This Blog is closed due to an accidental duplication.  The active Blog can be seen at:

http://vegasgeorge.blogtownhall.com/

Thanks!

You Republicans responsible for picking John McCain to be our (yes, I'm a Republican too) candidate for president ought to be taken out and shot.  We needed a candidate who knows how to take prisoners, not one who knows how to be one.  And, that's just what McCain turned out to be in tonight's debate; Obama's prisoner.

I don't know how its possible for an educated, experienced man like McCain to miss every single opportunity to score points in a debate.  But, tonight he did it.  We Republicans, and especially we conservative Republicans, have strong arguments and points to make on every issue discussed in the debate.  We have strong positions, supported by confirmed facts which impugn Obama's ethical and moral qualifications to be president.  We have strong social and economic arguments, supported by historical precedent to discredit Obama's stated plans and goals.  And John McCain failed us utterly.

I don't know McCain personally.  However, I have gotten the impression that he is just too nice a guy.  He's so nice he can't get tough with Obama.  Either that, or he really agrees with everything about Obama, and is struggling just to stay in character as Obama's opponent.  I guess it would be tough to run effectively against someone you agree with on all the issues.

I knew this was going to turn out this way.  I was so disillusioned following our convention.  I couldn't understand how we Republicans could have made such a bad mistake.  Then, after Sarah Palin was chosen I experienced a brief resurgence of enthusiasm.  She certainly hasn't done anything to let me down.  But, McCain's lack luster performance, culminating in tonight's gawd-awful debate, has me throughly depressed.

It's just not possible that a radical left Marxist socialist will be elected President of the United States, is it?

I'm looking at our currency and other indices of national identification.  How does "USSA," the "United Socialist States of America" sound?  I think there's probably room for it if we just make the fonts a little smaller.

PS: Don't get me wrong, I'm voting for McCain.  But, believe me when I say my vote is not based on his performance as a candidate.

The Financial Mess

Let's see what this is all about.

Say I pay cash for a house, and two years later the market has slumped, and the house isn't worth nearly as much as I paid for it.  I've lost money!  Does that mean the government should rush in and "bail me out?"  Of course not!

OK, say I'm a mortgage company, and loan money for the purchase of a house.  Two years later the market has slumped, and the loan is in default.  The security on the loan (the house) is no longer sufficient to pay off the loan.  I've lost money!  Does that mean the government should rush in and "bail me out?"  Of course not!

OK, say I'm some kind of financial institution that buys up mortgage loans.  I slap them together in a pool of assets, and use those assets to collateralize securities I sell to investors.  Two years later the housing market has slumped, too many of the loans are in default, and the houses are no longer worth enough to redeem the securities I've sold to my investors.  This reflects very poorly on my balance sheet.  I've lost money!  Does that mean the government should rush in and "bail me out?"  Of course not!

OK, say I'm an investor.  I buy some of those securities collateralized by the pool of assets including those mortgage loans.  When the housing market slumps, the loans go in default, and the houses are no longer worth enough to redeem the securities I bought.  The financial institution stops sending the payments.  I've lost money!  Does that mean the government should rush in and "bail me out?"  Of course not!

And finally, say I'm an insurance company.  I insure the securities collateralized by the pool of assets including those mortgage loans, guaranteeing payment to the investors.  Two years later, the housing market slumps, the loans go in default, and the houses are no longer worth enough to redeem the securities.  The investors are no longer getting paid.  Claims are made against the insurance I wrote.  I've lost money!  Does that mean the government should rush in and "bail me out?"  Of course not!

My point:  All of this is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.  It doesn't make any difference how complicated the transactions are.  It doesn't make any difference that the fellow who bought the house in the first place is just a poor working stiff, and the others involved are wealthy important Harvard educated MBAs.  The basic fact is the same.  They all bought high, and are having to sell low.  They all made bad deals and have lost money.

Where is it written that the USA has an obligation to make sure that everyone makes money, or at least breaks even, on their deals?  Nowhere.  Where is it written that the full faith and credit of the USA backs private business transactions?  Nowhere.  Where is it written that the USA will not allow companies to fail?  Nowhere.

This bailout scheme is nothing more than crudely disguised socialism.  In the end, there is no difference between government paying for housing, and government paying for housing market failure.  The price of the housing is being paid by the government either way.

I want a return to capitalism and the free market economy.  That is what made America strong.  That is why people all over the world dream of coming here.  The unpleasant consequences of failure is the greatest teacher.  How can we expect to maintain a strong economy and a strong country, if we reward stupidity and failure with government bailouts?  The markets will correct themselves, and the lessons learned from the housing market failure will be a source of strength in the future.  But that will not happen if the government bails us out.

