REALLY, DO YOU BELIEVE PELOSI, FRANK, ET. AL.?

The following comes from Hot Air via a friend of mine.

A PURITANICAL APPROACH TO FREEDOM

So, who were the Pilgrims, and why did they leave Europe?

The Pilgrims were English Separatists, technically known as Puritans.

What was that? Was it some kind of political Party opposed to King George III?

No, it was a group of Christians who followed the teachings of Calvin as notated in the Geneva Bible, use by their leaders, William Bradford, William Brewster and John Carver.

The King of England (a vain, self-centered, narcissist - pictured), believed that all Christians should be members of the Church of England, and, in fact, imprisoned or executed those who did not go along with his beliefs.

King James later ended the persecution, but Puritans, much like some Americans today, were discriminated against by many, so they left England and sailed on a broken down, leaky ship called the Speedwell to Holland, where they thought they would be free to build a church building and worship freely.

Economic times were hard in Holland and the Puritans wanted to leave.

A group of businessmen helped them buy a ship, called the Mayflower, and supplies and they sailed to the New Land.

Since their trip was deemed illegal by their government, they formed a government of their own and agreed to the Mayflower Compact.

John Adams (certainly knowledgeable about the source of the Constitution) referred to the Mayflower Compact as the foundation of the U.S. Constitution.

It turns out that the framers of the Constitution were much like the Puritans, being tired of the European government elitists lording it over ordinary people, a government that had instituted poorly conceived programs paid for by heavily taxing productive citizens.

What they had discovered was that people were ambitious for power, and when they got their hands on it, they craved more.

So they conceived a document that would establish The United States of America as a government of its own, writing laws that were intended to limit the powers of the government so that the peoples’ representatives would not become corrupt, abusive, self-important men whose prime purpose was to lord it over ordinary people, instituting poorly conceived programs paid for by heavily taxing the most productive citizens.

The basic tenants of the Constitution were: liberty; equal treatment under the law; and limited power to the government.

They did that on purpose.

The framers did not want the government to lord it over ordinary people, instituting poorly conceived programs paid for by heavily taxing the most productive citizens.

When Nancy Pelosi was asked what Constitutional provision allowed the government to force people to buy health insurance, her response was a well thought out, “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Congressman Phil Hare, of Illinois, declared that he did not worry about the Constitution when it came to it allowing lawmakers to mandate the purchase of health insurance.

Pete Stark, congressman from California stated that the federal government can do most anything in this country, including, it must be supposed, lording it over ordinary people, instituting poorly conceived programs paid for by heavily taxing the most productive citizens.

It turns out that too many of our elected representatives have turned out to be the exact kind of low-lifes from whom the framers were trying to protect us when they wrote the Constitution.

Look: the freedom our forefathers and their descendants fought for is the exception in history, not the rule.

Most nations have never enjoyed the freedoms we established in the United States of America.

Instead they have, and continue to lord it over ordinary people, instituting poorly conceived programs paid for by heavily taxing the most productive citizens.

The really sad thing is, many of our politicians, judges and citizens believe we should move back in time toward a more “European” form of government where lording it over ordinary people, instituting poorly conceived programs paid for by heavily taxing the most productive citizens is considered the proper way to govern.

Every time a regulation is put in place “for the common good,” a freedom must be relinquished.

Eventually, we will run out of freedoms, and someone will have to take the lead in starting all over again…by whatever means necessary.

Just like the Puritans did.

WORKING OUT

Let's ask some questions.

Are home foreclosures up or down from January of 2009?

Is the deficit growing or shrinking?

Has $165,040,000,000.00 been added to the deficit -- IN ONE MONTH?

What about the trade gap? Is it narrowing or widening?

Is unemployment up or down since January of 2009?

Are more or fewer banks being closed?

How's that war in Afghanistan going? Are fewer American troops being killed, or more?

Is the tax base increasing or decreasing? How is that related to unemployment?

Are our relationships with Iran and other foreign countries better or worse than they were in January of 2009?

Is the public perception of the job congress is doing getting better or worse?

Are taxes going to go up, down, or are they going to stay the same?

Are President BO's approval rating climbing or dropping?

Is the stock market on solid, level ground, or is it as volitile as a roadside bomb?

