The myth of the moderate DemBy Dick Morris - 11/10/09 05:20 PM ET Don't assume that the 38 Democrats who voted against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) extremist version of healthcare reform wouldn't have supported it if their votes had been needed. The days before the final passage on Saturday were not filled with stirring appeals to get Democrats to back the bill so much as an auction to decide whom to let off the hook. Knowing that the bill will likely be political suicide for any red-state Democratic congressman, particularly if he or she is a freshman, the House leadership had to negotiate with its members to assure that the 38 defectors were the ones who needed the political cover the most. That there would be 38 Democrats who would oppose the bill was pre-ordained. Who they would be was the subject of negotiations right up to the wire. Any real chance that the bill could have been defeated ended with the approval of the anti-abortion amendment. But there remained the question of how to keep the marginal Democrats in Congress and the party in power. The chicanery and deception that led up to the vote underscore the myth of the moderate Democrat. The entire Democratic Caucus - with pitifully few exceptions - was committed to passing the healthcare bill. Had it needed all 258 Democrats to vote yes, the bill would have come awfully close. But the Democratic margin in the House meant that the leaders did not need 258 Democrats, they only needed 219. So they let the most marginal among them off the hook and allowed them to vote against the bill, preserving their chances at reelection. The real question facing the voters is whether they will be deceived by this sleight of hand in which moderate Democrats pretend that the bill was passed over their objections. Will the voters buy their claims that it became law despite their best efforts? Once, the voters might have fallen for this trickery. But not now. The electorate is far too well-informed to believe that any Democratic congressman really opposed this bill. The days of the Democrats who live in red states and who let this bill pass, whether they nominally voted for it or not, are numbered. They could not and would not read the handwriting on the walls of New Jersey and Virginia and are about to suffer the fate of their ancestors in 1994 who disregarded similar warnings. Their political careers are about to come to an end. In the Senate, where 60 votes are needed, there can be no such shell games. All Democrats must report for duty for this bill to pass. So Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) have a serious decision to make. They have no place to hide. And should Harry Reid invoke the reconciliation option, he would face other defections from Democrats who realize that they, too, might one day be in the minority and need the filibuster to maintain their relevance in the future. For now, all Democrats should compare the results in Virginia and New Jersey in 1993 and in 2009. In Virginia, in both years, an incumbent Democrat sat in the statehouse but was not permitted to run again. In both years, the Republican won the governorship by identical 58-41 margins. In New Jersey, in both years, the incumbent Democratic governor sought another term and lost: in 1993 by 49-48 and in 2009 by 49-45. If any Democratic congressman is naïve enough to believe that a debacle in 2010 will not follow the forecasts of 2009 as surely as the deluge of 1994 followed the precursor of 1993, he doesn't deserve to be in Congress. And he won't be.
Categories: Education, Law, Democratic Party, US Constitution, Ethics, Federal Legislation, Current Events, Philosophy, Voting, Economy, Congress Tags: |
No comments yet.
Categories: Foreign Policy, Education, Law, US Constitution, Ethics, History, Current Events, Philosophy, Social Issues, War/Military, World Affairs, Trade Tags: | |||||||||
No comments yet.
This past Saturday the Republican State Central Committee unanimously passed resolutions in opposition of Cap & Trade (HR 2454) and support for the Natural Gas Act of 2009 (HR 1835). Text of each resolution can be found here http://larepublican.blogspot.com/.
Categories: Republican Party, Current Events, Congress Tags: |
No comments yet.
Claiming Almost Everything is "Commerce"
Posted on 20 July 2009
by Rob Natelson How can Congress get around the Tenth Amendment and regulate almost every aspect of American life? One way is by claiming that the Tenth Amendment doesn't apply because Congress is merely acting within the scope of its enumerated powers. But to make this claim, one must assume that some of the enumerated powers are much broader than they really are. One of the enumerated powers cited by advocates of the modern monster-state is the Commerce Power. This derives primarily from two sources: (1) the Constitution's grant to Congress of authority to "regulate Commerce . . . among the several States" and (2) the Constitution's grant to Congress of authority to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers. . ." According to promoters of the monster-state, those constitutional phrases go further than allowing Congress to regulate trade among the states. They also allow Congress to control manufacturing, wages, agriculture, crime, mining, land use, firearm possession, and a range of other activities. How can they justify this? Basically, they make two arguments. The first argument was spun during the New Deal by a University of Chicago law professor. (Too many law professors spend entirely too much time fabricating constitutional theories to promote big government.) This professor argued that during the Founding Era the word "commerce" meant more than trade. Instead, he contended, "commerce" included all gainful economic activities. Hence Congress has a license to regulate the entire economy. An even broader version of this theory was published more recently by a Yale law professor. He maintains that "commerce" means any human interaction - so the federal government can regulate almost anything, so long as it doesn't trample one of the specific guarantees in the Constitution, such as Free Speech. On investigation, however, the claim that "commerce" meant "all gainful activities" or "all interactions" turns out to be completely untrue. It flies in the face of much of what we know about the Founding Era, including specific representations by leading Founders that most regulation would be reserved to the states. But because it is sometimes necessary to prove the obvious, several other academics (such as Georgetown University's Randy Barnett and I) have examined literally thousands of appearances of the word "commerce" in the historical records from the Founding Era. And those records show clearly that "Commerce" in the Constitution means trade and associated activities, but no more (e.g., http://www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson/articles/Commerce%20Clause.pdf). The second argument for an almost unlimited Commerce Power currently prevails on the U.S. Supreme Court. (Don't let anyone tell you the present court is "conservative" on such matters.) This argument acknowledges that when the Founders wrote "Commerce," they meant only trade and a few allied activities, such as navigation. But it goes on to say that modern economic life, unlike life during the Founding Era, is highly interdependent, so it is now "necessary and proper" for Congress to regulate everything that substantially affects commerce. But this argument also ignores history. Economic interdependence is nothing new: the promoters of the Constitution themselves emphasized it. But they also assured the public that, interdependent or not, most activities could be regulated only by the states. They added that the Necessary and Proper Clause added nothing to federal authority, but merely clarified that the legal "doctrine of incidental powers" applied to the Constitution. And no power could be "incidental" if its scope swamped the principal power. In other words, Congress couldn't take over a big field like manufacturing or agriculture on the pretense of regulating commerce. If the Supreme Court were doing its job in this area, it would restrict Congress to the authority granted by the people through the Constitution. Because the Court is not doing what it should, it is up to the people to recall the federal government to its constitutional limits. Rob Natelson is Professor of Law at The University of Montana, and a leading constitutional scholar. (See www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm.) His opinions are his own, and should not be attributed to any other person or institution.
Categories: Education, Finance, Civil Liberties, Law, Grassroots News, US Constitution, Ethics, Executive Power, Federal Legislation, History, Current Events, Philosophy, Social Issues, Socialism, State Legislation, Economy, Trade, Congress Tags: |
No comments yet.
