As we dig deeper into the governments' suspicions of American citizens, we see the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) was not the only body looking askance at our everyday activities. We see another coming from the cradle of our liberty, Virginia! In a manual titled “Terrorism & Security Awareness Orientation for State Employees” the public servants were told that along with racist and hate groups, psychopated animal rights advocates and street gangs they should be watchful of people who stood up for property rights and religious extremists. No made mention of Islamofascists... just religions in general. I guess they thought, or hoped others would think, that followers of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson were just as likely to kill their neighbors in large numbers as those trained in Al Qaeda camps in the mountains of Afghanistan.

In a further indication that they are grasping at straws and don't really know how to identify the bad guys, state employees were told to watch for people carrying such dangerous weapons as: cameras, small tape recorders, maps, notebooks, SCUBA gear and disguises. Now, other than the disguises, it sounds like many of us going on vacation. Anyone who as been to the capitol that Mr. Jefferson designed in Richmond or any of the other historic buildings and monuments knows that some of these things are almost obligatory for tourists walking the city streets. Then they have the gall to watch for groups that want to “influence government or social policy”... as if anyone of would want to do that. Oh yes, that's what political parties, corporations and public service groups do all the time.

Back in the days of the Clinton Administration, the Phoenix office of the FBI issued a flier called “Freedom in the 21st Century” which told police to watch for such depravity as defending our constitution against the US government and the UN or not being particularly social.

In fairness to law enforcement, there is usually a pattern of behavior that accompanies criminal or terrorist actions. The only problem is that effective terrorists blend into their surroundings and usually don't call attention to themselves by open opposition to the system.

It appears that we have those in government grouping citizens just looking to be left alone with those who want to destroy our country. Stopping terrorists is their job... protecting themselves against the people they hurt is something they do for survival. Rather than look into why people are upset, they are looking to keep an eye on those who protest. It is odd that when the hated George Bush was in office, dissent was patriotic, now it is suspect. We have a government that is in self preservation mode because they realize people are waking up to the disappearance of our God given rights and our country.

The point of all this is that we are moving further from the freedom and greatness that our country once was. People don't trust the government, the government doesn't trust the people. As Christians, we have been told to "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." and most of us try to do this. However, because our primary loyalties are to our God, rather than Washington, we are looked on with suspicion. Is it possible for any of us find ourselves in the position of Danial, or Shadrach, Meshach and Abedego as the increasingly secular government makes more and more demands for our resources and our loyalty?

We are living in interesting times... and where does it say we are exempt from struggles and hardships just because we are Americans? Consider the colonial soldiers who spent the brutal winter of 1777-78 at Valley Forge with General Washington. They lacked adequate food, clothing and shelter... most of us haven't begun to be worthy of their sacrifice.

Need I remind anyone of the price the signers of the Declaration of Independence paid to give us the freedoms we see evaporating day after day? Some died, some lost loved ones, many were bankrupted. There is a price for standing up for what is right. Thomas Jefferson once said "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God" Let's hope we do not find ourselves in this position... but we need to be prepared if we do.

One of our great historical icons has now become a badge of dishonor to the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC). The flag created by Colonel Christopher Gadsden and used by the colonists prior to the adoption of the stars and stripes is now considered to be a sign of a possible domestic terrorist. Never mind that many naval personnel have such a sticker on their cars. It is also revered by many who have an appreciation for American history.

MIAC compiled the report to help law enforcement personnel identify persons who may need watching to protect their citizens from terror attacks. They have decided the modern militia movement is sufficient threat to distract police and investigators from following up on those who have sworn to destroy our country.

Who else is considered troublesome? People who voted for or promoted third party candidates like Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin or Bob Barr. People who are standing up against illegal immigration or may be supportive of our constitution. People who are concerned about the federal reserve system. People who are looking to keep their guns in the face of potential federal moves to restrict second amendment freedoms.

If any of these fit you, it's time to be concerned. Missouri is middle America... not Governor Schwarzenegger's land of fruits, nuts and flakes. Sure we have crazies running around, but the inability to draw a more precise picture shows perhaps the internalized prejudices of the group or a complete misunderstanding of our American heritage, culture and values.

Even if those concerns are not your hot button issues, but you have the audacity to believe we should not condone the killing of babies or even if you just take your relationship with God seriously with something as innocuous as the “My Boss Is A Jewish Carpenter” bumper sticker, you could be in the governments cross hairs. They can't seem to distinguish between the white supremacist Christian Identity movement which raises some legitimate concerns and the prayer warriors at your local church.