According to a Wall Street Journal poll, do 60% of Americans think the United States is headed in the wrong direction under President BO's leadership?

Is the average american income rising or falling?

So far, how has the new health care program helped you?

Is there an anti-incumbant mood in the country?

So...are we better off or worse off than we were in 2008?

Is there any time at which President BO will own what is happening in this country? When?

WHAT A RE VOLT ING DEVELOPMENT

I want an electric car.

After all, it's the green thing to do...right?

Let me describe the car I want.

I want an electric car that will go no more than 40 miles on a charge, after all, the average home-to-work commute is only 33 miles.

Since I don't drive too much at night, an overnight charge of between six and eight hours should be adequate.

My new electric car should be able to travel at between 80-100 miles per hour on its batteries, so that the 40 miles it will travel will take only a half hour or so.

A six hour charge for about a half-hour drive seems about right to me.

Stopping at traffic signals and stop signs should reduce my commute capabilities as I overcome inertia to get back up to speed after stopping.

The manufacturing of those batteries should include the plastic case, made of carbon-based oil products, as should the bulk of the inert innards. The poisonous contents should be manufactured in such a way as to not to interrupt the high employment rate we enjoy in this country.

Lots of its parts could easily be made overseas or in Mexico, thus giving Mexicans fewer reasons to cross our southern borders to take jobs we won't do.

As everyone knows, once the batteries of my electric car run down, I should be able to switch to gasoline power, in case my commute is farther than 40 miles or in case I have some errands to run on the way home.

If I have to take a trip, the first 40 miles should be smooth and silent as the electric motor drives me along I-75. Then the gasoline engine should kick in to take me the rest of the 300 miles or so I have to go.

The gasoline power should come from an engine that burns only premium gasoline, so when I fill up, it will cost me more than it did when I used to use the more efficient internal combustion engine in my Saturn SL2.

Oh, and speaking of efficiency, the gasoline engine of my electric car should not drive the car directly, it should route the electricity through the batteries, reducing efficiency even further.

My new car should not seat more than 4 people, so when I get hit by a Cadillac or SUV, or perhaps even a semi, not too many people get injured or killed.

The seats should be about as comfortable as the back seats of a 1960 Ford Falcon, and the batteries should run down the middle of the car to force riders' legs to be cramped into a permanent position.

The car should look something like a cockroach and should be available in Silver Ice Metalic.

Between $40,000.00 and $42,000.00 should be about the right price to pay...maybe the government will take some money from you to help me pay for my new electric car....let's say about $7,500.00 or so. Deal?

Now where on earth could I possible find a car that fits my requirements?

Oh, I know. I'll just hurry on down to my local Chevy dealer and, using my unemployment check, my social security income and my undervalued home as collateral, I'll just purchase the perfect car: THE CHEVY VOLT!!!

Read more about my new car here.

LET'S JUST TEAR THE COUNTRY APART!

Thanks, and a tip 'o the hat to Snaggletoothie.

THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH

Look, there’s plenty to HATE about the “new” Health Care legislation, HR-3962, "Affordable Health Care for America Act" and its partner, HR-4872, "Reconciliation Act of 2010," that contains 153 pages of “fixes” to the apparently broken Health care bill.

Real estate sales will be taxed 3.8%.

The bill will limit the deduction on medical expenses to amounts above 10 percent of income starting in 2013. Currently, the deduction floor is 7.5 percent of income.

I could go on, but that’s not the point of this post.

The point of this post is that we conservatives must be interested in real truth, not “truth that becomes real because, and only because, we say it is true, regardless of whether it actually is or not.”

That is the technique of liberals. It should not be our technique.

There is an e-mail going around that says that the value of your new health care will be added to and counted as income on your W-2 beginning in 2012.

This is only half-true.

The value will appear on employees’ W-2 forms for information purposes, but will not be considered taxable income…yet.

So just why is this being added to W-2’s?

My experience with the feds is that once something makes it to my W-2 “for the sake of information,” it is only a matter of time before it becomes taxable.

Let’s be “the glass is half full” people and assume that initially the value of your health care will not be counted as income and taxed.

Then why list it at all?

Who benefits from the additional listing?

