Home > Blogs > Dennis Herman > Ez1 Realty Blog

Question about the Government Owning Banks

By Dennis Herman

Real Estate Broker/Owner with Crossroads Real Estate LLC

October 14, 2008 02:58 PM

Why do politicians claim that if they get involved in the health care system in any way, shape or form, it would be the first step to socialism. But these same politicians are now telling us they want the government to have controlling interests in major backs? Owning a controlling interest in banks is not a step to socialism it is socialism or worse. In his first act in developing a socialist government Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez seized the banks. This has always been mandatory in every socialist government from the USSR to China, North Korea and Nazi Germany.

The federal government already taken control away from the states and has exercised control of the entire education system with the no child left behind act. Another feature of a socialist government.

The federal government has given total control to the Secretary of Defense to identify, arrest, try, convict and execute any person he terms as a lawful combatant. I am not a big fan of the ACLU but their site does supply a warning that is becoming more apparent with each passing day.

"Habeas corpus isn't a fancy legal term. It's the freedom from being thrown in prison illegally, with no help and no end in sight. No president should ever be given the power to call someone an enemy, wave his hand, and lock them away indefinitely. The Founders made the president subject to the rule of law. They rejected dungeons and chose due process. We all know the difference between fairness and persecution. If we do not act immediately to fix the Military Commissions Act and restore our constitutional rights, basic protections like habeas corpus could be lost forever, and our country would become unrecognizable. What's wrong with the Military Commissions Act:

* UNDERMINES THE CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW * MAKES THE PRESIDENT BOTH JUDGE AND JURY * REJECTS CORE AMERICAN VALUES"

Http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/commissions.html

Just where are we headed with all of these changes? A safer America? Is it safe to wonder this far from the constitution?

Re-Blog

Comments(4)

Comment

Show All Comments

Sort:

Michael Merino

Merino's Home Inspection & Education Inc. - Oak Forest, IL

Orland Park Ill Home Inspector

I have to disagree. When it come to prisoners of war, terrorists, enemy combatants, our rule of law does not apply. These people have not committed a robbery, they have committed an act of war. That makes it a whole new and different ballgame with very different rules. Our justice system is not set up to handle these types of cases and does not have the expertise for military law. Military commissions are set up for these cases and have expertise in military law.

Why should someone who is not a citizen of the USA, and has attacked, planned to attack, or threaten to attack Americans or any of our troops, have the same rights as you or me?

If we capture a terrorist, let's say he helped plan the 9-11 attack. And he was captured on the battlefield armed and trying to kill our troops. Should he be read his rights? I think not. It was not done in any war we have ever been involved in; and this is no different.

As for the ACLU, if they have their way, no one will ever be arrested.

As for "wandering this far from the constitution". What makes the constitution great is not just what is written within the document, but that we have the ability to change the constitution. We can change the rules, for lack of a better word, and if we decide that the change was a mistake, we can change it again, until we get it right.

What about the rights of the victims of these terrorists? Did the terrorists hold a trial and allow the victims to defend themselves, or did the terrorists act as judge and jury?

Oct 14, 2008 03:19 PM

Shane OnullGorman

Eau Claire Realty, Inc. - Eau Claire, WI

Eau Claire Wisconsin, Real Estate Agent & Realtor- Buy or Sell

Well you named off a bunch of "socialist" dictatorships which are always mentioned and left out any actual socialist models. How about sweden for example? Canada has wonderful socialized medicine. Also no child left behind is detested by everyone on the left trust me.

Oct 14, 2008 03:54 PM

Canada has a terrible health care system, I am a former health care worker in the USA. my wife is a current health care worker.

As a matter of fact, Canadian politicians have been discussing abandoning socialized medicine for the US system. In Canada it takes 8 months to have a gall bladder removed, a year for hip replacement, and so on.

Oct 14, 2008 04:06 PM

Anonymous

kate

In respnse to the first comment: Enemy combatants are still humans. Changing the constitution and suspending habeus corpus wouldn't be exclusively applied to terrorists. It would basically give the government license to come into your home and lock you up indefinitely, and there would be no end in sight. As long as it would benefit someone for calling you a terrorist. That the US has the power to do that is terrifying, and comparisons can be drawn to every totalitarian/socialist/dictatorship in history. Even though they may be militant enemies of the US, many of the cases being examined from the current prison camps are showing that some are not. The power to make the constitution more restrictive and punishment oriented? No thank you. Maybe he doesn't have any rights as an American citizen, but under the international Human Rights Agreement he has plenty.

In regards to the government being shareholders in banks, yes, that sounds pretty socialist. But socialism has a huge stigma attatched to it, especially in America. I feel like we're heading more towards totalitarianism than socialism. Maybe state socialism.

I think its a bad idea, socialism or not. If the government wants to remain a capitalist one, they shouldn't be rescuing businesses, period. All the recent bailouts are the most hyppocritical actions I've seen in regards to a "free market" economy. Maybe a second great depression would be good for the country. Individually, it would hurt. But in the long run, I feel like some of these financial institutions need a hard slap in the face to remind them they need to be responsible for themselves, and that they will be held accountable for their actions.

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither the liberty nor the security" ~Benjamin Franklin.

Nov 23, 2008 09:13 AM

Question about the Government Owning Banks

Comments(4)

Dennis Herman

Real Estate Resources

Recent Posts

Additional Information