mormon, which is somehow a headline story if you are a Republican and want to run for President. Truthfully, I am thankful this idiot is a Mormon and not Baptist. Jimmy Carter is embarrassment enough.
Click here to see Dirty Harry in action
By the way, I cannot stand behind anything on the website that published this interview. I have never heard of them. At a glance, they appear to be an offshoot of some Libertarians, but way more nutty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)