Hey readers,

I received another response from my family member that I thought I would post for everyone’s benefit. Naturally I’ll continue to protect / respect this individual’s privacy. This time, we were talking foreign policy.

 

____Family Member’s Response_________________

While our foreign policy probably has had negative unintended consequences doing nothing would have also had negative unintended consequences. As doing nothing is also foreign policy.  I believe the real motivations of the Islamic jihadists is based in their religion and world view. Read http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=4292, and http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=3821 .

Our policies are sometimes go too far, total isolation and doing nothing will probably encourage our enemies. Bin Laden stated that our lack of response indicated that we were weak and could be attacked. Also, Islamic terrorism in not limited to the US. There are attacks all over the world in countries with no people in the middle east. There have been attacks in Thailand, the Philippines, Bali, Sudan, Ethiopia, India, Russia, China, Pakistan, Nigeria to name a few.

I am curious, what has Ron Paul said his response to 9-11 would have been?

 

___My Response Below_______________

to […]

GREAT questions.

I don’t believe they attack us because we are free. After all, they don’t attack Sweden or Switzerland. The question is what would we do? This video does a good job contextualizing. http://youtu.be/XKfuS6gfxPY

If Ron Paul was president, there wound not have been a 9/11. Watch him predict that our foreign policy in the 90’s would lead to attacks on our homeland. He would not have conducted the attacks that aggravated them in the first place. http://youtu.be/_6hxE3mPgtM

If we listen to Bin Laden’s reaction to 9/11, we should also listen to his reasons for the attack. He told us outright why he did it, and he didn’t say “because they are free.” He said, because we’d been bombing the middle east, and we had bases on their holy land.
http://youtu.be/DJLMtRt88ZUhttp://youtu.be/-qQYDn5wqeg

NOW let’s say Ron Paul was not the president back then (which obviously he was not) and that 9/11 did happen (which obviously it did). President Paul would have voted for the authority to go after those who harmed us, which he did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Terrorism
He also introduced the introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 which would allow us to go after the terrorists, not just after the countries that harbor them.

The problem is that the USA didn’t go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Rather we went after Saddam who had no link to Bin Laden according to the 9/11 commission report.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5228545/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/t/commission-no-link-between-bin-laden-saddam/#.TvFPxdRSQsI

In fact, Ron Paul would have killed Bin Laden in 2001 when he was cornered in Tora Bora
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/05/bin-laden-dead-why-didnt-we-get-him.html

To recap:

  1. 9/11 would not have happened under President Paul (or constitution lover like him)
  2. In the event of a 9/11 like attack happening, he would go after those who actually did the dirty deed, not some random dictator.
  3. Under President Paul, Bin Laden would have been killed 10 years earlier than under Bush/Obama

Remember, Ron Paul is the only candidate with military experience, and has raised more money than all other GOP candidates combined (and also more money than Obama) from military and their families. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/07/ron-paul-military-campaign-donations-/1 He is much more trustworthy on foreign policy than someone like Gingrich who dodged his draft orders. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/boyernewt2.html

Thanks again for another quality debate! See you soon,

-DM

P.S. Just for fun, here is Ron Paul predicting the economic collapse – http://youtu.be/9S3lXDOQ7ec

Really Long Email to my Aunt

September 15, 2011

Hi all!  Yep, I agree, being politically involved in today’s world is vital.  Too many people focus on football and American idol… meanwhile the country is falling apart!

Unfortunately, not all of the GOP candidates are pro 2nd amendment, and few are as aggressively supportive as Ron Paul.  I’m glad to hear you like a lot of what he says, and that it’s his stance on moral issues that are troublesome.  In a ‘free’ country, moral issues should not be dictated by the government, but decided on an individual basis so those issues shouldn’t stand in the way of voting for him in the upcoming primary.  Generally speaking, these moral issues are decisive games that politicians play to win votes, but really have little impact on the country… at least compared to war / an economic collapse / a monetary collapse. 