The primary things we Christians need to take away from this report is that not only are we not understood by the people now in charge of our society, but in some quarters there is actual hostility and a desire to make Christians look as bad as AIG executives. So... do we pull back, hide and keep our mouths shut as some would like? What would be the result of this cowardly posture? For one thing, we would not be doing our job of being salt and light in a world full of darkness. Then, even more important, many others would live life without the witness to the truth that could change them forever.

There are already rumblings that the charitable tax deduction may be going away and federal funding for anything remotely connected with God is quickly drying up. Our environment is quickly changing. We have decisions to make. So back to the question, do we pull back, hide and keep our mouths shut or do we continue doing what we know is right? These times appear to be requiring focus and courage. The people in Washington and our state capitols would like us to quietly fade into the background. Will we?

Even though we have no intention of blowing up buildings or poisoning water supplies – and the left knows it, dedicated Christians, even law abiding one, do pose a threat because our loyalties lie far from the oval office... no matter who sits in it. Just as Detrick Bonhoeffer spoke the truth in Nazi Germany, we too are called to speak the truth today. We need to be prepared for the time when all or part of Christian teaching may be officially condemned. This may seem far fetched, but just over our northern border, Canadian pastors have been charged with hate crimes for preaching that homosexuality is a sin. Now is the time to decide our course of action and not wait until opposition materializes.

We need to look back into the history that many would love to have us forget and hear the words of Patrick Henry when people tried to shout him down with cries of “Treason”. He responded with “If this be treason, make the most of it!” What will our answer be?

The government giveth and the government taketh away. That seems to be lesson we can take away from the recent events in Washington. The good congressmen and senators, eyes bloodshot with rage promised the American taxpayer that the outrage of AIG taking money from the government (read taxpayer), then giving millions of it out to their employees in the form of bonuses would not be allowed to continue.

We were told that these were retention bonuses that would keep these high performing employees on the job. These are the same high performing employees that produced the massive profits that led the company to come back to the taxpayers time after time – promising each time would be the last.

After nearly bursting a blood vessel and almost falling into an apoplectic seizure, Senator Dodd came back the next day and admitted that he had actually inserted a provision in the porkulus bill that specifically permitted these employees to receive the bonuses. So much for the claim of surprise! The man should get an Oscar for his manufactured rage as it's difficult to be sincerely angry with someone for doing what you said was permissible. After more prodding the good Senator also remembered that that he had inserted the provision at the request of the Obama administration through the Treasury Secretary's office.

So we have the public and much of our government going into a hissy fit over one more action of our new president. How did this come about? Are the people in the White House so inept or confused that one hand does not know what the other hand is doing? That would be the easy ,but not very comforting, answer. The answer could be more sinister. Could it be one more distraction to keep us from noticing the really damaging behavior of the Obama administration... kind of like the fuss about Rush Limbaugh.

Could it be that the millions of dollars flushed down the drain in AIG bonuses were just a smoke screen to hide the billions of dollars AIG funneled to foreign banks? I have to wonder why this does not make the lawmakers at least as angry. I would think that seeing all those taxpayer dollars flowing overseas doing nothing toward the proclaimed purpose of making credit available to US businesses would make loyal officials go through the roof. This money isn't doing a whole lot to help people facing foreclosure on their homes either. All it has done is help a multi-national corporation get its books in looking a little better, and for all we know, making massive bonuses possible to foreigners in Dubai?

I'm having trouble deciding what message is actually coming out of Washington. Are the banks that valuable that we have to spare no expense to save them, yet the people running them so morally crippled with greed that they cannot be trusted to handle our money? The conspiracy theorist in me sees in this action an attempt to shore up the institution of banking while removing the bankers. To what effect? Possibly big government sympathizers whose loyalties lie with the Obama administration rather than with the shareholders and depositors. I don't know... just a thought. But the way they have been demonized by the press and congress... even the President, I am concerned that these evil financial wizards are about to be marched off to an encampment next to Joe Arpaio's desert prison.

More likely this is just a bunch of political types, not smart enough to come up with the more involved plan, looking for cover when a payback for huge political contributions to Sen. Dodd, the President and many others is exposed. It may be that seeing the light in the distance from the torch and pitchfork brigade of outraged citizens made them turn on the people who helped get them elected.

