Constitutional lesson of the day

[water]

by request of Tdawn. If you don't read it all, do not even attempt to comment.

No replies based on party or personality will be allowed and will be immediately removed. You may add all the lessons you want. If it involves a particular person, please be sure to attack the issue and not the person as I will do here:

"The meltdown in the financial markets has caused the finger of blame to spin like a weathervane in a hurricane. The underlying cause of the debacle, however, has been largely ignored. Driven by 'progressive' Democrats and Republicans, the cause is the relentless shift from a free market economy to a socialist economy.

"Until the Roosevelt era, the responsibility and privilege of having a home was left solely to the individual.

"Few people realize that Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) was created in 1938 by FDR, to provide a federal guarantee for home loans extended by local banks. Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) was created in 1970, during Nixon's reign.

"Both were designed to buy mortgages from local lenders as a way to insure an adequate supply of money for local lenders. These 'secondary' mortgages were packaged into 'bundles' of securities that were traded among an array of financial institutions.

"During the 1960s, the United Nations produced the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Article V(e)(iii) proclaimed that all people had a 'right' to housing. Both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations supported the treaty, but it was not ratified until the Clinton administration, Nov. 20, 1994.

"...To meet its obligations under the U.N.'s Racial Discrimination Treaty, the Clinton administration instructed Fannie Mae to expand loans to low-income borrowers, according to Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman.

"Thus, the 'sub-prime' market was born, and government guaranteed-loans were extended to millions of families who could not qualify for a mortgage in a free market economy, but easily qualified under the new socialist scheme.

"In 2005, Republican senators saw the danger and tried to reform these institutions with the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulator Reform Act (S.190), but Democrats blocked the bill.

"...AIG, the international insurance giant, and other Wall Street and international financial institutions bought the bundles of mortgage securities that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac offered. Everybody involved made a ton of money, and housing for low-income families expanded exponentially - just as the Treaty on Racial Discrimination and the proponents of sustainable development had predicted.

"With all the new loans being made, the home building industry flourished, the real estate industry flourished, all industries related to housing flourished - until the market became saturated.

"Home values stopped rising. Housing inventories began to rise. Home values began to decline. Foreclosures began to rise. Homebuilding slowed, housing-related industries began to lay off workers. Energy prices began to rise. Paychecks fell short of family needs. Foreclosures skyrocketed.

"Suddenly, there was little or no value in the bundles of security Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had packaged. Financial institutions found themselves in possession of massive 'assets' that had no value. Creak, crumble, crash! The financial markets came tumbling down.

"The piper must be paid. The question is whether to do it now - and let the chips fall where they may, or, to kick the can down the road and pay the piper later.

"The answer, of course, is to kick the can into the next generation, with another leap toward socialism. The bailout plan - whatever the particulars - is nothing short of a government takeover of the financial industry. The next president will have to sort it out and build the road toward future recovery or final disaster."

Columnist Henry Lamb

It

[water]

WELL now, 2 days, no replies: either I am really damn boring, or no-one has read it all. Mkay, well here's another lesson. Yes, I will be putting this on my website, so please do not copy and paste any of it anywhere. Enjoy!

What caused the Boston Tea Party?

This is really interesting, especially now, in the event of the current

[mudmanc4]

Sorry this reply took me so long, but I wanted to fully understand what I was reading. And I have been "stuck" on one small area, maybe someone could rectify this for me.

The portrayal of the way the tax was initiated, was amazing. It brought a fresh light to my understanding of just how this whole tax "thing" had begun. Not to exclude the tax stamp details.

There were two things in there that struck my curiosity, as the story goes, three is a rather significant number referring to those that are said to control the doings of the world, as far as finances, and all around control.  ie~ three colors to most flags of the world, three kings day, three musketeers , triad (masonry) or trinity ,Three, therefore, stands for that which is solid, real, substantial, complete, and entire.

All things that are specially complete are stamped with this number three.

God's attributes are three: omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.

There are three great divisions completing time--past, present, and future.

Three persons, in grammar, express and include all the relationships of mankind.

Thought, word, and deed, complete the sum of human capability.

Three degrees of comparison complete our knowledge of qualities.

The simplest proposition requires three things to complete it; viz., the subject, the predicate, and the copula.

Three propositions are necessary to complete the simplest form of argument--the major premiss, the minor, and the conclusion.

Three kingdoms embrace our ideas of matter--mineral, vegetable, and animal.When we turn to the Scriptures, this completion becomes Divine, and marks Divine completeness or perfection.Three is the first of four perfect numbers.

I'll stop there, except for one more example, although there are literally tens of thousand references, so this is why I am concerned, and diligently searching for who, and where these three men that were already at the harbor when the rest arrived, so they could "direct " the several hundred that came to get rid of the tea.