Marriage:

To me, this is an easy one.   I think it’s important for us to understand our roles as Christians, and as citizens and where the two delineate.  The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Federally defining marriage is clearly making a law that respects an establishment of religion.  As Christians, you and I can decide that marriage is between a man and a woman, and we can even promote that idea through the Church, and in our interpersonal interactions.  However, as citizens, we don’t have constitutional authority to define marriage… at least not in a ‘free’ country.  There are lots of things that we oppose as Christians that are legal.  Let’s take the 10 commandments for example:

 

 

  • I am the Lord your God.  You shall have no other gods before me. – legal
  • You shall not make for yourself an idol. – legal
  • Do not take the name of the Lord in vain. – legal
  • Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. – legal
  • Honor your father and your mother. – legal
  • You shall not kill/murder. – it is illegal to kill
  • You shall not commit adultery. – legal
  • You shall not steal. – it is illegal to steal
  • You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. – legal unless you are under oath
  • You shall not covett your neighbor’s wife. – legal.
So 80% of the 10 commandments (while they are obviously wrong to break) are perfectly legal.  For the U.S. Gov to insist on defining marriage to preserve the moral fabric of the country, shouldn’t that mean that they need to make all of the 10 commandments illegal too?  Shouldn’t they make divorce illegal?  Obviously I’m being sarcastic.   

It’s also interesting to study the origins of modern marriage.  We’ve only had federally recognized marriage for about 100 years, and the reason the government got in to the marriage business was (they said) for health reasons.  The reality, is they didn’t know the ramifications of interracial marriage and because they were afraid of it, they decided to make it illegal   Now, interracial marriage is commonplace, but we are left with the government deeming who is allowed to fall in love (and be recognized) and who is not.  In other words, when George Washington was married, it was not federally recognized… and why should it have to be?  The REAL way to protect the definition of marriage is to let the CHURCHES define it… not the government.  If anything, I think we as Christians should be offended that the government gets to decide who is married and who is not.

As for Ron Paul’s other more ‘out there’ issues, I say this:  Freedom means having the ability to make good and bad decisions.  After all, if we are free only to make good decisions… are we really free?  Does the prohibition of marijuana help anyone?  The prohibition of alcohol gave rise to Al Capone and the gangsters of that era.  Prohibition actually gives power to criminals who will sell it on the black market.  I live in CA where it is easier for under age people to get MJ than it is for them to get alcohol. Keep in mind, I am saying this as someone who has never smoked marijuana, and I never would no matter if it is legal or not.  There are plenty of things that are already legal that I also won’t be doing because I’m capable of making those decisions for myself.

In conclusion (and again, call me crazy) I think God wants us to choose Him, and choose to trust Him and live our life according to His will.  I don’t think there is anything to be gained by forcing others who have not made that Godly commitment to live in His ways.  If anything, I think this pushes people farther from God and alienates them from the Church.  Regardless, if we tell people we are a free society, we should act that way.

Sources

 

 

 

Capital Punishment

I’ve read lots of Christian debate on Capital Punishment and it confuses me honestly.  I personally will stick to “thou shalt not kill.”  While we are on the topic, though, here is a great bit of scripture: 1 Samuel 8:10.  The more I look at our government, the more it resembles an old kingdom… and that really bugs me.

 

Sources

 

 

 

Electability

This is where the media bias just crushes Paul unfairly.  He actually has the best chance against Obama, but the media is viciously anti Ron Paul… and to me that is more confirmation that he is the right guy.  Here are some stats to back up what I am saying:

 

Long story short, don’t believe MSM.  Ron has a great chance to win… they just don’t want him to.  After all, the only thing it takes for him to win… is for him to get more votes than the next guy!  Nobody thought Obama would get elected… and look at the mess we are in now.
Really Awesome Videos

 

 

 


Conclusion

Thanks so much for listening to my craziness.  I agree with you completely – we need to find the best candidate.  The Country can not withstand very many more lying politicians.   I see the big three issues as 1) the economy, 2) health care, and 3) foreign policy.  Fortunately Ron Paul is the only 1) economist, 2) doctor, and 3) Military (air force) person in the race!  

Much love (and thanks for the robust debate),

Here is how we are told to act. First, pick a box to get into, then do not think outside of it. Politics asside, we are taught to have these attributes. Don’t believe me? Look at the props in Sean Hannity’s show for starters. Themes of football, country music, trucking, and the open road.