One almost has to feel sorry for the executives at AIG who thought their contributions to the Democrats bought them immunity from common sense business practices... particularly when the actions of Dodd and Geithner specifically paved the way for them to receive their rewards. Unfortunately for the execs, they found out you can't make deals with the devil. Those giving to and voting for hope and change apparently did not get the change they hoped for.

Perhaps a lesson can be found here for many in the business community that looking to curry favor with those who don't understand and value what you do and who are basically looking for sources of revenue to fund their grand social schemes, may make you the next village getting looted in the pursuit of their impossible, and I might add, immoral, dream.

This brings us back to looking at politics and government in a radical new way: looking for what is good for the entire country full of people rather than what I think will benefit me. Sure this means that you won't get any special advantage or be supplied by the work of someone else... it also means it won't blow up in your face and you won't be publicly pilloried and threatened. You may not get quite the financial reward, but then you may well have a strengthened customer base... and that's not all bad. As Rick Warren would say, “It's not about you.”

In 1966, while running for Governor in California, Ronald Reagan's formulated what has come to be known as the Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican." This was in response to the trash talk about conservative 1964 presidential candidate Barry Goldwater by so-called moderate Republicans. In general is was a pretty useful and workable rule at the time.

However today it seems to only work in one direction as we have seen in the uncivil treatment received by Ron Paul and others at the conservative/libertarian end of the spectrum. While conservatives have gotten used to the being ostracized and having lies and half truths told about them, the more moderate members of the party seem to have much thinner skin.

We are told we should not be criticizing Republicans who are throwing conservative principles under the bus as the country plunges downward in an economic tailspin. While party members are squelched when bringing this up, polls show more anger among conservatives at the Republicans than Democrats. This should be cause for concern by those counting on this voting block.

The practice of catering to incumbents, despite a lack of adherence to generally accepted, smaller, less intrusive government thinking has led the party to silently take the poison pill of semi-Democrat influence in the leadership positions. Yet no one is supposed to speak up.

We saw this in action when President Bush supported Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter during his last primary fight against a conservative Pat Toomey. It was explained that we are better off with a “moderate” Republican who can win than with a real Republican who may not. While credit must be given for Senator Specter's support during the Clarence Thomas hearings, it could be argued that over the course his career, he has done as much damage to our country as many liberals in the Senate.

Part of the problem comes from the uneasy alliance between many of the professionals for whom the political game is a vocation devoid principled involvement and many in the grassroots who are motivated by causes and issues the other half can not comprehend. The “values voters”, as they are sometimes called, have this nasty habit of wanting candidates to stand for something other than just wearing the right jersey when trotting out onto the playing field.

This is an ongoing battle in which the professionals expect the values voters to stick with and work for the Republican Party as it is the only one that even gives lip service to their issues. Conservative candidates are labeled as “extreme” which really means they are more passionate some issue than the poll driven “moderates”. It means, also, that by invoking the eleventh commandment, the true believers are forbidden to point out the squishiness and wayward behavior of the traditional party leadership and office holders.

The last two national election cycles have shown that the public is catching on to this Democrat-lite in Republican clothing practice. Yet many of the political class continue to tell us that we should not stand so strongly on principle and be a little more amenable to the ideas of the left. They think this is where the people are going and the party must adapt.

There is only one word to describe this thinking: Wrong! It means that we who believe in values such as life, personal responsibility and the like need to be more vocal. We need to hold leaders to their promises and, if they don't perform, replace them! It's time to remember that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. We can no longer accept being used and abused by political leaders who covet our votes but not our input.

Some will say that life would be even worse with people who don't even give the time of day to pro-life activists, second amendment defenders or property rights advocates. I would ask them, how much worse could it be than the situation we have now with an almost non-functional minority in both houses in Washington? The liberal/progressive left is poised to run roughshod over any semblance of common sense. Yet we are being told by many, that politically, we need to do more of the same that put us in this position.

It's time for those of us who value the promise of America and the values on which it was founded to reject the efforts of those who would silence us. It's time to move forward on what we know to be right rather than what we are told is expedient. It's time to consider what Charles Stanley's grandfather taught him, “obey God and leave all the consequences to Him.” We've tried everything else, now it's time we use right and wrong as our standard of involvement and support rather than practical expediency.