http://www.fff.org/blog/index.asp Thursday, November 12, 2009 Overseas Insanity One of the fascinating aspects of the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan is how so many Americans, prodded by their rulers, have convinced themselves that U.S. troops are killing and dying to "protect our freedoms." All across America - in churches, sports events, airports, and the like - people steadfastly maintain their sweet, innocent mindsets as they "support the troops" in their effort to heroically spread freedom, democracy, and the American way of life and protect Americans from the terrorists. The late psychiatrist M. Scott Peck pointed out that mental health involves a fierce commitment to reality at all costs. Those who live a life of self-deception will ultimately pay a severe price in terms of psychosis and mental instability. It would be difficult to find a better example of self-deception than what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. People seem to operate under the assumption that if they just continue to believe a false reality about what's going on, the false reality will become reality. Here's the reality on the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan: These are no-good, dirty, rotten, crooked, corrupt, murderous, and destructive operations that are making the American people less safe and less secure as each day passes. Bribery of government officials, crooked elections, the killing and maiming of countless people who had nothing to do with 9/11, torture and sex abuse, forced exile of millions of people, widespread bombings, major destruction of towns and cities, intentional lies and deceptions, arbitrary arrests , indefinite incarcerations, denial of freedom of speech, due process of law, and other fundamental rights, assassinations, and major narcotics dealing, not to mention the production of new terrorists with each passing day as well as impending monetary catastrophe arising from out-of-control federal spending, debt, taxation, and inflation to pay for this madness. That's the reality. That's what U.S. troops are dying for. Not for freedom. Not for democracy. Not for the American way of life. They're dying for a façade that covers up no-good, rotten, crooked, corrupt, murderous, and destructive enterprises that are taking our country down. And it's also what they're killing, maiming, kidnapping, renditioning, and torturing people for. It's what they're destroying Iraq and Afghanistan for. No wonder so many U.S. troops are returning home all screwed up in the head. Scott Peck was right - those who deny reality will suffer psychosis and other mental problems. One can only wonder how this psychological phenomenon will play out among the people here at home who continue to delude themselves about what the troops are engaged in over there. Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Categories: Foreign Policy, Education, Globalism, US Constitution, Ethics, Executive Power, Current Events, Philosophy, Social Issues, War/Military, World Affairs Tags: |
No comments yet.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." ~ Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 1
To be honest, there is no problem with free speech. There are only problems with the people that are listening to what you say. I've heard it said before that yes, you have a right to free speech just not where I can hear you. The truth is I have a right to say what I want where I want. You have the right not to listen. I very seldom watch mainstream media. I don't like listening to people's opinion as if they are fact. Journalists are NOT supposed to give their opinion, they are supposed to give the facts and that's it. Nothing more! However, Sunday, November 8th, I decided to watch CNN to listen to the health care bill spin. When I turned it on, Don Lemon was on. He touched on several topics, including the Ft. Hood incident. This is where I got mad and was promptly reminded of why I don't watch mainstream media. Mr. Lemon did a piece on Radical Muslim's, particularly one group called Revolution Muslims. This group praised the Ft. Hood shooter. As I'm sure you have figured out, this group believes that all that do not believe as they do should die, especially Americans. Now, some of what The Revolution Muslims said is true. Our troops DO need to leave all foreign lands. Our tyrannical government DOES need to be removed from power and given back to the people. However, should innocent people die? No. Violence is never the answer. But that is not what this article is about. This article is about free speech. In the video you will see The Revolution Muslims on the streets of New York exercising their free speech. They are out on the streets preaching what they believe. And yes, they are in front of a mosque, whose leaders do not believe in violence. Can the Revolution Muslims do that? Absolutely! That is what free speech is. That is not what bothered me about this piece. What bothered me is what Mr. Lemon said after the video of the Muslims. Drew Griffin (who did the investigation) says with disheartened tones, "Law enforcement says they know their Constitutional Rights. They walk right up to that line of protection under the free speech amendment, and they stop short of crossing it, and all law enforcement can do is watch." To which Don Lemon replies, "And that's a right that is guaranteed here, and that is sort of the problem, the issue that comes with this." Free speech is NOT a problem. It is a right guaranteed to us by God and written down by the Founding Fathers to ensure that that right is never taken from us. Everyone has the same right to speak their mind, no matter what. Do you have to believe what the other says? No. You don't even have to listen to what the other person says. But you do have to understand that everyone, no matter who they are or what they believe, has to right to say it. So, the answer to: "When does free speech become a problem?" Is... NEVER! If you don't like what someone is saying then don't listen.
Categories: Media, Civil Liberties, US Constitution, Current Events Tags: free, Speech |
Comments (1)
Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Drug-War Assassinations by Jacob G. Hornberger The U.S. government has now extended its assassination program to the drug war. According to the New York Times, the Pentagon now has an assassination list for suspected drug dealers in Afghanistan. No arrests. No hearings. No attorneys. No judges. No trials. Just kill them. Great! So now the occupation of Afghanistan has expanded not only to CIA drone assassinations but also now to Pentagon's drug-war assassinations. U.S. officials are justifying the drug-war assassinations as part of their counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan. They say that they're only going to be assassinating those drug dealers whose drug trafficking is benefiting the terrorists. I wonder how they make that determination, especially without judicial hearings and trials. Keep in mind that U.S. officials justify their occupation of Afghanistan as part of their overall "war on terrorism." Keep in mind also that according to them, in the war on terrorism the entire world is a battlefield, including the United States. As part of their war on terrorism, U.S. officials claim the power to treat Americans as "enemy combatants," which entails the power to ignore the rights and guarantees in the Bill of Rights for people suspected of committing the federal criminal offense of terrorism. That includes the power to arrest suspected terrorists, incarcerate them for life, torture them, and deny them due process of law. It also includes the power to assassinate suspected terrorists, a power that U.S. officials have exercised on "the battlefield" in such places as Yemen, where they assassinated an American citizen who happened to be traveling with a suspected terrorist, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. So far, they have not exercised the assassination power on that part of the battlefield that encompasses the United States, but they certainly now wield the post-9/11 power to do so. And now they have extended their assassination power to the drug war. And without even bothering to ask Congress to enact a law giving them such power. Hey, this is the era of the war on terrorism. They don't need no stinking assassination law. All they need is a presidential order to the CIA and the military to begin assassinating people. Will they apply their assassination power to suspected drug dealers elsewhere in the world? After all, doesn't the sale of heroin everywhere likely put money into the pockets of drug producers in Afghanistan, given that that's where 90 percent of the world's heroin originates? We know that they are employing the power to assassinate suspected terrorists in different parts of the world. Time will tell whether they do the same with suspected drug dealers, including, of course, that part of the battlefield that encompasses the United States. Meanwhile, families are mourning the deaths of three American DEA agents and 11 U.S. soldiers who died this past week in two helicopter crashes in Afghanistan. Fourteen more senseless deaths. Where does this lunacy end? End the assassinations. End the occupations. End the war on terrorism. End the war on drugs. There is no other solution for restoring freedom, morality, peace, prosperity, and security to our nation. Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. http://www.fff.org/blog/index.asp
Categories: Foreign Policy, Education, Civil Liberties, Law, US Constitution, Ethics, Executive Power, Current Events, Philosophy, Social Issues, War/Military, World Affairs Tags: |
Comments (1)
<script type="text/javascript"> tweetmeme_source = 'politicsdaily'; Categories: Current Events, War/Military, World Affairs Tags: afghanistan |
No comments yet.
A Local Coordinator is a volunteer who is willing to go door to door in their precinct or neighborhood regarding an issue that affects their neighborhood. The times that people will go door to door are generally prior to an election to hand out information on candidates or issue that will be on the ballot, when there is a community or neighborhool issue that you want to raise awareness about, or just a neighborhood bar-b-que. Local Coordinators are the most valuable people to make a change in elections. There are 180,000 precincts in the country and if we can get 180,000 people who are willing to be Local Coordinators it will be very easy to make a difference in elections. For instance, if your county has 30 precincts and you have 25-50 people who agree on something that have stepped up to be Local Coordinators it is very easy to get information to people. We all are aware of the problems with the talking box (aka television) and newspapers. Many times they give an opinions and not facts but the people who watch or read them seem to think that they are seeing or hearing facts. Let's use the example of a new road. If a county wants to put in a new road for the benefit of a company in a neighboring county the currently elected county officials discuss it and how much it will cost. There are usually a few articles in the local paper about it and maybe a talking head will mention it once or twice. The request for the funding is put on the municipal ballot and people are asked to vote for or against it. Just how much information do the voters really have about the issue? Because this is not really a partisan issue the republican and democratic precinct leaders are probably not going to do any canvassing of their precincts to provide information to the people. Republican and Democratic precinct leaders mainly canvass to keep or get back their party's power or dominance. If there were liberty minded Local Coordinators who would go door to door with information regarding the project the voters would be better informed. Maybe provide a copy of the budget for the highway that shows where the county intends to get the funds from, information that shows the layout of the proposed road, information about who benefits the most from the road, and information about what property the county will intend to take through emininent domain for the project. This information is needed by voters to make informed decisions and they are not going to get it from partisan parties so it us up to us, We The People. The Local Coordinator would also remind people when the election day was and maybe even offer to provide a ride for their neighbors who don't drive. The Campaign For Liberty Local Coordinator program has great tools and teaching programs to help people learn about their precinct. While not necessary they are EXTEMELY helpful as you learn how many voters you have, how many people vote in the general election verses the municipal elections, which way your neighborhood generally votes, etc. As an active Local Coordinator your neighbors will start to look to you as a source of information after you have canvassed your area a few times. They will recognize you and most are happy that someone has stepped up and is willing to provide them with information that they don't get from the talking box or dying newspapers. How many of you walked your neighborhood to hand out information regarding Ron Paul? If you could walk your neighborhood to give out information regarding the presidential elections why can't you walk your neighborhood to give out information regarding local issues that directly affect you and your neighbors? To restore constitutional principles to our country we must to restore order to our local governing bodies. To make our voices heard we must stand together. As we work on our local areas as a Local Coordinator we can and will re-awaken the spirit of our country and remind people that what made our country great was less government, not more. Local elections are extremely important to fix the foundation of our government. Please join the Campaign For Liberty and become a Local Coordinator in your neighborhood. If you are a dues-paying member, Click here to complete your enrollment in the Local Coordinator program! If you are already a Local Coordinator please take advantage of the tools available to you on your dashboard under the Local Coordinator Tools link. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. You can message me here if your are logged into the Campaign For Liberty site or here if you are not a member yet. The R3volution continues with people taking action. Robyn Hamlin Categories: Campaign For Liberty, Education, Civil Liberties, Election News, Grassroots News, Action Item, Current Events, Revolution, Miscellany, State Legislation, Voting Tags: local coordinator, precinct leader, revolution, neighborhood issues, local elections |
Comments (12)
Source: InfoWars.com
By now we have all heard the cliches and seen the posters from the "Tea Parties" espousing freedom, less government, and perhaps most of all, how the federal government had better back off trying to shove their national healthcare down our otherwise healthy throats. The truth of the matter is all the slogans of "Don't Tread On Me" or "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" or "We're Mad As Hell And We're Not Taking It Anymore," don't mean a thing when compared to reality; the real and actual answer to all the protests, marches, and outrage. The answer is in our own backyards! The States can stop every bit of it! That's right, the individual States can stop "Obamacare" and all other forms of out-of-control federal government mandates and "big brother" tactics. If Arizona, Hawaii, New Hamshire, Texas, etc. want nothing to do with National Healthcare as proposed by Barack Obama or Congress, then all they have to do is say "No!"