Democrats:
Transportation = Public Transpo or Small cars
Music = Broadway/Big Band
Computer = Apple
Sport = Baseball or Basketball
Home = Live in the Big City

Republicans:
Transportation = Trucks
Music = Country Music
Computer = PC
Sport = NASCAR or Football
Home = Live outside the big city

They are teaching us our roles… pushing us into boxes that they can control. You want out of the box? Take the red pill.

http://www.infowars.com

“Ten persons who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent”

-Napoleon Bonaparte

Conspiracy is a simple word – it means that a group of people are plotting in secret against another group of people, or individual.  Theories are ideas that are not fact, not provable, but ideas that beg to be researched and questioned.  In the past, a number of conspiracy theories have been proven true.  The Dreyfus Affair, MK-ULTRA, Operation Mockingbird, Watergate, The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, Operation Northwoods, The Iran-Contra Affair, the 1990 Testimony of Nayirah, ECHELON, The US Federal Reserve, COINTELPRO, and The Gulf of Tonkin Incident just to name a few.

Disturbingly, many of these true conspiracy (not conspiracy theories) have lead to massive and important world events.  The Gulf of Tonkin resulted in the Vietnam war.  Without it, the government would not have been able to pull the necessary support to go to war.  Conspiracy theorists were warning about the Golf of Tonkin even back then, saying that there was no reason to be at war as the event that got us into the war was a farce.  If more people had listened when the conspiracy was still a theory, perhaps the Vietnam war could have been avoided or shortened.

If more people would have listened when the Tuskegee Syphilis conspiracy was just a theory, perhaps the inhumane treatment of more than 400 African Americans (at least 200 dying as a result of the expirements) could have been avoided.

If more would have listened to the Federal Reserve conspiracy theorists maybe they would not be in charge of our monetary policy and basically in control of our economy today.

Today, the conspiracy theorists are still uncovering more information and are being ignored by masses of people.  This is not to say that all conspiracy theories are true, in fact many are not – after all they are just ideas… i.e. theories. Remember however that some theories turn out to be completely true, and have an incredible impact on you and your family.  The average person, when confronted with a conspiracy theory like “the U.S. Government is testing syphilis treatments (sometimes painful) on an unknowing or un-consenting population” they laugh and dismiss it as a crazy conspiracy theory.  However, that conspiracy turned out to be true.

The average person, when they hear that “attacks on America have been staged in the past” laugh and say that America would never stage an attack and dismiss it as a crazy conspiracy theory.  Unfortunately there have been more than 200 declassified ‘false flag’ attacks.

The examples could continue for quite some time, but the point is this.  Next time you hear something that sounds ‘out there’ it is important to let it enter your mind, and for you to legitimately consider it… heaven forbid even research it for yourself.  Imminently dismissing ideas from these individuals is dangerous and irresponsible.  It is a guarantee that at least some of the conspiracy theories floating around today will end up true in the future, just as has happened countless times in our past.

For example, there is credibility in the conspiracy of secret societies and special interests that have bought and paid for both of our political parties and voting for one or the other makes no real difference as a result.  This is something I would encourage everyone to research.  The Bilderberg Group, the council on foreign relations, skull and bones – if you don’t know about these organizations, you should.

In addition, knowing how many organizations your food actually comes from, or your news actually comes from are also good things to research.  Once a conspiracy is proven true it is important to take steps immediately to protect the truth.  For example, the Federal Reserve did in fact turn out to be a consortium of private banks pretending to be a ‘federal’ entity.  There is legislation now called HR 1207 and S 604 to for the first time in history audit the secret, private federal reserve.  Have you contacted your senator and representative?  Are you going to be one of the ten who stands up for what is right, or one of the ten thousand who remains silent?