I was driving south on Rt. 50 and just crossed the Bay Bridge near Annapolis heading toward Washington. I was in a column of cars traveling in the left lane at speeds emphatically discouraged by the Peoples Republic of Maryland when this little foreign car slid over in front of me, but wouldn't or couldn't keep the pace. At this point I noticed a blue Obama 08 sticker placed prominently in the rear window. It just sat there, like one of Bill Engvall's signs flashing “I'm stupid... I'm stupid... I'm stupid”.

Still following the tortoise, but slightly less aggravated as I understood that he wasn't responsible, and he probably had no idea he was gumming up the works for me and everyone behind me... or perhaps he just didn't care. I studied the driver for a few minutes, noticing that he was an older gentleman. Old enough to have gone through the public schools before many turned into secular humanist indoctrination centers. I wondered just where he went wrong.

Eventually he moved over to the center lane and I forgot about his reasons... nothing I could do about it anyway. It did get me thinking about all the old bumper stickers I see as I travel up and down the east coast. I wonder if they are left in place to gloat, prove a point, or if the driver is just to lazy to remove them. Win or loose, I tend to take mine off the morning after the election.... sometimes even election night. At times this is a matter or practicality as my home state of Virginia has elections every year - so the old ones need to make way for the new ones on a fairly tight cycle.

In any case, after the last vote is cast, the sticker loses it's value and just serves to annoy those who voted the other way. I must confess that after the 2004 I left mine on an extra month or two. My motives, I have to say, were not entirely pure. As I drove to my office many mornings in October, an older gentleman made part of the same run at the same time. He made a variety of gestures at me that weren't exactly complimentary. I just smiled and waved. Besides those W04 stickers were some of the best ever designed.

With the current mood of our country, depending on where you travel, it can be an open invitation to have your car vandalized. Recently I was tempted to put a sticker on that said “If Obama is your answer, you asked a stupid question”. However because I did not want to buy new tires, a new windshield, or a new paint job, I decided not to display my opinion.

Then I got to thinking about the message we convey with some of our bumper stickers. Supporting a candidate or issue should always be encouraged. On the other hand, attacking the people who vote for a candidate is not usually the best way to get through to them. If your candidate won, hopefully the supporters of the other fellow will see that your guy was the right choice by his actions. On the other hand, if their guy won... they will soon enough see the error of their ways. It's sort of like the idea you catch more flies with honey...

I'm not one that says we should all just pull together behind the winner and support all his actions and goals, but we may not have to be in each other face constantly. We must continue to pursue what we see as right, but we don't necessarily have to carry things at the personal level we see on some stickers. It may make us feel better, but doesn't go very far in convincing others.

Once our candidate is no longer running, the real estate on our vehicles would probably be better used promoting important issues where we may get agreement when separated from a party or candidate. Ideas such as “Secure the Borders” or “I Support Women: Born and Unborn” may get us further than banners that make people wonder if we don't know the election is over.

That said, this is still the USA, and for the time being at least, you have the right to express your opinion. It's your car, truck or SUV, with a few caveats, feel free to let the world know where you stand... even if it just says “I Like Knitting”.

The initial Paulson/Bernanke/Bush, bailout plan was to get the toxic “assets” off lenders books so they could begin lending again. They came to the conclusion that accounting rules and lack of liquid assets had caused the credit market to “seize up” as they described it... much like your car's engine would do if deprived of sufficient lubrication. That was the original plan, but it quickly changed to infusing billions of dollars into ailing financial institutions, trusting the management to use it in ways to actually help the economy. We've all seen how well that worked.

The accounting rule most reviled by the banks was the “mark to market” rule which required them to carry assets on their books at values they could reasonably expect to sell them for on the open market. That never seemed to be too unreasonable a procedure. That alternative would be keeping values on the books that were greatly inflated beyond any thing they could actually be sold for. For example, why should a five million dollar building be shown on the books for ten million dollars when no one could realistically be expected to buy it at that price? In most other contexts, that would come pretty close to something called fraud. Of course write downs like had a negative impact on the corporate statements. It was, however, a more accurate picture than retaining the higher value and hoping it would, one day, return.

The other rule hurting banks involved reserve requirements for non-performing loans. When a loan, whether a car payment or mortgage is paid on time every one is happy. When the borrower stops paying in timely manner and slips further and further in arrears, the loan is listed as non-performing and the bank needs to keep reserves to cover the situation. This is why lenders will sometimes give substantial discounts to buyers who will take such properties off their books. Considering the costs involved in foreclosures and the release of reserves for other uses, these transactions often turn out to be a win for every one involved. The bank gets a toxic “asset” off the books, the buyer gets a good deal and the borrower is relieved of a debt he can't pay.