For you skeptics who think the States could no more do this than fly to the moon, let's look at the law. First, the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate and supreme law of the land. More specifically, the Bill of Rights was established, because some of our Founding Fathers, feared that the Constitution did not go far enough in restricting or limiting the central government. Hamilton was one of a select few who wanted a bigger and powerful federal government. However, several key states and powerful delegates such as Patrick Henry, said they would not support the formation of a new government if the Constitution did not contain a Bill of Rights, a supreme law to establish basic and fundamental human rights that could never, for all future American generations, be violated, altered or encroached upon by government. So the Framers of our Constitution came up with ten; ten God-given freedoms that would forever be held inviolable by our own governments. The last of these basic foundational principles was the one to protect the power, sovereignty, and the autonomy of the States; the Tenth Amendment. This amendment and law underscores the entire purpose of the Constitution to limit government and forbids the federal government from becoming more powerful than the "creator." Let's be very clear here; the States in this case were the creator. They formed the federal government, not the other way around. Does anyone believe rationally that the States intended to form a new central government to control and command the States at will? Nothing could be further from the truth. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution details what duties the federal government will be responsible for under our new system of "balanced power." Anything not mentioned in Article 1, Sec. 8, is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Tenth Amendment) Hence, the federal government was not allowed creativity or carte blanche to expand or assume power wherever and whenever they felt like it. The feds had only discrete and enumerated and very limited powers. Omnipotency was the last thing the Founding Fathers intended to award the newly formed federal government. They had just fought the Revolutionary War to stop such from Britain and their main concern was to prevent a recurrence here in America. In perhaps the most recent and powerful Tenth Amendment decision in modern history, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mack/Printz v U.S. that "States are not subject to federal direction." But today's federal Tories argue that the "supremecy clause" of the U.S. Constitution says that the federal government is supreme and thus, trumps the States in all matters. Wrong! The supremacy clause is dealt with in Mack/Printz, in which the Supreme Court stated once and for all that the only thing "supreme" is the constitution itself. Our constitutional system of checks and balances certainly did not make the federal government king over the states, counties, and cities. Justice Scalia opined for the majority in Mack/Printz, that "Our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other." So yes, it is the duty of the State to stop the Obamacare "incursion." To emphasize this principle Scalia quotes James Madison, "The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the Supremacy, no more subject within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The point to remember here is; where do we define the "sphere" of the federal government? That's right; in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and anything not found within this section belongs to the States or to the People. So where does health care belong? The last place it belongs is with the President or Congress. It is NOT their responsiblity and the States need to make sure that Obama does not overstep his authority. Just in case there is any doubt as to what the Supreme Court meant, let's take one more look at Mack/Printz. "This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution's structural protections of liberty. Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other..." What? The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, has as a "structural protection of liberty" that States will keep the federal government in check? No wonder it was called a system of "checks and balances." The States (and Counties) are to maintain the balance of power by keeping the feds within their proper sphere. So do the States have to take the bullying of the federal government? Not hardly! The States do not have to take or support or pay for Obamacare or anything else from Washington DC. The States are not subject to federal direction. They are sovereign and "The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions." (Mack/Printz) Which means the States can tell national healthcare proposals or laws to take a flying leap off the Washington monument. We are not subject to federal direction!
In the final order pursuant to the Mack/Printz ruling Scalia warned, "The federal government may neither, issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty." It is rather obvious that nationalized healthcare definitely qualifies as a "federal regulatory program." Thus, the marching on Washington and pleas and protests to our DC politicians are misdirected. Such actions are "pie in the sky" dreaming that somehow expects the tyrants who created the tyranny, will miraculously put a stop to it. Throughout the history of the world such has never been the case. Tyrants have never stopped their own corrupt ways. However, in our system of "dual sovereignty," the States cando it. If we are to take back America and keep this process peaceful, then state and local officials will have to step up to the plate. Doing so is what States' Rights and State Sovereignty are all about.
Categories: Campaign For Liberty, Education, Finance, Civil Liberties, Law, Health Freedom, Grassroots News, US Constitution, Ethics, Executive Power, Federal Legislation, Current Events, Philosophy, Social Issues, Socialism, State Legislation, Economy Tags: |
Comments (2)
Friday, October 2, 2009 Faith and Freedom The Harrison, Arkansas, Daily Times reports that FedEx has covered the $11,000 bill for an air ambulance to take 7-year-old Jada Harper from Houston to her home in Arkansas. The girl has terminal cancer and is expected to die within a few months. Since the ailing girl could not have survived ground transportation, an air ambulance was the only viable option, but the family was too poor to afford it. Now, let's assume that the federal government had a program to address this particular need and that the girl had been transported home as part of that program. What would statists say if a libertarian were to come along and propose that the program be abolished? They would say, "You hate the poor and the needy! Without this program, this little girl would never have gotten home to die with her family." But this story of this little girl and Fed Ex is precisely what happens in a free society and in a free market. While freedom provides no guarantees as to how people will choose to use their own money, the fact is that most people in society are willing to help others when they perceive an urgent need. Moreover, it would seem self-evident that the more money people have, the more willing they would be to donate money. The less money they have, the less they're able to help others. The big problem facing our nation is both economic and psychological in nature. On the economic side, the federal government is taxing people to an ever-growing extent, leaving them with less money to give away to charity. The taxes are either direct, as through the IRS, or indirect, as through monetary debasement (i.e., inflation, manifested by rising prices) at the hands of the Federal Reserve. The less people are left with, the less they are able to donate to worthy causes. The psychological problem is that the American people have quite simply lost faith in themselves, in freedom and free markets, and in God. They simply cannot bring themselves to believe that they would survive and prosper without a paternalistic Caesar coercively providing for their retirement, health care, job loss, food subsidies, and children's education. The two prime examples of where these economic and psychological problems coalesce are Social Security and Medicare. All that Americans want to consider is "reform, reform, reform" of these programs. Repeal is simply not part of the debate lexicon. The thought of repealing these socialist programs strikes more fear in the hearts of the American people than that which strikes a heroin addict at the thought of losing his drug. "How would people survive without Social Security and Medicare? Old people would be dying in the streets! You must hate senior citizens! You just want them all to die!" But the fact is that free human beings are remarkably resilient. If Social Security and Medicare (and all other socialistic welfare-state programs) were repealed today, everyone would not only be fine, they would be better off. For one thing, the younger generations would have an immediate and significant pay raise, given that they would no longer be burdened by the heavy taxes that fund these immoral, corrupt, and wasteful programs. Second, many old people are wealthy enough to handle their own retirement and health care needs. Third, doctors and insurance companies would immediately come up with ingenious ways to handle people's health-care needs at reasonable costs. Fourth, older people would feel better about themselves knowing that they had lifted the enormous state-imposed tax-and-inflation burden on their children's and grandchildren's generations. Fifth, the private sector would come up with ways to help those people who truly need help, just as it has with 7-year-old Jada Harper. What is needed in America most of all at this juncture of our lives is a restoration not only of economic liberty and free markets but also a restoration of faith in ourselves, in freedom, and in God. Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. http://www.fff.org/blog/index.asp
Categories: Education, Ethics, Philosophy, Social Issues, Socialism, Economy Tags: |
No comments yet.