[Roco]

Having fallen asleep twice while reading that , I am kinda glad the UK dosn't have a written consitution

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-big-question-why-doesnt-the-uk-have-a-written-constitution-and-does-it-matter-781975.html

Why don't we have a written constitution?

Essentially because the country has been too stable for too long. The governing elites of many European nations, such as France and Germany, have been forced to draw up constitutions in response to popular revolt or war.

Great Britain, by contrast, remained free of the revolutionary fervour that swept much of the Continent in the 19th century. As a result, this country's democracy has been reformed incrementally over centuries rather than in one big bang. For younger countries, including the United States and Australia, codification of their citizens' rights and political systems was an essential step towards independence. Ironically, several based their written constitutions on Britain's unwritten version.

[mudmanc4]

Having fallen asleep twice while reading that , I am kinda glad the UK dosn't have a written consitution

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-big-question-why-doesnt-the-uk-have-a-written-constitution-and-does-it-matter-781975.html

Why don't we have a written constitution?

Essentially because the country has been too stable for too long. The governing elites of many European nations, such as France and Germany, have been forced to draw up constitutions in response to popular revolt or war.

Great Britain, by contrast, remained free of the revolutionary fervour that swept much of the Continent in the 19th century. As a result, this country's democracy has been reformed incrementally over centuries rather than in one big bang. For younger countries, including the United States and Australia, codification of their citizens' rights and political systems was an essential step towards independence. Ironically, several based their written constitutions on Britain's unwritten version.

How again does this post pertain to this thread ? Maybe I missed something 

Either way, glad to hear you guy's are doing good 

[Roco]

well Great Britain got a mention , that generates an auto reply ,

I really don't get the American fascination with it's constitution ,

it seems almost like an obsession ,

I just find it odd that a great nation seems to need that to hold itself together ,

actually Great Britain loosing control was the best thing going for both sides , it generated another English speaking/thinking ? nation , also it kind of bought an end to our  European wars, France 100 years , Spain on and off for 20 years , Portugal etc ,

Mind you we won them all ,, and not one was a home game 

[mudmanc4]

well Great Britain got a mention , that generates an auto reply ,

Gotcha

I really don't get the American fascination with it's constitution ,

it seems almost like an obsession ,

I just find it odd that a great nation seems to need that to hold itself together ,

The fascination, or obsession could be instrued by some as obsolete, but the fact remains, those documents are there for the world to see that this great nation has , is, and always will be held accountable for the peoples opinions, not those of the one, nor a segregated few.

Recently these documents have been attacked by those that wish to dominate for purpose of game, and joy on there own part. This country as since the beginning, set as an icon or point of direction for the building of successful nations. This is undeniable in many aspects, yet not to be poisoned with words and ideas such as boast, or to be so sure of ourselves that we may call ourselves prude.

On another note, seems a distant memory has warped into complacency in consideration of "winning them all" as another mis instrued yet horrifying reality like a brackish soaked splinter derived from the year of the lord 1783 , in an unreachable area, cll it" winning" while i'll I call it giving up upon the realization of futility from overstepping humanities boundary lines,

Now take this as what the world will see, yet again, as these obsessive papers shine on.

[tommie gorman]

For me Roco I'd guess its along these lines. I still find it unusual to have a king or queen if they are not in charge. I guess it makes us both feel better at the end of the day. The constitution is supposed to help define our rights. And help that no leader takes them away from us. So they are not supposed to be able to take them away.

Also sort of like the 10 commandments. A strict guideline. Yes even though man keeps trying to twist its meaning often. ( on both accounts) 

[water]

well Great Britain got a mention , that generates an auto reply ,

I really don't get the American fascination with it's constitution ,

it seems almost like an obsession ,

I just find it odd that a great nation seems to need that to hold itself together ,

Roco, with all due respect (and with all the long distance, internet love I have for you), it was because of the King of Great Britain that we had to create the Constitution. Otherwise we felt we would be pushed around for the rest of our lives. Generations would be unfairly taxed and not given the benefits of representation. King George treated us like slaves. You have to notice that the writers of the constitution kept referring back to nature's God.  Our "Inalienable rights". If King George would have treated us with respect and given us a seat at the table in Parliament, it's doubtful any of this would have happened.

Therefore, in creating the Constitution, our forefathers went to great extent to insure that no power: foreign or domestic would walk all over us. The manner in which it is being brought up now is due to the fact that a domestic power is in fact trying to undermine, or overwrite the laws of our land. Our entire way of life is created on laws. Not on political parties or a special group of the "entitled". They put no value in the title of birthright, the value was put into what each individual chose to value, and how much effort they wanted to put into their choices.

Surely you can respect and admire that?

Or if not, then don't read the lessons. *shrugs* It's all the same to me.