-fr

Argentina in the ’70s:

February 10, 2010

*Here are a couple paragraphs about what was going on in Argentina in the ’70s:*

Anyone suspected of favoring these groups (revolutionaries against the gov) or their ideas was subject to arbitrary arrest. All cultural life was now subjected to strict censorship. The government took control of all labor unions. People were kidnapped on the streets and never seen again. The prisons overflowed with political prisoners and torture was common. There were no trials or pretense of legal process. An estimated 11,000 Argentines disappeared between 1976 and 1982, called *los desaparecidos* or “the disappeared.” More than 30,000 people died during this period, many in Argentine concentration camps modeled after the Nazi camps. At the height of the horror, only the mothers and grandmothers of the disappeared had the courage to stand up to the government. Every Thursday, they began assembling in the Plaza de Mayo in front of the Presidential Palace, demanding information on their missing children. Conditions in the prisons were unfathomable. Prisoners were not allowed to lie down on their cots during the day, and the strain of this sometimes caused paralysis or atrophy of the legs. They were allowed no contact with family or friends, and most prisoners were afraid to write to loved ones, for fear they too would be targeted. Almost all letters were seized by the censors. The prisons would play sad songs by Julio Iglesias to deepen prisoners’ depression (no kidding). Prison guards would stage fake escapes and executions with mannequins to scare the prisoners. When a prisoner was moved out of his cell, he had to keep his eyes straight ahead; one glance over his shoulder meant loss of all privileges and possible torture. Newspapers and radios were banned insider the prison. Only books written before the French Revolution were in prison libraries.

Prisoners were experimented on with tranquilizer darts, were tortured with cattle prods, had the soles of their feet beaten with batons, had metal buckets placed on their heads and then the buckets hammered, had electrical wires applied to breasts, vaginas, anuses, penises, tongues, and other body parts. In some cases, prisoners’ bellies were slit open and they were dropped in a river as “fish food.” Some were thrown out of airplanes fully conscious. The length of sentences was completely arbitrary and had nothing to do with the “crime” committed, and at the end of the prison term, the prisoner or his family had to pay the state back for the cost of his imprisonment or he would not be released.

*And here is what was declassified in 2003 about America’s opinions of what the Argentine Gov was doing:* In 2003, the *Miami Herald* published proof that America and the Ford administration had approved of this brutal military regime. According to a recently declassified U.S. government document, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told the Argentine foreign minister in 1976, at the height of the Dirty War, that America supported the Argentine government. The transcript of the meeting between Kissinger and Argentine Navy Admiral César Augusto Guzzetti in New York is the first documentary evidence that the Ford administration approved of the junta’s harsh tactics. “Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed,” Kissinger reassured Guzzetti in the seven-page transcript, marked *SECRET*. “I have an old-fashioned view that friends ought to be supported. What is not understood in the United States is that you have a civil war. We read about human rights problems but not the context. The quicker you succeed, the better.” The Argentine military regime was delighted.

I came across a blog that was about a topic of endless controversy: American Health Care.  The long and short of it seems to be this:

  1. Folks who want socialized health care want equal health care options for everyone (struggle for a Utopian society).
  2. Folks who want privatized health care want the best health system possible for as many people as possible (short wait times, freedom to see whomever you want, etc).

To me, this boils down to the classic Churchill quote – “Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains.”  A Utopia (like perfection) is impossible.  People who want socialized medicine do have their heart in the right place but unfortunately their brains are not.

For me, the bottom line is this:  Only about 13% of Americans are without health care – TOPS.  Within that 13% there are people who CHOOSE not to have it, but could if they wanted to.  A friend of mine for example does not justify the $160 a month for health care, but does justify about that amount of money for their iPhone…

That means that 87% have health care.  Folks on the left think that socialized medicine is better because it will serve ‘everyone.’  They do however admit that it will be a step down from what the private sector is currently able to provide (wait times, treatments, types of medicine, etc).

In other words, the left is willing to (at least partially) destroy health care for 87% of Americans to attempt to get it for 13% of Americans – some of whom have decided not to have it in the first place (remember my old roommate).

Let’s cut it up a different way.  According to an article written by Steve Bierfeldt, after you subtract illegal aliens and people who could afford health care if they made responsible life choices, the amount of people who can’t get health care is down to 2.6%.  That means the left would want to destroy a health care system that works for 97.4% of legal Americans to try and help a 2.6% who don’t have it.

This argument boils down to responsibility.  It is irresponsible for a government to destry what works for the overwhelming majority of Americans.  The obvious answer is to find a way to help the 2.6%-13% of unisured citizens find private health care so that they can enjoy the benefits that 97.4%-87% who do have organized, working, and in fact luxurious health care.