When you first read this you may think, "How funny". However, it's not funny. Why? Because it's 100% correct. That's right, the government taxs you on all this and more. When did all of this start, you may ask. Well, ask no more. The answer is the "Federal Reserve Act of 1913". This is when the Federal Reserve Bank was created and they took control of the money. And they will not be happy till they have all of your hard eraned money. Don't you just love your Government
Tax his land, Tax his tractor, Tax his work, Tax his cow, Tax his tobacco, Tax his cigars, Tax his car, Tax all he has When he screams and hollers; Then tax his coffin, Put these words When he's gone, Accounts Receivable Tax STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.. What in the hell happened? Can you spell And I still have to 'press 1' for English!? I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100 GO AHEAD - - - BE AN AMERICAN!
Categories: Civil Liberties, US Constitution, Just For Fun, Revolution, Social Issues, Economy, Monetary Policy Tags: tax |
Comments (2)
Tenth Amendment Talking Points1. The People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying. 2. The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves. 3. The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers. 4. If the Congress had been intended to carry out anything they claim would promote the "general welfare," what would be the point of listing its specific powers in Article I, Section 8, since these would've already been covered? 5. James Madison, during the Constitutional ratification process, drafted the "Virginia Plan" to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states' accustomed role in selecting members of Congress. Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated. In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well. 6. The Tenth Amendment was adopted after the Constitutional ratification process to emphasize the fact that the states remained individual and unique sovereignties; that they were empowered in areas that the Constitution did not delegate to the federal government. With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress' authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and unconstitutional. 7. Tragically, the Tenth Amendment has become almost a nullity at this point in our history, but there are a great many reasons to bring it to the forefront. Most importantly, though, we must keep in mind that the Founders envisioned a loose confederation of states - not a one-size-fits-all solution for everything that could arise. Why? The simple answer lies in the fact that they had just escaped the tyranny of a king who thought he knew best how to govern everything - including local colonies from across an ocean. 8. Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. Second, the people of a state know what is best for them; they do not need bureaucrats, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives. Think about it. If Hitler had ruled just Berlin and Stalin had ruled just Moscow, the whole world might be a different place today. 9. A constitution which does not provide strict limits is just the thing any government would be thrilled to have, for, as Lord Acton once said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." 10. We agree with historian Kevin Gutzman, who has said that those who would give us a "living" Constitution are actually giving us a dead one, since such a thing is completely unable to protect us against the encroachments of government power.
Categories: Education, Civil Liberties, Law, US Constitution, History, Current Events, Revolution, Congress Tags: |
No comments yet.
Virginia Ratification Convention ^ | June 16, 1788 | Patrick Henry Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, the necessity of a bill of rights appears to me to be greater in this government than ever it was in any government before. ... Let us consider the sentiments which have been entertained by the people of America on this subject. At the revolution, it must be admitted that it was their sense to set down those great rights which ought, in all countries, to be held inviolable and sacred. Virginia did so, we all remember. She made a compact to reserve, expressly, certain rights. When fortified with full, adequate, and abundant representation, was she satisfied with that representation? No. She most cautiously and guardedly reserved and secured those invaluable, inestimable rights and privileges, which no people, inspired with the least glow of patriotic liberty, ever did, or ever can, abandon. How were the congressional rights defined when the people of America united by a confederacy to defend their liberties and rights against the tyrannical attempts of Great Britain? The states were not then contented with implied reservation. No, Mr. Chairman. It was expressly declared in our Confederation that every right was retained by the states, respectively, which was not given up to the government of the United States. But there is no such thing here. You, therefore, by a natural and unavoidable implication, give up your rights to the general government.
When our government was first instituted in Virginia, we declared the common law of England to be in force. That system of law which has been admired, and has protected us and our ancestors, is excluded by that system. Added to this, we adopted a bill of rights.
In this business of legislation, your members of Congress will loose the restriction of not imposing excessive fines, demanding excessive bail, and inflicting cruel and unusual punishments. These are prohibited by your declaration of rights. What has distinguished our ancestors? - That they would not admit of tortures, or cruel and barbarous punishment. But Congress may introduce the practice of the civil law, in preference to that of the common law. They may introduce the practice of France, Spain, and Germany - of torturing, to extort a confession of the crime. They will say that they might as well draw examples from those countries as from Great Britain, and they will tell you that there is such a necessity of strengthening the arm of government, that they must have a criminal equity, and extort confession by torture, in order to punish with still more relentless severity. We are then lost and undone. A bill of rights may be summed up in a few words. What do they tell us? - That our rights are reserved. Why not say so? Is it because it will consume too much paper? Gentlemen's reasoning against a bill of rights does not satisfy me. Without saying which has the right side, it remains doubtful. A bill of rights is a favorite thing with the Virginians and the people of the other states likewise. It may be their prejudice, hut the government ought to suit their geniuses; otherwise, its operation will be unhappy. A bill of rights, even if its necessity be doubtful, will exclude the possibility of dispute; and, with great submission, I think the best way is to have no dispute. In the present Constitution, they are restrained from issuing general warrants to search suspected places, or seize persons not named, without evidence of the commission of a fact, &c. There was certainly some celestial influence governing those who deliberated on that Constitution; for they have, with the most cautious and enlightened circumspection, guarded those indefeasible rights which ought ever to be held sacred! The officers of Congress may come upon you now, fortified with all the terrors of paramount federal authority. Excisemen may come in multitudes; for the limitation of their numbers no man knows. They may, unless the general government be restrained by a bill of rights, or some similar restriction, go into your cellars and rooms, and search, ransack, and measure, every thing you eat, drink, and wear. They ought to be restrained Within proper bounds. With respect to the freedom of the press, I need say nothing; for it is hoped that the gentlemen who shall compose Congress will take care to infringe as little as possible the rights of human nature. This will result from their integrity. They should, from prudence, abstain from violating the rights of their constituents. They are not, however, expressly restrained. But whether they will intermeddle with that palladium of our liberties or not, I leave you to determine."
------------- Hence, the "common law" at the time of the ratification which had stood for literally centuries with respect to civil and criminal laws, trials by juries, etc., which England had at that time abandoned, was what Patrick Henry was referring to. That the 'common" or "natural" laws were pre-emiment when it came to individual citizens rights, and absolutely needed to be set forth in the U.S. Constitution, as it was in the Virginia Articles of Confederacy at the time, or he would not sign it. And he and George Mason were the two that insisted the most vocally, and were responsible for that first ten amendments which were promised if either gave their support at the final ratification as the first order of business, so as to also comply with the State of Virginia and other states already existing state "constitutions" which were drafted at the time of the Declaration of Independence and prior to the Revolutionary War or at that time "Articles of Confederacy."
Categories: Globalism, Civil Liberties, Law, US Constitution, Current Events, Miscellany, Social Issues, State Legislation, Congress Tags: Bill of Rights, Rights, States, congress, Patric Henry, federal, government, Constitution |
Comments (1)
Agents of the People It is time for the grassroots movement to engage their State Leaders and remind them that they are agents of the People and not agents of the Federal Government. We are the 7th State in the Nation to pass a state Sovereignty Resolution Louisiana State Sovereignty Bill (SCR 2) BY CROWE (Senator AG Crowe) "When a state passes this resolution proclaiming its sovereignty, that state may then claim exemption to most federal mandates under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This was what happened with New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992). The federal government was attempting to mandate that the State of New York accept radioactive waste for disposal. New York pleaded they were exempt from the mandate under the Tenth Amendment and the court affirmed the Tenth Amendment protection. Thus, by having proclaimed sovereignty, a state is in the position to select those mandates they will follow, now by choice, not by edict." It is the States responsibility and duty to enforce the Contract that formed the US Federal Government. The "Constitution of the United States of America" The State of Louisiana should keep its people out of harms way in this battle for Sovereignty against the socialist tyrants that have taken over Washington. It is time for the Great State of Louisiana to Enforce the Contract.
Categories: Campaign For Liberty, Education, Civil Liberties, Law, Grassroots News, Action Item, US Constitution, Current Events, Revolution, Social Issues, Socialism, State Legislation Tags: |
No comments yet.
