© 2026 Thomas Paul Murphy
I created this Newspaper to put forth a much needed point of view. I have talked to many who have worked for Milwaukee's dominant news source on the side, and they have even expressed interest in my point of view. The Pulitzer prize was founded after Pulitzer because he created a newspaper that exposed great wrongdoings. He went against the other established Newspapers with his Newspaper that exposed corruption. His newspaper became number one. World News Starts Here!
Saturday, October 3, 2026
Friday, October 2, 2026
Thursday, October 1, 2026
Wednesday, September 30, 2026
To Come From a Place 09 30 2026
"To come from a place whereby anybody that corrects a dumb girl is going to be getting into a fight."
© 2026 Thomas Paul Murphy
Talk 09 30 2026
Someone who speaks in long drawn out sentences in order to evade the condensed meaning of what they are saying.
And it isn't like you can't keep up. But that you need to moment to condense what they said to the condensate of what it is.
And on the flipside in order to make an emotional point and not be blunt and offensive we often have to drawn out the connections of our thoughts.
But that isn't what I am talking about. I am talking about money!
And some of us like to speak at length in order to provide details to people and give them a better understanding.
And some people that don't want to listen don't want that better understanding. For a better understanding contradicts where they view themselves in the human hierarchy.
© 2026 Thomas Paul Murphy
Voting Rights 09 30 2026
Voting Rights:
So there was a story in the news about college hazing. Young men were in their underwear in the basement of a building and had food smeared on them. But the heat was turned up. And I ask myself. That fraternity must have some pull at the university or employment market? In effect those recruits believe that if they are one of them they have absolutely nothing to worry about in life.
So it was indeed Donald Trump who allowed the satanism to be classified as a religion in 2019. Did he believe that he was on his way out of office for good and wanted to give the devil what it wanted? Why do I mention that? Because that hazing activity looks like a satanic religion to me. Could fraternities be classified as Satanic Religions? Well Donald Trump helped the satanists out didn't he. No matter what religious belief you have about abortion or Muslim's; you don't need to ask yourself who is who anymore than what it means to allow satanism to qualify as a religion.
Should satanist be allowed full voting rights? I would say three fifths of a voting right. I would sober up that Republican Party very quickly.
Should someone that hoards money as a billionaire be allowed to vote? Three fifths voting rights.
Should someone who works or owns a tobacco company be allowed to vote? Three fifths voting rights!
What about a man who watches your son grow up day to day. And when your son turns eighteen that man asks your son out on a date date? Three fifths voting rights for all types of that.
Should a distillery or winery or brewery owner be allowed to vote? Three fifths voting rights.
A known member of gang or a pedophile released from prison, no more than three fifths of a right to vote.
A convicted pimp or drug dealer freed? Three fifths of a right to vote at best.
Somebody who looks and thinks like his or her mom drank three fifths of a bottle of whiskey while pregnant; never more than three fifths of a right to vote.
Somebody who doesn't speak English, speaks terrible English or speaks with a speech defect; three fifths of a right to vote.
A psychiatrist or someone who believes that a person who hears jealous and envious voices is somehow in someway really jealous or envious of themselves? Three fifths voting rights for that entire industry.
Any child who was sent away to a military academy or boarding school because their wealthy parents wanted to live a life free of raising their children? Three fifths voting rights for them!
Why three fifths and not no voting rights at all? We want to encourage people to be the kind of people we want in this country! Give them a goal to achieve!
What about someone on welfare? Someone who doesn't even try to work? Someone that won't smile at a customer because it breaks their delusion of royalty. Someone who can't work with people because they have such an awful personality no one wants to be around them? Three fifths voting rights.
There are people in our country that need to be shamed! They have never been shamed! They have never been stigmatized when they rightfully should have been!
© 2026 Thomas Paul Murphy
Ps. Anyone who believes a Corporation is really a person and has attempted to convince the American Public of that? Three fifths voting rights to them.
If you can't speak English how can you prove that you know what a political candidate speaking in English says and what it means? How can you make a fair and informed vote? No more of this, we vote for who the foreman tells us to!
Tuesday, September 29, 2026
A Coroner 09 29 2026
So you see some advertisements on Facebook whereby someone claims to be a coroner for 30 years. And they tell you what they see inside of a liver. Or other health problem that could have been easily prevented.
So you want to say, I don't know if it is true or not. It likely is true. But if it is true, why isn't that type of information relayed to the Department of Health and Human Services or the Centers for Disease and control? And citizens then told or preventative measures. Or the risks and symptoms. And Doctors given valid diagnostic criteria to use?
They made Health Care a pure business model. Was it Republican Scott Walkers admin that said they do not have to tell a patient what is wrong with them?
******'
And when you think about Donald Trumps admin approving satanism as a religion?
Do you come to the conclusion; these are people who would give the devil absolutely anything that it wanted?
And does that behavior come from not being able to be disciplined so that your behavior was changed as a child? The wording would be, I will just give everybody what they want, no matter the consequences, because I should get what I want to, without having to earn it?
It works both ways? Deregulation means that the person doing the deregulation also doesn't want to have to earn their money? It has to do with a common belief?
© 2026 Thomas Paul Murphy
Monday, September 28, 2026
I don't see how this Supreme Court Decision was Valid 09 28 2026
I think what it did was take a Crucial Constitutional governed idea to be Governed by the Federal Government and dissolved it.