When the inmates run the asylum, they end up nominating Barack Obama for president.

I have come to the realization that Liberals, which include most Democrats, are criminally insane. This is a shocking conclusion, but one I've come to after careful deliberation. You may not believe that. So, let me explain why it's true.

The most widely accepted, and historically applied definition of "insanity" in the criminal law is the inability to distinguish between right and wrong. This is very different from the civil notion of insanity which is vaguely defined by the various pathologies recognized by the American Psychological Association. In the civil arena, there is no clear cut, single definition of insanity. It's all quite mysterious.

But the criminal courts require a sanity test that even lay jurors can understand. And so, criminal insanity is narrowly and simply defined. Let me share an illuminating example that was told to me many years ago. A psychopath kills a small child, and eats the body. If he sits down in the roadway where everyone can see him eat, he's criminally insane. However, if he carries the body to the side of the road, and sits down to eat behind some bushes, he's sane. He's sane because the act of hiding behind the bushes demonstrates that he understands the difference between right and wrong, and that what he is doing is wrong. Simple, huh?

As I see it, most liberals are eating the child in the middle of the road. In other words, they have no idea that what they are doing is wrong. They cannot distinguish between right and wrong. Please note that I am not saying that liberals are criminals, only that they are insane under criminal law standards. Not everything that is wrong is against the law.

I do not believe that most liberals are bad people. I doubt if they get up in the morning thinking "What evil can I do today." In fact, judged only by their intentions, most liberals seem like very decent people. Just look at their stated goals: to feed the hungry, heal the sick, educate the masses, eliminate discrimination, and provide higher living standards for everyone. Who can argue with all that? I approve of those goals. But, I cannot approve of their methods in trying to reach those goals.

Liberals tell lies to support their views. I need not cite individual examples because the practice is so wide spread and continuous that everyone knows about it. Liberals know about it. The point is, that liberals think it's OK because the lies are told in furtherance of achieving their lofty goals. They think it's OK to besmirch a conservative candidate's character with a scurrilous lie, because they need to defeat that candidate as a means toward achieving their ends. They think it's OK to lie about their own candidate's qualifications and character for the same reason.

Now, we all know that a lie is a lie, and that no amount of lipstick is going to turn that pig into the truth. And, we all know that lies and lying are wrong. Nevertheless, liberals sit in the middle of the road telling lies to whoever will listen. They feel good about it. In fact, they are proud of their lies, and congratulate each other for having told them. Once told, their lies are joyfully repeated as often as possible. Eventually, most of their lies are revealed as untrue by developing circumstances or conservative investigations. Then, that particular lie dies down. But rarely is a retraction or apology given. They simply go on to the next lie.

I want to reemphasize here that liberals think this is OK. My whole point is that they can't appreciate the difference between right and wrong. In their world, they are doing the right thing by doing something that is wrong. They are eating the child while sitting in the middle of the road.

And, it's not just lying that demonstrates their insanity. Just look at their basic social policies. They want the government to provide all kinds of benefits. That is how they want to achieve their lofty goals. And, to pay for those benefits, they want the government to forcibly take money away from wealthier citizens, and give it to poorer citizens. That's called redistribution of wealth. That's really just a euphemism for stealing. Of course, every citizen should pay his share for necessary services. For example, if five men crowd into a taxi for a trip to the airport, and the fair is $100.00, each man should pay $20.00. But what if three of the men pull out guns, and demand that the entire fair be paid by the remaining two on the grounds that they are wealthier, and can therefore afford to pay $50.00 each more comfortably than the three could afford to pay their $20.00? I think we can all agree that would be stealing, and that stealing is wrong. But, the way the liberals propose to fund their social programs is no different. A liberal would force a wealthier man to pay for benefits for a poorer man. The liberals sit in the middle of the road holding their guns on the wealthy. That's stealing. Obviously, they don't know right from wrong. It's insanity.

Now, I don't mean to say that there aren't crafty, disingenuous liberals who are intentionally spreading lies or stealing with malicious intent. Such individuals exist. When confronted, they usually fall back on some form of relativistic intellectualism such as "It depends on what the definition of "is" is." Or, "Well nothing is black and white, so it depends on the circumstances." That's merely evasive nonsense. Telling a lie or stealing is always wrong, and those individuals are not insane, but evil.

But, the majority of liberals are followers, not leaders, and they are blissfully unaware of the wrongful nature of their acts. Even some liberal leaders are so deluded as to truly believe they are doing right by doing wrong. Despite protestations to the contrary, their actions prove that they do not know the difference between right and wrong. They are criminally insane.