Categories: Current Events Tags: health care |
Comments (1)
http://www.fff.org/blog/index.asp Tuesday, August 25, 2009 Would Eric Holder Have Prosecuted the Nazis? Let's assume that a U.S. president authorizes the CIA to rape the family members of suspected terrorists as a way to get them to talk. He also authorizes his subordinates to place the suspected terrorists on a rack that stretches them apart until they confess and disclose all details of their suspected terrorism. Before he issues the authorization order, however, the president secures a good-faith legal memo from Justice Department lawyers stating that suspected terrorists, as illegal combatants, are not entitled to any legal protections, including protection from torture and rape. Under U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's new order authorizing a preliminary investigation into torture by CIA personnel, those CIA agents who have raped and tortured suspected terrorists would apparently be immune from prosecution. Why? Because Holder obviously feels that if CIA personnel are following the guidelines established by their superiors, it would be unfair to prosecute them for torturing the suspects or raping members of their family. What about the president or others who authorized the rape and torture? According to Holder's reasoning, apparently they too would be immune from prosecution if they were relying in good faith on legal opinions issued by Justice Department lawyers establishing the legality of the torture and the rape. What about the attorneys who wrote the legal opinions? Would they be subject to prosecution? No, because they would simply be attorneys rendering good-faith legal opinions in response to a request from their superiors. So, isn't that nice? Everyone who rapes and tortures, everyone who authorizes the rapes and torture, and everyone who opined that the rapes and torture were legal would apparently go scot-free under Holder's reasoning. I know that there are those who get upset over comparisons to Nazi Germany but it seems to me that a comparison is in order. When Hitler and his cohorts issued the order authorizing the Gestapo to round up Jews, incarcerate them in concentration camps, and kill them, the personnel who actually committed such acts could not be prosecuted under Holder's rationale. The Gestapo agents would claim that they were simply following the orders of their superiors and show that their conduct fell within the guidelines established by their higher-ups. Could Hitler and other higher-ups have been prosecuted for the Holocaust? No, at least not if they would have been able to produce legal opinions from Nazi lawyers opining that rounding up Jews, incarcerating them, and killing them was legal given the exigencies of war. What about the Nazi lawyers? Could they have been prosecuted? No, because they would have just been lawyers delivering good-faith legal opinions that they knew would make their superiors happy, not the people who actually did the round-ups, incarcerations, and killings. What a crock. When people break the law, they need to be prosecuted whether they are German, American, British, Japanese, or any other nationality and whether their victims were Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, or any other religion. The "I was just following orders" defense should be disallowed. If people are too weak psychologically to say no to unlawful orders, then they shouldn't be working for the CIA, the Gestapo, or any other government agency with the power to initiate force against others. Higher-ups who authorize or order unlawful conduct should not be permitted to get off the hook simply because they have succeeded in securing legal opinions from sycophantic lawyers falsely opining that such conduct is lawful. And sycophantic lawyers who issue false legal opinions to high government officials opining that unlawful conduct is legal should be subject to prosecution as well. Otherwise, the United States is no different from any regime whose officials are immune from prosecution for torture, murder, rape, and other crimes. Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation
Categories: Foreign Policy, Education, Civil Liberties, Law, US Constitution, Ethics, Executive Power, Philosophy, Revolution, Social Issues, War/Military, Congress Tags: |
No comments yet.
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/24/the-supreme-court-scare/ The Supreme Court ScarePosted on 24 August 2009 by Timothy Baldwin, Esq. From Chuck Baldwin: Note: My son, Tim, writes today's column. He is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney's Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is author of a new book, published soon by Agrapha Publishing, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE. Yes, yes, we have all heard the remarks from those who would call themselves conservative, libertarian or the like concerning the nomination and now swearing-in of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court, which took place on August 8, 2009. Yes, yes, books have been written by those conservative and libertarian editorialists and authors who have explained to us that the United States Supreme Court (US S CT) is "out of control" and how we must elect "conservative" Presidents to appoint "conservative" judges. Ironically, this infatuation with the federal government, and specifically with the judicial branch of the federal government, has actually (at least in part) created the growing enslavement of the people of these States United. Certainly we should care about who sits on the US S CT bench. However, the time has come in our Confederate Republic (the USA) to acknowledge and understand that the power to govern ourselves justly and constitutionally is in the hands of the people of the several states of America-NOT in the hands of the branches of federal government. What most people in America have been duped to believe is that the US S CT is the final arbiter in all matters concerning government actions related to the US Constitution. When it comes to US S CT rulings that contradict the US Constitution and that reject the historical facts and principles of our Republic, people feel hopeless and think that regaining freedom somehow means replacing the "liberal" judges with "conservative" judges. Such an approach to preserving freedom is not only un-American; it is fruitless and ineffectual. History now proves this. Additionally, this approach proves that the vast majority of Americans have been indoctrinated into the centralist-ideology imposed on us by not-so-innocent advocates of such a political belief system. Let me state this clearly: the US Constitution does not grant to the US S CT the power to interpret the Constitution in contradiction to the terms of the Constitution, and it does not strip the powers of the States to actively arrest and resist tyrannical federal actions. The US S CT can no more violate the Constitution than the Legislative and Executive branches can. What sense does it make that the US S CT is bound by an oath to support and defend the Constitution and then has the power to interpret it however the heck they want to? Do you think our founders were so near-sighted and unlearned that they would have given to the US S CT this unchecked and unlimited power in the very document that states its purpose is "to secure the blessings of liberty"? The framework of our Confederate Republic was clearly understood by those who advocated its ratification, namely, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay: the writers of the Federalist Papers. These are the men who some today would argue advocated for a centralist government, reducing and eliminating the power of the states to resist and arrest federal usurpation of power. Obviously, these advocates of centralism would not have you aware of what these founders said on the subject, nor would they like to admit that the US Constitution formed a league of states, which was acceded to by each independent and sovereign act of the states, and which secured the right and duty of the states to actively guard against the encroachments of the federal government they created for the security of the blessings of liberty. It must first be admitted that the US Constitution never gave to the US S CT the power to substitute their will for the intentions of the Founders of the Constitution. This is easy to prove. Alexander Hamilton admits this in Federalist Paper 78: "It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature . . . The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body." Here, Hamilton points out the fact that, in our Confederate Republic, the US S CT MUST apply the Constitution to all federal laws as intended by the Founders. They are NOT to place their will above the will of those who framed and acceded to the US Constitution. To suggest that the US S CT has the power to alter, change or amend the Constitution at will is to place the US S CT above the Constitution: they can no more do this than the legislative branch can pass an unconstitutional law and the executive branch can carry out an unconstitutional law. Or as Hamilton puts it, putting their will above the Constitution will "equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body." Neither is acceptable and neither is constitutional. One cannot credibly and correctly argue that whatever the US S CT says goes. I should not even have to restate this maxim, but in America, it has been held true that any unconstitutional act is null and void. This applies to the US S CT as well. Thus, the question becomes, what can and what must the states do when all three branches of the federal government ignore the Constitution and trample over the intents of its foundational principles? The authors of the Federalist Papers give us some guidance on the subject. In Federalist Paper 16, Hamilton explains in detail the states' right to actively resist federal tyranny and usurpation of power. Listen to Hamilton: "The plausibility of this objection [that the states will at any time obstruct the execution of federal laws] will vanish the moment we advert to the essential difference between a mere NON-COMPLIANCE and a DIRECT and ACTIVE RESISTANCE. If the interposition of the State legislatures be necessary to give effect to a measure of the Union, they have only NOT TO ACT, or to ACT EVASIVELY, and the measure is defeated. This neglect of duty may be disguised under affected but unsubstantial provisions, so as not to appear, and of course not to excite any alarm in the people for the safety of the Constitution. The State leaders may even make a merit of their surreptitious invasions of it on the ground of some temporary convenience, exemption, or advantage. "But if the execution of the laws of the national government should not require the intervention of the State legislatures, if they were to pass into immediate operation upon the citizens themselves, the particular governments could not interrupt their progress without an open and violent exertion of an unconstitutional power. No omissions nor evasions would answer the end. They would be obliged to act, and in such a manner as would leave no doubt that they had encroached on the national rights . . . Attempts of this kind would not often be made with levity or rashness, because they could seldom be made without danger to the authors, UNLESS IN CASES OF A TYRANNICAL EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY." (Emphasis added.) Here, Hamilton clearly recognizes the states' ability to actively intervene against the federal government "in cases of a tyrannical exercise of the federal authority." Hamilton also expounds upon the natural protection that the new system of the US Constitution provides, in that states will not so easily and readily interfere with federal action when such interference must be made actively and openly against the federal government. Certainly, where at least three-fourths (the percentage needed to amend the Constitution) of the states disagree with the State actively resisting the federal government, that State will consider the risks and costs to be too great to carry out and thus would not resist actively; instead, that State would use its VOICE and not its ARM to communicate its discontent. However, as told by Hamilton, "IN CASES OF A TYRANNICAL EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY," the states most certainly would use their ARM to arrest such tyrannical actions. Hamilton describes the use of this ARM of the States in Federalist Paper 26: "[T]he State legislatures, WHO WILL ALWAYS BE NOT ONLY VIGILANT BUT SUSPICIOUS AND JEALOUS GUARDIANS OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS AGAINST ENCROACHMENTS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent . . . [T]he people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person." (Emphasis added.) Hamilton goes so far as to say, if the federal government has usurped its powers and the people of the states feel it necessary, the states should secede from the union, dividing "themselves into as many states as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person." This is not I stating this: this is one of the most well-known Founding Fathers in American history. Hamilton further expounds upon this states' right and duty to check federal usurpation of power in Federalist Paper 28. He says, "Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and THESE [THE STATES] WILL HAVE THE SAME DISPOSITION TOWARDS THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. IF THEIR RIGHTS ARE INVADED BY EITHER, THEY CAN MAKE USE OF THE OTHER AS THE INSTRUMENT OF REDRESS. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!" (Emphasis added.) Very clearly, Hamilton sees the brilliance of our Confederate Republic system of government, whereby the states can check the federal government and that where "rights are invaded" by the federal government, the people "can make use of the [states] as the instrument of redress." Hamilton continues in this discussion, saying: "It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that THE STATE GOVERNMENTS WILL, IN ALL POSSIBLE CONTINGENCIES, AFFORD COMPLETE SECURITY AGAINST INVASIONS OF THE PUBLIC LIBERTY BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, THEY CAN AT ONCE ADOPT A REGULAR PLAN OF OPPOSITION, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and UNITE THEIR COMMON FORCES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THEIR COMMON LIBERTY." (Emphasis added.) Even as expressed by the centralists' hero, Alexander Hamilton, the states were not left impotent regarding federal tyranny and were not stuck with the fruitless redress only through the US S CT. Hamilton clearly suggests that the states have the sovereign and active power to arrest the exercise of federal tyranny. Again, the question here is not, does the federal government have the power to act within its delegated powers, for we all would concede that the federal government has the power to do what we the people in the several states delegated to the federal government. We acknowledge, as Hamilton expresses in Federalist Paper 27, "the laws of the Confederacy, as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land." Rather, the question is, what are the states going to do in response to the usurpation of powers that have been tyrannically taken by all three branches of the federal government? The question is, what are the states going to do when the federal government has passed, upheld and executed laws that are not "enumerated and legitimate objects of its jurisdiction"? After all, such laws are by definition NOT the supreme laws of the land and consequently, the people of the states and the states themselves are not bound to them. (Of course, this necessarily implies that we the people understand the Constitution, the principles of our government and the true character and nature of our government.) Are the people of the states to sit back and let the federal government trample over the rights, principles and structure of our Confederate Republic? Is every State to shirk its responsibilities and duties to actively protect, preserve and defend the freedoms of its sovereign (the people of the State) against federal tyranny? Are the people of the states to live and be governed in tyranny with the only hope that we will hopefully elect a President who will hopefully appoint a US S CT justice to the bench so that the Court can hopefully hear a case on the direct issue so that the Court will hopefully rule the correct way? Nonsense! The time has come that the people of the several states of America wake up to the truth of their history: they are citizens of independent and sovereign states; the US S CT is NOT the final arbiter in matters of freedom; the federal government is not the source of our freedom; the states have the duty to resist the encroachments of federal usurpation; and freedom can be restored when the Confederate Republic is restored. To that end, we must not fear Sotamayor; rather, we should insist that she fear the states-and obey the Constitution!
Categories: Education, Civil Liberties, US Constitution, Current Events, Philosophy Tags: |
No comments yet.
Synopsis Of ObamaCare Curt Wittman
After 2 weeks of sleepless nights, I have finished reading all 1,017 pages of the Health Care Bill and writing a Synopsis. Unlike our elected representatives, I have an entire copy of the bill and have provided page numbers and line numbers in my synopsis making it easy for anyone to look up what I am saying. It's scary and we will all soon be in the public health plan. Please send this to as many people as possible.
SYNOPSIS OF HR 3200 America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009
The bill is a 1,017 page document broken out in three Divisions:
1. Division A - Affordable Health Care Choices 2. Division B - Medicare and Medicaid Improvements 3. Division C - Public Health and Workforce Development
Division A - Affordable Health Care Choices (pages 4-215)
This division creates a Health Insurance Exchange (HIE) with a public health insurance option along with private insurance plans.
The government will determine what is a qualifying plan (section (202 (d)(2)). You must be covered under a qualifying plan on January 1, 2013 or you will be automatically enrolled in the public plan (Div.A Title I Subtitle A Section 102 (a)(1)(A) page 16 lines 11-16).
There are NO new enrollees in private health plans after January 1, 2013 (Div. A Title I Subtitle A Section 102 (a)(1)(A) page 16 lines 11-16).
There is an out for the government to deny all private plans from qualifying after 2018 (Div.A Title I Subtitle A Section 102 (b)(1)(A) page 17 lines 13-19).
The government can disqualify any plan for not adhering to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 or any other reason the Commissioner sees fit ((Div.A Title I Subtitle A Section 102 (b)(1)(B) page 18 lines 13-17).
There will be a Health Benefits Advisory Committee made up of 26 members and chaired by the Surgeon General. Of the 26 members, 17 are appointed by the President. There might not be one single Medical Doctor (Div.A Title I Subtitle A Section 123 (a)(3)(A-C) and (4) pages 31-32 lines 1-25 and 1-10).
There is a statement that the government has the right to conduct examinations and audits of Qualifying Health Benefit Plans (QHBP) and recoup the costs involved (Div.A Title I Subtitle E Section 142 (b)(2)(B) page 43 lines 13-18). Nothing in the paragraph stipulates how infrequent these audits need to be. Therefore, the government could run private plans out of business. Once the government disqualifies a plan, you're in the public plan (Div.A Title I Subtitle E Section 142 (d)(2)(B) page 44 lines 16-22) and (Div.A Title I Subtitle E Section 142 (d)(2)(D) page 45 lines 7-10).
Private Insurers are not allowed to make a profit (Div.A Title I Subtitle F Section 2714 (a) page 54 lines 1-13). This obviously will bankrupt private insurers. Each company must reinsure all retirees, their spouses and dependents (Div.A Title I Subtitle F Section 164 (a)(1) page 65 lines 14-22). This obviously will bankrupt companies.
The government will automatically enroll you in the public plan if you are not in a qualifying health plan (Div.A Title II Subtitle A Section 205 (b)(3)(A) pages 97-98 lines 22-25 and 1-2). [I thought this was all about choice.
If you have any sort of family change: marriage; divorce; new child; child completing college and now off of your insurance or move, you are automatically enrolled in the government plan (Div. A Title II Subtitle A Section 205 (b)(2)(B) pages 96-97 lines 24-25 and 1-11).
The public health plan has no dental coverage (Div.A Title II Subtitle B Section 221 (b)(3)(B) page 117 line 9). We're going to have "English Teeth"
There is a 2.5% tax on all individuals who do not get acceptable coverage (Div.A Title IV Subtitle A Section 59B (a) page 167 line 23). And Obama says there are no new taxes for this.
If your employer elects to not provide coverage, there is an 8% tax on wages (Div.A Title IV Subtitle A Section 412 (a) page 183 lines 17-20). If your current employer pays more than 8% now, what do you think they will do? You're going on the public plan.
There is a range of taxes (1%-5.4%) for people making over $350,000/year (Div.A Title IV Subtitle D Section 59C (a)(1-3) pages 197-198 lines 21-23 and 1-6). And Obama says there are no new taxes for this.
By 2012, there must be submitted, a study showing the savings, through 2019, generated as a result of the public health care (Div.A Title IV Subtitle D Section 59C (i)(4) page 201 lines 5-11). How could they possible predict this? The date is awfully close to Obama's next election day.
Division B - Medicare and Medicaid Improvements (pages 215-854)
This division discusses all of the changes to Medicare and Medicaid.
The public health plan will be reducing "Durable Medical Equipment" (Div. B Title I Subtitle B Part 2 Section 1131 (e)(1) page 267 lines 7-8). This means, folks, no more MRIs, CT Scans, etc. The government will arbitrarily adjust "utilization rates" on such equipment so less of them are required (Div. B Title I Subtitle B Part 2 Section 1147 (a)(1)(C) pages 273-274 lines 20-25 and 1-4).
No more specialty hospitals, like cancer treatment centers (Div. B Title I Subtitle B Part 2 Section 1145 (B) page 272 lines 8-25). If these specialty hospitals cannot charge a premium for their services, they will go bankrupt.