The current proposals for reform are cloaked as big changes, but as it turns out, they are actually more of the same. They can be summed up in this way: turn more control over to the government and insurance companies while politicians and special interests jockey for credit and work behind the scenes to benefit — at the expense of individual Americans. – David McKalip, M.D.

In closing, let me put it like this.  Think of the Post Office… then FedEx Kinkos or UPS.  Now think of the DMV… then AAA.  Do you really want your health care run like the DMV or the Post office?  No thank you.

-First Response
(for more information, please read this: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=33 and this: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=45)

I’m sort of surprised the same sex marriage conversations are not evolving more quickly.  The long and short of it (to me) is this:

  1. We still (sort of) live in a free country.  Government should not be denying anyone rights; we all agree on that.
  2. Marriage is a sticky word – lots of religious folks want to protect it’s definition.

To me, the solution is so obvious I’m surprised we’re still talking about it.  I would love for someone to give me some real reasons with my solution explained in detail here (link) does not work for both sides.

In summary, here’s the solution: Privitise Marriage.  Get the government out of the conversation all together (State and Federal).  This would restore freedom to marriage.  This can be done a number of ways; here are two suggestions.

  • Re-write the current government marriage documents and exclude the word marriage.  Write them so that they can be used in any combination.
  • Remove the current marriage documents and don’t replace them with anything – get the government away from marriage.  We really should not need the government’s permission to get married.  I understand marriage is related to property but there are other, smarter ways around that.

IT WOULD WORK, RIGHT?

For the folks in favor of same sex marriage:

  • Equality is achieved.
  • Federal and State documents ether don’t exist, or are identical regardless if the union is same sex, or opposite sex.  The word “marriage” does not exist in government documents.
  • Religious organizations have the freedom (regardless of what state they are in) to perform same sex marriages, or not perform same sex marriages thus respecting their religious freedom.
  • Same sex couples can choose to get married at the places that choose to perform the ceremony.  It can be called anything in the world.  Party, marriage, celebration, union, lemon, whatever.

For the folks who do not support same sex marriage:

  • Marriage is protected, and can be defined by your specific religious organization.
  • Marriage is no longer a government word, and it’s name or definition will not be changed by the government.
  • Religious organizations exist that do not allow same sex marriages which are an option for membership.

BUT WHAT WOULD SCHOOLS TEACH?

Because marraige would no longer be a federal or state issue, marriage would not come up in the classroom at all.  The only thing they could really teach would be the legal documents that replace the old marriage documents (if they even need to exist) but I don’t think schools would waste valuable time teaching that.  What would they teach… where to fill in the names?  As there is no lesson on W-10’s or other government forms I’m sure the new union documents would be left out of the classroom.

OK folks, so let me have it.  How does this not resolve the issue…?

-dm

Miss California - Carrie Prejean

So by now everyone has heard about the Perez Hilton/Carrie Prejean scandal.  There are three issues at work here.

  1. Asking the question.
  2. The answer.
  3. The response to the answer.

Firstly, asking this question.  Let’s say Perez Hilton asked this “what are your personal beliefs on abortion?”  I think we would all agree that question is in appropriate.  Simularly, asking if same sex marriage should be legalized in all 50 states is also a very polorizing, highly opinion based question.  If I was Miss CA, I would have smiled, waived, and said “world peace.”

Second, the answer was actually pretty good.  She said she loves that we live in a land where people can choose.  Ok, I guess people can sort of choose because they could move to one of the states that allow same sex marriage… I do agree that same sex couples really don’t have much of a right to choose right now.  I personally think that’s a shame as we live in a country that really is supposed to be free.  Please see my previous posts on same sex marriage. So granted, that part of the answer was not spot on since the freedom for same sex couples is pretty limited right now.  None the less, she at least aknowledged that there are some options.

Then, since it was an opinion question, she gave her opinion: that marriage in her opinion was between a

Some guy... blogger I think.

Some guy... blogger I think.

man and a woman.  She did even say “I don’t want to offend anyone out there.”  She did not say anything negative about homosexual people, for all we know she has many homosexual friends.  She just commented on her personal opinion regarding marriage (which is the same opinion of Barack Obama, by the way) as she was requested to do.  I don’t see any fault there.

