Ever since 1954, when the US Tax Code was modified to allow the IRS to remove the tax exempt status of any church whose pastor made political statements over the pulpit, a vital form of political speech has been silenced.  Since then, several administrations have used the IRS to silence Political Speech in this country that ran contrary to the designs of that Administration.  Recently, the IRS has been threatening to remove the tax exempt status of several churches.  According to the AP, 33 pastors from churches around the country have made a stand against this infringement of their First Amendment Right.  And this is exactly what it is.

The First Amendment guarantees that all citizens of this country are protected from government retribution if they make speech that is unpopular in the eyes of the government.  This IRS code needs to be declared unconstitutional and these pastors need our support.

Throwing more fuel on this fire, the Bush Administration made its official opinion known.  When asked by Les Kinsolving, WorldnetDaily's White House Correspondent, Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto made it clear that the Administration sides with the IRS:

"Kinsolving asked: 'The AP also reports that 33 pastors in 22 states made specific endorsements of political candidates in challenging the IRS-Lyndon Johnson ruling about no political endorsements in churches. And my question: Does the president believe that America's clergy should be denied the freedom of speech to endorse political candidates?'

Fratto responded: 'Those rules are set forth in IRS regulations, directed by statute. And the IRS is enforcing the law, and the president believes that the IRS should enforce the law.'"

Fratto does try and back out of the statement by suggesting that he has not spoken with the President about this specific issue, but it is pretty clear that the Administration does not support the First Amendment Right to Free Speech.  If it did, it would condem this law and seek to change it through Congress.

The Administration's silence speaks volumes.

The Senate passed earlier today their version of the Bail-out bill that failed in the House.  According to the AP, both Senators McCain and Obama voted for a bail-out that also included $110 billion in tax breaks and an increase in the FDIC cap to $250,000.

This bill is bad for the country on many levels, but I'll focus on two.  First, this bill runs counter to the Constitutional mandate of the Senate.  the Public monies, and the $700 billion is just that, were never intended for use to save individuals or institutions from the consequences of their own bad choices.

Second, what right does Congress, the President, or future Presidents have to push this kind of debt upon future generations just to save the country from the pain of greed and a few political points scored just before an election?  None.  The Government wants to buy at least $700 billion worth of bad paper to save banks and mortgage owners from their bad choices and then simply throw that debt to the next generation.  what happens to the bad mortgages the Government now owns?  Do they get written off, compounding the problem? Does the Government decide after the mortgage owners, who still can't afford their mortgages, still can't pay to sell the homes it bought out from under them to other individuals or institutions?  Or does all this bad paper get sold to another institution and the whole problem recycled again?  Which ever of these questions gets answered in the affirmative will mean that the pain of this crisis will simply simmer longer until it can no longer get ignored and becomes a full blown depression.  Remember that it was the constant tinkering of the Government under FDR that prolonged the Great Depression for nearly 10 years!

If you think that the Government won't tinker this time, remember that both Presidential candidates voted for the Senate bill and approved of the bail out that the Treasury wanted in the first place.  It does not matter whether McCain or Obama is elected, they will both try as many schemes as possible to appear to be fixing this issue, all the while making it worse.

What is the solution?  Education.  Education on what the Democrats and Republicans believe in as parties and what the Constitution really means.  The Constitution dictated to the Federal Government where it was allowed to operate and where it was forbidden.  For the last nearly 100 years the Federal Government has been allowed to operate where it was forbidden.  "We the People" need to rise up and cast off all those elected and unelected officials in Washington and only support those who understand that the Constitution is the absolute limit on Federal Power, and them enact laws that support that end.  If there are no Democrats or Republicans that support the Constitution, then we need to look to other parties for those candidates.

There will be a tough road ahead no matter what Congress does, but if Congress writes bad laws and the President signs them, that tough road will be longer.  Congress needs to move to repeal the Community Reinvestment Act, and the Sarbanes Oxley Act, which will put responsibility back into mortgage lending in this country.  This is the real work Congress can do to save the economy.

Was reading the transcript from the Presidential Debate, and I was wondering: what responsibility does the Federal Government have towards the current economic crisis in this country?  Should the Congress enact laws to bail out those banks that issued bad mortgages?  Should the Congress enact laws to save those home owners that entered into mortgages that were and are beyond their means?

The answer to the latter questions is simple:  No.  The first question will be harder to answer, because on the surface, the answer should be none.  But in reality, it has total responsibility for the crisis.

The responsibility to this issue points to the Community Reinvestment Act, signed into law by Pres. Clinton.  The crux of the Law allowed for banks to write loans to those who did not have the means to get a loan, so as to have a more balanced demographic in their portfolios.  In other words, banks had to have loan portfolios that were reflective of the local demographics of minorities.  This meant giving loans to percentages of minorities, even if they could not afford the loan.  This was compounded by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack forcing banks' hands by stating they would not buy loans from them if their portfolios were not diverse.

Everyone is wondering what the Government should do to fix this situation.  The answer, get laws like this off the books.  Nothing else.

This sounds cold on the surface because their are people in this country who will loose their homes over this issue.  Sad as that may be, which is worse, letting banks and home owners suffer the consequences of their bad choices, or making the rest of us suffer for their bad choices?

The bailout that is being debated in Congress is currently valued at $700 billion.  Where is that money coming from? Our taxes.  Any Congressional help would compound the problem that it is attempting to fix.

Of all the times to have a "do nothing" Congress, now is the time!  I fear that both Parties and their Candidates for President are busy trying to score points with the American people on how they 'helped solve this crisis.'  This is not what we need in our elected officials.  I encourage everyone to tell Congress to not react to this crisis, but help solve it by turning back the legislation that caused it in the first place.

Welcome to the Title of Liberty!  This Blog is dedicated to discussing Constitutional theory and principle and how they apply to current events and politics.

For full disclosure, I am a member of the Constitution Party.  Beyond that, Party will not be discussed above whether or not a particular belief is Constitutional or not.  No Party Apologetics here.  Links to the platforms for all parties so that the reader can make an informed decision.

So welcome!