Some are quick to lay this situation completely on the irresponsibility of the home owner, assuming they lied on the application forms and did not pay attention when the adjustment feature of the loan was discussed. There is much truth to this argument, however this does not tell the whole story. Larger economic factors also came into play for many... such as jobs lost to overseas or imported workers or a general downturn in economic activity.

As an example, construction workers were badly hit by this double whammy. First many found formerly high paying jobs going to lower priced workers coming in from our southern border... both legal and illegal. Locally I never could get the local home builders representative to go on record that there were no illegal aliens working on job sites. I was referred to with a variety of terms, few complementary, but never was I given the answer I asked for. The workers plight was then compounded by the drop off in home construction.

Often borrowers would be presented a loan package with low introductory interest rates that came about by Federal Reserve market manipulation with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac adding encouragement. It was explained to them that loans were easy to get and there was no reason to pay the higher fixed interest rates. Some were even offered rates that resulted in negative amortization – that is, the payments did not even cover the interest being charged and at then end of each of the first several years, they owed more than they did at the beginning. But then who cared, real estate was guaranteed to go up, wasn't it? They were promised that several years down the road, if they kept up the payments, they could easily refinance to another low rate. The lenders were not lying to them. Under the old rules, this was true. However, as more loans went into default, the accounting rules and federal financial regulations mentioned above began putting lenders into a bind and the rules of the lending game changed.

Even for those who paid on time, refinancing was no longer an option unless they were gold plated and had a stratospheric FICO score. The pendulum had swung back in the direction of sanity, but too far to keep home sales at anywhere near normal levels. Lenders were tasting the bitter fruit of their lending excesses inspired by the low interest, free flowing money supply, government encouragement and intimidation (read regulation meant to open home ownership to people who could not afford it) combined with a bit of their own greed. The whole situation was compounded by the practice of selling off the loans almost before the ink was dry on the closing forms. This appears to be a critical but often missed link in the chain of failure. It meant that for all the hoops the loan underwriters made the borrowers jump through, the lender had no responsibility for collecting the loan... and they really didn't care. Broker commissions were paid, profits were taken and the risk was passed on to other unsuspecting banks or investors.

So now, by injecting new cash into a banking and economic system, our government is expecting restore the credit market and pump up real estate prices. Let's think about this a little. In spite of the lessons many of us have learned personally, we are now expected to set the acquired wisdom aside and blindly resume borrowing and spending. Washington is setting the example for us. Ironically, the fact that we have to pay for their example may preclude us from following it ourselves. The fact is that, with the economic downturn, many are in trouble personally precisely because they followed this path to financial disaster. Washington wants the banks to loan out the dollars so we can resume our rush to financial destruction. How kind of them.

As far as real estate prices, many have been saying for years that they are well above any relationship to reality and could not be sustained. Homes got to their astronomical values as a result of the Federal Reserves free flowing money and artificially low interest rates. This made it easier for more and more people to enter the home buying market. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics, which apparently excludes many inside the beltway, can tell you that increased demand without increased supply will drive prices up, up and away. What we are seeing now is a reduction in demand because many cannot get the money to buy a home. What happens next, and again, it only takes an elementary understanding of economics to comprehend, is that prices will come down as more homes are available than are needed to meet the demand.

So our Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve Chairman, along with a host of congressional types and White House staffers are feverously working to find a way of defying the financial gravity acting on home prices with some sort of scheme to retain the inflated prices in spite of a diminished market. Despite the obvious political implications of facing a public whose home values have dropped in recent years, there is the consideration of retaining bank assets at values that keep shareholders happy and CEOs in their jobs.

It appears that in spite of the deflationary pressures on the housing market, home owners are expected to eat the losses, but for all their involvement in its creation, banks want to limit theirs. Writing down loans to actual values, will, long term, establish an equilibrium that will permit us all to move forward. It is not a good plan, but the President is calling for shared responsibility and sacrifice, maybe it's the best plan we can come up with. If the banks foreclose, all they will get is the reduced value anyway, and then, only a portion of it. The borrower should not have taken the loan in some cases... but then the banks should not have made the loans in many of those same cases.