One thing we know for certain: if the government tells you they are going to do something or that they are not going to do something, you can trust them to be honorable and do or not do what they say they will do or not do.

A lot like Candidate Obama telling us that there will be no additional taxes on people earning under $250,000.00, while President BO is pushing to allow the Bush tax cuts to go away, resulting in a tax increase on almost everyone.

“But that’s not a tax increase!” scream the incredibly stupid liberals.

Yes…it is. It results in us paying more taxes.

More means increase.

It’s sort of like when my wife comes home with some new, expensive and largely unneeded item and brags that she saved me a bunch of money.

If she saved me money, how come my bank account went down?

So, go ahead. Trust the government not to get around to taxing the value of your health care “benefit.”

Dummy.

NOW TO FINISH UP

Finish the sentence: "If you can't afford to buy a house..."

There are two possible completions to that sentence in America today.

The first is: "...don't buy it."

It's the principle of delayed gratification.

Work and save until you can afford to make a down payment, as well as the monthly morgtage payments.

That's the way my grandparents did it.

That's the way my parents did it.

That's the way I've done it.

Work and save...work and save...work and save.

The other answer is one that has been put forth by the government for thirty-three years:

"If you can't afford to buy a house, we won't look at your credit rating, we won't require a down payment, we won't make you pay any principle for three years, and we'll give you a below market interest rate (called a sub-prime mortgage)."

There are two reasons the government did that: 1) because they wanted to promote the idea that everyone deserves the "American Dream;" 2) That will make you like us and will help get us re-elected.

The first is patently false. Everyone does NOT deserve the "American Dream."

Everyone deserves to get educated, work hard and have an opportunity to reach for the "American Dream," But NOT everyone deserves it just because he/she exists.

Nevertheless, the governmnent said to lenders (banks and others): YOU MUST PROVIDE MORTGAGES TO PEOPLE WHO CANNOT JUSTIFY HAVING ONE...BUT DON'T WORRY, WE'LL GUARANTEE THE PAYMENT OF THOSE MORTGAGES IF THE PEOPLE CAN'T KEEP UP WITH THE PAYMENTS.

Lenders responded in the way they had to, as dictated by the government and by their responsibilities to their share-holders, for whom they had a feduciary resonsibility: they established the mortgages.

They were not surprised when people started defaulting on their mortgages, but they did not worry, because they had the full faith and credit of the government of the United States of America behind them, and could not possible lose money on the deal, so it did not matter.

The ones who were surprised were the federal government, especially the likes of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel and others, who repeatedly stated that there was no problem with loan backers, Freddie Mack and Fannie Mae, as well as others involved on the government's side of the deal.

Barney, Chris, Maxine, Charlie and friends insisted over and over again that those who were objecting to the LACK OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION which THEY had instituted were nothing more than fear-mongers who just wanted to say, "NO!"

Then, when defaults on mortgages started snow-balling out of control, Barney, Chris, Maxine, Charlie and friends moved to the head of the "we need more government regulation" line.

See, the colapse of the economy in America came about, not because of the failed policies of any one president (especially not because of George W. Bush), but because of a series of very bad decisions by congress, whose unintended consequences were unforseen.

So, the next time you hear Presdient BO state that he inherited this economic mess, remind yourself that it was HIS party that instituted the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 which ultimately led to the economic colapse we're now experiencing.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 tried to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-income neighborhoods. The Act mandated that all banking institutions that receive FDIC insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offerd credit [in a manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)] in all communities in which they are chartered to do business.

The last part of that mandate [Section 802 (b) and Section 804(1)] was eventually ignored because it resulted in "too few" sub-prime loans being made.

The idea may have had smatterings of nobility about it, but it was ill-conceived, ill-planned, ill-implemented and had dire consequences.

The result was not too few sub-prime loans being made, but too many.

But the answer will not lie in placing blame.

The answer will lie in ridding ourselves of these whale-sized loans to people who cannot make ant-sized mortgage payments and allow the market to self-stableize over what will be a very long and painful time.

The lesson should be: Things done for the purpose of re-election should not be done unless the perpetrator(s) have some viable, sure way to determine the possible unpleasant side effects on the country and then to avoid those side effects.

What other unintended consequences might we expect from the decisions made by our government?

Make a list in the comments section.