The government will ration the amount of time you are allowed in a hospital (Div. B Title I Subtitle C Section 1151 (a)(1) page 280 lines 15-20). Good luck infirm and elderly.
Physicians can no longer have ownership interest in a hospital (Div. B Title I Subtitle C Section 1156 (i)(1)(B) page 317 lines 13-20).
No new hospitals or expansion of existing hospitals (Div. B Title I Subtitle C Section 1156 (i)(1)(C) page 317 lines 21-25). Obviously, this is of concern and needs no further comment.
If any increase in hospital facilities is allowed, through exception, it can only occur at the main campus (Div. B Title I Subtitle C Section 1156 subsection (i)(2)(D) page 323 lines 15-20). Main campuses are usually located in urban areas forcing money into cities and away from rural populations. There will be studies on how to get you to go back to the cities (Div. B Title I Subtitle C Section 1157 (c)(1)(A) page 329 lines 7-9).
The only way a rural hospital will be allowed to increase their facilities will be after 5 years and only if they are located in a county showing a 150% population growth over the state aggregate population growth; admission rates for the hospital must be greater than other county hospitals; in a state that has less bed capacity than the national average; has a bed occupancy rate more than the state average and other conditions determined by the Secretary (Div. B Title I Subtitle C Section 1156 subsection (i)(2)(E)(i-v) pages 323-325). Seems pretty difficult to get new hospitals built, huh?
The public health plan fully admits there will be a lack of Physicians (Div. B Title I Subtitle C Section 1156 subsection (i)(4) page 326).
Pharmaceutical companies cannot make a profit (Div. B Title I Subtitle D Section 1181 (b)(1) pages 361-362 and Div. B Title VII Subtitle E Section 1742 (a)(1)(C) pages 793-794 lines 5-25 and 1-8). Obviously, without profit, there is no further research.
The poor, in order to get benefits without paying for them, can self-report income (Div. B Title II Subtitle A Section 1203 (a)(1) page 390 lines 12-25). No potential for fraud here!
ACORN will be getting grants under public health care (Div. B Title II Subtitle A Section 1222 (a)(2)(B) page 407 lines 5-9). No potential for fraud here!
The elderly will be counseled every five years on end-of-life issues (Div. B Title II Subtitle C Section 1223 (a)(1) pages 424-426). Good bye useless old people.
The state will limit the explanations needed to euthanize you (Div. B Title II Subtitle C Section 1223 (a)(1) pages 426 lines 22-24).
A "practitioner" who will be given the authority to turn your life support off can be a Nurse Practitioner or a Physicians Assistants (Div. B Title II Subtitle C Section 1223 (a)(1) page 428 lines 9-10 and page 429 line 13). Good bye useless old people.
The capital gains on your primary residence will be used to compute your income to determine your Part B income-related premium (Div. B Title II Subtitle A Section 1235 (a) page 437 lines 17-24). Suddenly, you're rich!
Incentives will be given to health care providers who spend less on you than originally anticipated (Div. B Title III Section 1301 (c)(1)(A) page 447 lines 19-23). No potential to deny services here.
Nurse Practitioners and Physicians Assistants are being elevated to the same status as Medical Doctors under the public health plan (Div. B Title III Section 1302 (a)(4)(A-B) page 461 lines 8-21 and Section 1303 (a)(3)(A)(i-ii) pages 480-481). The dumbing down of our health care.
Midwives get an increase in pay (Div. B Title III Section 1304 (a) page 482 lines 20-21). The dumbing down of our health care. The dumbing down of our health care.
There will be a commission to determine the most efficient method to provide health care and to ration care (Div. B Title IV Subtitle A Section 1401 (a)(1) pages 501-502 lines 20-21) and (Div. B Title IV Section 1304 (e)(2) page 522 lines 9-10).
Of the 15 members on the commission only 1 needs to be a Medical Doctor (Div. B Title IV Section 1304 (b)(3)(A-C) pages 507-509 lines 20-24; 1-25 and 1-19, inclusive).
The "Sunshine Provision" regarding payment for services suddenly doesn't include Nurse Practitioners or Physicians Assistants (Div. B Title IV Subtitle D Section 1128H pages 646-647 lines 15-25 and 1-12). Dissuading Medical Doctors and persuading Nurse Practitioners or Physicians Assistants. There will be fewer Medical Doctors overall (Div. B Title V Section 1501 (a) pages 659-665). How will this improve health care?
There will be fewer medical specialists (Div. B Title V Section 1501 pages 666-670) and (Div. B Title V Section 1501 page 674 lines 9-11). How will this improve health care?
There is addition funding and special emphasis on Hospice (Div. B Title V Sections 1614; 1819A and 2114 pages 691-696). Why is Hospice elevated in Obama's plan? Is the government planning on denying you advanced cancer treatments?
There will be a reduction in home health aides as Physicians will be required to meet with each patient face-to-face before your equipment is scripted (Div. B Title V Section 1639 pages 721-724). You know Physicians don't have this kind of time.
Family planning services are left to the states (Div. B Title VII Subtitle B Section 1714 page 769).
There is another per capita tax on self-insured health plans (Div. B Title VIII Subtitle B Section 4376 page 830 lines 2-25).
Division C - Public Health and Workforce Development (pages 855-1017)
This division is about training of future health care professionals.
Future doctors and/or nurses can no longer pick their specialties. The Secretary will pick their areas of interest based upon "needs" (Div. C Title II Part 2 Section 340H page 869 lines 21-24).
Primary Care Physicians and "Other Healthcare Professionals" will make up 90% of the healthcare workforce (Div. C Title II Part 2 Section 340K pages 874-875 lines 22-24 and 1-2 and Div. C Title II Part 2 Section 2213 pages 877-880 lines 14-25 and 1-23, inclusive).
Quotas are in full effect throughout the bill (Div. C Title II Part 2 Section 2213 (c-d)(1-3)(pages 880- 881 lines 4-23 and 1-7 and page 884 lines 4-10 and page 939 lines 16-19 and page 946 lines 3-5).
There will be funding for "additional health services" at schools (Div. C Title V Subtitle A Section 2501 page 994 lines 11-13). What are the "additional health services"?
Only unionized healthcare entities can train future nurses (Div. C Title V Subtitle D section 2531 page 1008 lines 13-16 and page 1010 lines 4-5).
All state, county and municipal workers are under the public health plan (Div. C Title V Subtitle E section 2541 page 1017 lines 6-19).
Categories: Education, Finance, Globalism, Civil Liberties, Law, Health Freedom, Action Item, US Constitution, Ethics, Executive Power, Federal Legislation, Current Events, Philosophy, Social Issues, Socialism, Economy, Congress Tags: |
Comments (1)
Interesting in all the debates now on the mainstream media that some rather pertinent facts and observations have also been kept from the public in all the brouhaha surrounding Obama's and Congress's plans for health care reform. At the present time, there is already a socialized health care program for seniors at the federal level called Medicare. At the state levels there is also now health care plans that are funded for the indigent, those that have been denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, dependent children of the working poor, and even illegal immigrants for emergency care services (which are used to visit hospital emergency rooms for cases of the flu, and result in six hour waits for lawful Americans in many hospitals now throughout the country). In effect, we already have health care insurance and provision for all Americans at some level or another. There is also self-insurance for the wealthy, and those that choose to self-insure for regular doctor visits but simply carry catastrophic care. Right now, all of these programs are funded by the citizens at either the federal or state levels, with the states then required to provide matching sums with respect to some of these programs (except the one for the illegals, which is picked up at the federal level, which is why so many of those local initiatives denying such services to the illegals are really quite ludicrous since those services and costs are federal laws, not local, and the health care industry know that). It appears what this truly is is simply another way to centralize more and more power in Washington, increase our federal deficit then in the process for the benefit of the European bankers that rape the American people for their services in printing our currency, and Wall Street once again for the health care sector. And, of course, the politicians for their future careers. What also has been left unsaid is that the costs for these programs will now come out of every American's paychecks through their corporate employers, and as with social security, leaves the door open then for future legislation then involving "matching sums" from those employers for those benefits. And the fact is, since the federal government cannot mandate that health care providers accept lower cost insurance or a government plan for any patients that they treat, can result in paying for years into this program and then when needing care not be able to find a health care provider that accepts these plans. Right now due to the low payment levels involved, there are many providers that do not accept new Medicare patients. And while many of them do accept new patients for childbirth, most OB-GYNs won't accept them for surgical reasons otherwise. Since to do so would mean they have "committed" to that patients future care and then cannot deny them treatment when the costs of their treatment or specific needs outweighs the amounts the state or local plans are willing to pay. Ethically, once a doctor accepts you as a patient, he cannot deny then future treatment. Thus, why so many doctors have now posted signs indicating that they will not accept future Medicare patients. So you may be paying for this "universal" plan in taxation, yet then be unable to use it for your elder care needs when you may truly need it if there are not enough doctors in your local community that are willing to take on new patients. And since the next generation of Americans is far fewer than the previous baby boomer generation was, this scenario has more basis in fact, than fiction. So continue to believe the spins, America, but what the government wants in this legislation is merely to centralize more of the power in Washington, and more access to the fruits of your labor through their corporate "state actor" entities, since special interests wrote this legislation, after all, and that is who both Congress and Mr. Obama have been hard at work consulting. Hoping that the older generation doesn't connnect that the AARP is the largest provider of supplemental plans, and speaks for the industries and trade groups that market through them, not at advocates for seniors at all. Nor does the AMA speak for most doctors either, simply their own also supplemental plans and trade groups. Nor the unions, just in order to get more for the corporate health care provider under their banner who also sell "supplemental" plans to their members. And with the government as the primary provider in these instances and then fall guy for denied treatment without any recourse for Big Daddy's refusal other than petitioning the very entity that refused the treatment to begin with, a great way for those supplemental carriers who give kickbacks to those organizations a way to reap massive revenue without ever having to pay out on any claims. That's why the "corporate" interests have been meeting with Congress all summer behind those closed doors. Just to make sure their "interests" and wallets were covered. Not yours. Categories: Civil Liberties, Law, Domestic Policy, Health Freedom, Social Issues, Economy Tags: health care, reform, government, federal, State, legislation, socialism |
No comments yet.