"What law prevented thirty percent interest on credit cards and who nixed it?" Question by Thomas Paul Murphy
No single federal law historically prevented credit card companies from charging 30% interest. Instead, individual state usury laws originally capped consumer loan interest rates (typically between 12% and 18%). [1]
The entity that effectively "nixed" these caps was the U.S. Supreme Court, which completely deregulated credit card interest rates across state lines in a landmark 1978 decision. [1, 2]
How the Interest Caps Were Eliminated
- The Original Rules: For much of the 20th century, if you lived in a state with a strict 12% cap on interest, banks doing business in your state had to abide by that limit. [1]
- The Ruling: In the 1978 case Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp., the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that under the National Bank Act of 1863, a nationally chartered bank is only bound by the usury laws of its home state—not the state where the customer lives. [1, 2]
(That looks contrived to me. As if we are somehow different people across state lines. So nixing that law allowed big banks to expand into other states? And they could charge higher interest in those states because they are not bound by the laws of the states that they are doing business in only their own state law? That is gobbledygook. Because they are a Federally Chartered Bank. I mean I could pick it apart left and right. But on the surface it is just bad. In effect that Supreme Court decision eliminates usury laws.) Why is it wrong? It allows a bank from a different state to do business in your state and undercut or overcut the banks doing business in your state. In effect it allowed a bank in a "foreign" state to not have to abide by banking laws (regarding interest usury laws) in your state and do business there. And that brought up your rate to in that state because your bank in your state realized they could make more money by floating under the interest a bank from another state could charge? Thomas So states are allowed to set their own laws if there is a unique reason to do so? But this to me would seem to be something that should be clear cut and set by the Federal Government for the good of all of us. And Republicans hate that idea. In fact if a Republican has to read instructions in order to do something that is considered to hard work for them to have to do. Things have to be easy for them. They don't consider reading as a manly thing to do. Being affiliated with human traffickers, that is what they consider manly.)
- The Fallout: This allowed credit card companies to relocate their operations to states like South Dakota and Delaware, which completely eliminated their interest rate ceilings to attract banking business. Because banks could now "export" these non-existent caps nationwide, local state usury laws became irrelevant, opening the door for the 20% to 30%+ APRs common today. [1, 2]
Modern Attempts to Cap Rates
When Congress passed major credit card reform via the Credit CARD Act of 2009, lawmakers debated adding a federal interest rate cap. However, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly rejected an amendment that would have capped credit card interest rates at 15%. As a result, the CARD Act protects consumers from arbitrary fee traps and retroactive rate hikes but places no ceiling on how high an interest rate can go. [1, 2, 3]
(Note: If you are looking at international news, the Supreme Court of India nixed a 16-year-old consumer tribunal ruling that explicitly labeled credit card interest rates over 30% as an "unfair trade practice," officially allowing Indian banks to charge beyond that threshold.) [1]
Are you trying to find out if there are any current protections against high interest rates on your specific accounts, or are you researching the history of consumer banking laws?
AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional. Learn more
Marquette Nat. Bank v. First of Omaha Svc. Corp.
what did carter say about this circa 1978
President Jimmy Carter did not actively oppose the 1978 Supreme Court decision. In fact, his administration's broader economic focus was heavily centered on deregulation, and his subsequent legislative actions actually further dismantled remaining state usury caps.
Why Carter Accepted Rate Deregulation
During the late 1970s, the United States was experiencing historic stagflation, with inflation peaking into double digits. Because inflation was so high, traditional banks were losing massive amounts of money. If inflation was at 12% but a state's usury law capped consumer loans at 10%, banks literally could not afford to lend money. [1, 2, 3]
As a result, rather than attempting to reverse the Marquette ruling with federal interest rate caps, Carter and Congress chose to follow its momentum to prevent a total banking collapse. [1, 2]
Carter's Two Major Actions on Credit
Instead of capping interest rates, Carter took two different paths to address the credit landscape during this period:
- He signed a federal override of remaining state usury laws: On March 31, 1980, Carter signed the landmark Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act. While Marquette deregulated national banks, Carter’s new law went a step further by federally exempting state-chartered savings banks, mortgage lenders, and installment lenders from local state usury ceilings as well. This was done to ensure local banks could hike interest rates high enough to keep up with inflation. [1, 2, 3, 4]
- He tried to stop people from using credit cards altogether: In March 1980, as inflation spiraled out of control, Carter invoked the Credit Control Act of 1969. Instead of telling banks they couldn't charge high interest, he famously used a televised address to tell Americans that relying on credit cards was fueling inflation, stating that the nation seemed to have decided it could "beat inflation by borrowing". The Federal Reserve enforced his directive by imposing strict "special deposit" penalties on credit card issuers, which forced banks to temporarily freeze credit limits and aggressively discourage consumer spending. [1, 2, 3]
Ultimately, Carter viewed the elimination of strict interest caps as a necessary economic medicine to keep banks viable during severe inflation, while choosing to use public messaging and temporary credit controls to curb how much debt Americans were accumulating. [1, 2, 3, 4]
**********'
What sunk Jimmy Carter was the high price of Gasoline. How come that in and of itself is not sinking Donald Trump? I guess it has to do with the archetype of a bad person people like to consider as "their favorite?"
© 2026 Thomas Paul Murphy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)