It would be best for everyone to get together and work out agreements based on their situations – without government involvement! They helped get us into the mess, it would be foolish of us to expect their wisdom to get us out.

As far as getting back to borrowing and buying, perhaps we should put that on hold for a while. That's what got us here. We should be thankful it wasn't worse... then not go out and do it again.

This morning I watched the news as three urban mayors sat grinning and licking their chops at the thought of even more federal dollars coming their way. The more I listen to the explanations of the various bundles of cash flowing out of Washington, the more I understand that another direction of the income redistribution is from rural to urban areas, from primarily red areas to primarily blue areas.

This should come as no surprise as the Democrats have a long and proud history of favoring their constituents. Their schemes may not lift the poor out of poverty, but they give them occasional goodies and the occasional satisfaction that those who are better off would now be less better off and experiencing some pain as well. It's payoff time in the cities. Besides, if they ever did resolve the problem of poverty, they understand that people no longer looking for a handout gravitate to the other party.

The inequity of distribution is aggravated by the fact that these cities tend to be the least efficient and most corrupt governments in the country. There is even talk about the cities getting the funds directly from Washington and not having to submit to the adult supervision of state governments.

Where is this money going? Part of it is going to maintain bloated city budgets and retention of the overpopulation of municipal workers. Union workers, I might add... dare we say more of the money flowing to Obama supporters. Another part of it is going to build infrastructure and amenities for city dwellers.

This needs to be viewed in the light of the bigger picture and makes one wonder about the overall goals and a possibly hidden agenda from the administration. Let's take a look at several pearls of Washington wisdom.

First we see this rerouting of cash to urban centers... never mind that most city governments are incapable of using it wisely. This will go for increased services and amenities. City dwellers tend to be renters as opposed to home owners. Beyond this, we see the beginning of the reduction of the home mortgage interest deduction. It is difficult to believe that this is the end as the current administration appears to have an insatiable appetite for money to pay for it's excesses.

So we see taxpayer dollars spent to make city life more tolerable and home ownership less desirable. It has long been the goal of the dirt loving tree huggers to stop suburban sprawl and move people back to the cities where we can all enjoy the wonders of public transportation and live stacked to the sky in high rise apartment buildings. When we combine this activity with other legislation coming down the pike such as cap and trade with will push energy prices, including gas, higher and higher. Then, there is even talk about adding to the tax on every gallon of gasoline.

One has to wonder if we are not witnessing the execution of the radical environmentalist agenda. Each of the elements is wrong in and of itself, but when combined, promise even further negative changes in our society. City dwellers tend to be inherently more dependent on government services and less capable of taking care of themselves. They tend to be more narcissistic and disconnected as opposed to suburban and rural residents and these changes to not bode well for our country.

Sometimes it's a good idea to stifle the outrage at each individual assault on our liberty and freedom of choice while we step back and look at the bigger picture. Each nibble at our ability to live the American dream when combined with all the others can take an even bigger bite out of what we each thought was our future. It's called synergy in action.

AIG, we are told is too big to fail. Same with General Motors and a host of other corporations run by, at best, semi-competent but connected executives. They employ many but control boatloads of assets. Unfortunately not enough assets as they found themselves owing more than they could pay. The courts have a way to deal with these situations. It's called bankruptcy. For you and me this is the way to resolve these negative situations.

These rules are for the little people. If you are big enough, rich enough or contribute enough, they somehow don't apply. Your friends in government will be happy to take taxpayer money and give it to you. This has happened before and will happen again, and again, and again!

To keep up with this high end charity, our government goes deeper and deeper in debt. Our government is running up debts that are getting very close to exceeding it's ability to pay. What happens when our government finds itself in this position? Is it too big to fail? Who will bail it out? Will they turn to us, the taxpayers as an unlimited source of funding once the rest of the world, which is running out of money itself at a breakneck pace, stops buying our paper?

The federal government is big. It's ambitions are big... bigger than it or we can pay for. It is bigger than any of the corporations it tells us are too big to fail. Yet, what will happen when our government can't pay it's bills? Will it begin sending out IOUs al a California? Will it take more and more of our privately held assets to feed it's voracious appetite? Is there anyone in Washington who knows what they are doing?

Despite all the propaganda, presidential speeches and friendly news reports to the contrary, one simple truth remains... no one is too big to fail... not AIG, not the federal government!