Thirdly the response.  This is where everyone finally is beginning to see what I have been saying for years.  Perez Hilton is nuts, crude, rude, and worse for society than MTV (and that’s saying a lot).  KEEP IN MIND, MY OPINION OF PEREZ HILTON HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS SEXUAL ORIENTATION.  If he was straight, or asexual I would think exactly the same of him.  He’s a blog version of the worst types of tabloid magazine.  I think his site is a plague on culture in the same way celebrity magazines are, and in the same way MTV is.  His actions are not shocking to me at all, unfortunately.

I say this – for every minute that people want to spend reading tabloid blogs or magazines, remember the people who are dying of thirst in other countries and spend some time thinking about them, perhaps donating some money.  I’m telling you, these celebrities are a terrible distraction from very significant things that are happening in the world.  Real people need our help.

-dm

Michael Jackson Chain Letter

November 24, 2009

This chain letter was sent to me and I thought I’d pass it along for conversation.

-fr

_____________________________

Ed McMahon

Ed McMahon died last week.  He was a great entertainer, but prior to his radio and TV accomplishments he was a Marine Corps pilot in WWII and Korea, earning six Air Medals and attaining the rank of Colonel.  After his Korean service he was subsequently promoted to the rank of Brigadier General in the
CA Air National Guard.Farrah Fawcett died last week after a long career in Hollywood as an actress.  After she was diagnosed with cancer, she became an activist for cancer treatment and devoted her last remaining years encouraging people to seek treatment.  She documented her plight on film and used it to encourage others to stay positive and upbeat despite their diagnosis and suffering.Michael JacksonMichael Jackson died last week.  He was perhaps one of the great entertainers of modern time.  He will also be remembered for his eccentric lifestyle that included sleeping with a chimpanzee, living in a carnival-like atmosphere at Neverland, his fascination with Peter Pan, and his numerous masks and costumes.  He also admitted to finding pleasure sleeping with young boys and paying out millions of dollars in settlements
to the families of these boys despite being acquitted by a court on one allegation of sexual molestation.

QUESTION 1)  – Which of the above did the House of Representatives declare a moment of silence for?
(Hint – It wasn’t the first two.)

QUESTION 2)  – Which of the above’s family received a personal note of condolence from President Obama?
(Hint – It wasn’t the first two.)

Does this send a message regarding the state of our country?   Need we say more???

 

This is a very important step back toward economic liberty.  More than half of the congress has co-sponsored the bill (including 80 democrats – so truly bi-partisan) and it asks for one simple thing.  Transparency.  After all, it’s our money, and our government… shouldn’t we have a right to know where all of the money the fed prints out of thin air goes?  This clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUreWxKGOkY) seems to indicate not even they know where it goes!

Update – the hypocrisy – government promises transparency… but does not take opportunities to deliver on that promise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tRQHsXujpo

More information on auditing the Fed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx-UYvtSqeI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGAQIJWUJVU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpbW64vRrMc

Update – Freedom Watch – Judge Andrew Napolitano

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGAQIJWUJVU – the Fed’s response (besides hiring the Enron lobbyist)

Congressional report admits economic collapse was government’s fault:

http://americaswatchtower.com/2009/07/09/congressional-report-blames-the-governement-for-the-mortgage-crisis/

You can’t fairly blame the free market anymore – after all we have not had a true free market in this country for decades.  You can try to blame lack of regulators, but some of the big organizations that they say need regulation had literally hundreds of regulators already… and the answer can’t possibly be to give the federal reserve the power to regulate the banks.  Did you know the federal reserve is a private organization?  It’s a bank… for the banks.  Giving it the power to regulate – isn’t that like allowing banks to regulate themselves?  Actually reading the plan, one learns that many of the ‘regulations’ become optional anyway (so it’s a big bank regulating (in many ways) itself… but only if it wants to).  You can read the entire plan here: http://thehill.com/images/stories/news/2009/june/white%20paper.pdf – and a critique of it here: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=20147

If I’m wrong about any of this I’d love to hear about it so I can continue the learning process.  If you agree, contact your government here – https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml and tell them to support HR 1207 and government transparency.  Also, feel free naturally to forward this to others if you want.

I hope you all are having a wonderful week!  I wish the best to you.