During all the townhall meetings and such with respect to this claimed "reform" of health care in America which is being promoted by the Obama Administration, it has truly astounded me and many other Americans that the key issues with respect to this legislation have not at all been addressed. And that is the "legality" of any such legislation under our current form of government as encompassed by the U.S. Constitution. Just how many aspects of this plan would not hold muster under the light of Constitutional provision? Fundamentally, almost all of them. Starting with the fact that it is now within Congress or the Presidents enumerated powers of office to "mandate" that Americans must buy or "purchase" health care coverage at all. Their job is to to ensure freedom, not to take freedom away, in determining just what Americans choose to spend the money that is the result of the fruits of their own labors. The 16th Amendment and income tax itself violated that "intent" and those provisions (since the 9th Amendment superceded the 16th, thus requiring the 'consent of the governed' for any such legislation), and now the Cap & Trade tax that was recently sped thorugh Congress (while even shutting down the Energy Committee website to remove the right of petition) another. "Globally" taxing Americans now for the "greater good" of the planet was not something the founders would approve of in the slightest. Especially without the American people's express (rather than implied) consent using simply polls and media propaganda for the basis of this ludicrous legislation. With the stimulus bill were sums that were included to hand over to [person id=1544]Bill Gates[/person] and the telecom industry in order to facilitate also a federally funded database containing all Americans most privileged and personal information - their health care records. Definitely a violation of the "search and seizure" provisions of our Constitution, and fundamental Bill of Rights violation. Who wants a federal lackey in Washingto to know whether or not you have ever contracted an STD or had an abortion? Or are HIV positive? Or underwent cancer treatment but have been determined to now be cancer free? Or saw a counselor during a traumatic life event or loss for a mental health tuneup? Think of what a political tool and weapon this can be, in addition to such a fundamental privacy violation. Or how those records could then be subpoenaed by lawyers in civil suits, or eventually by employers in order to deny employment based on physical health even though the position and the health concern would have absolutly nothing to do with your ability to carryout the needed job functions. Think how many more court actions and courts are going to be needed for all the legal challenges when this information is misued, or there is a security breach by some governmental employee that makes that movie on stolen identity a nightmare come true? There is no inherent right for the government to overstep its Constitutional authority, but it appears that in the last decade that is all the government has actually done. Overstep its Constitutional authority time and time again. To the point now where Americans are truly becoming outraged at these townhall meetings, but the socialists and fascists still haven't gotten the message and are now through DHS attempting to marginalize make the American people and victims of this governmental abuse those to "watch." How dare they. Isn't it the American people who are paying their salaries, and were to be representatives of them with respect to Constitutional violations and not the other way around? The spins continue. Just today there was an article again on the internet attempting to "explain" the Myths and Facts of Health Care Reform. Of course, using "myths" again to obscure the true "facts." That Congress and the President are outside Constitutional authority in even wading in these waters. Especially during this currenct economic meltdown that has left many jobless and homeless - and will now be facing increased energy costs due to the last Constitutional abridgement if they can still hang onto their homes. While they continue to feed the bankers and insurers that are primarily responsible for this economic meltdown, rather than protecting the people and citizens from such abuse. Rather, the true "reform" would be to back up and reinstitute our Constitution, and instead use those telecom monies in order to set up a national complaint system for abusive insurers that deny coverage, or doctors who are overbilling and abusing the system. And then stripping those insurers or doctors of their licenses to do business for criminal fraud. Co-ops are what insurance companies actually were to begin with. What is also needed is forbidding those commercial corporations that exist on public sums from investing in high risk investments with those premiums, such as what occurred with AIG. Not profiting off their criminal activities yet again with this legislation. And also the terms of the policies which are sold, and coverages which are now standardized and information shared within the industry without citizen recourse also as to what is included in that industry pool. Obamacare once again shows that Mr. Obama's representations during this last election cycle shows that not only was his campaign rhetoric a bunch of hogwash with respect to the war, protecting the middle class, and Joe the Plumber, but even his credentials. A Constitutional lawyer actually is a little familiar with the Constitution. Which Mr. Obama clearly is not. Nor is the 111th Congress that is even giving credence to this legislation in its current form.
Categories: Civil Liberties, Domestic Policy, Health Freedom, US Constitution, Federal Legislation, History, Social Issues, State Legislation Tags: health care, reform, government, doctors, medical, insurance, socialism, indusry |
Comments (1)
In a meeting held in Wyoming recently (not in a major metropolitan city, mind you, for reasons we can only guess), Federal Reserve Bank Chair Ben Bernanke put quite a creative spin on the U.S. economy and his predictions that the economic markets are stablizing from "the worst recession since the Great Depression" beginning its freefall last September-October coinicidentally just prior to the U.S. presidential elections. This meeting was attended not simply by U.S. financial industry participants, but also global bankers throughout the world. Which only goes to prove just how much the U.S. economy now is enmeshed with that of other nations of the world, rather than domestically dependent on U.S. production and our own resources and assets. I certainly would like to know just what crystal ball Mr. Bernanke is using, since last month was reported as the highest month in over a year for those now still losing their homes at over 300,000 more, and also with the highest unemployment rates since that Depression - since although Mr. Obama announced a 1% decrease in jobs lost and those on unemployment - what he failed to mention were the number of new small businesses that have gone under, or those Americans who are jobless still but whose benefits have run out. And the bank bailout monies it appears are simply being used to satisfy those foreign investors by the branch banks of the Federal Reserve, and not at all as was publicly announced to help those Americans that are still at risk of losing theirs, after watching their property taxes, insurance rates and costs of ownership soar during the past several years of the boom - and with the overly restrictive and junk feed loans that were sold to most of those homeowners during the last ten year cycle in which fixed rate loans or assumables became almost as scarce as affordable gasoline. In fact, while they are stalling on the processing supposedly of some of these applications, it appears they are merely collecting all those hidden junk fees prior to lowering the boom on those homeowners anyway. After all, Bank of America issued a statement saying it had only helped about 4% of its loans that were determined "at risk" while continuing to collect those fees. Which is now owned by Merrill Lynch, a New York investment house who acted as agent on the resale of many of those bundled mortgages. Hmmm....sounds more like a pyramid scheme than any actual foreclosure rescue as these facts are coming out more and more. Nor was any blame or apology set forth by the Fed, since this was a manipulated crisis after all. But much was said about how much the Fed has done in order to prop up the economy, including slashing interest rates to zero. Big sacrifice, since those zero rate terms do not at all trickle down to the American consumers through their member branch banks at all. Some of those creative loans even sold by Fed branch banks, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were even based on London prime rates - not U.S. prime at all. And since the Euro has been stronger than the dollar due to Fed manipulation, those interest rates skyrocketed. And those loans haven't changed in the slightest since the entire history and reason for this economic crisis was bypassed for the "quick fix" of inflicting instead more taxpayer debt for the Fed's eventual profit. This performance sounded like such a spin, my head is still spinning just reading the details. In fact, bank fees and charges have soared to the highest levels ever on overdrafts, ATM fees and transfers, even transfers within banks from one account to another - all of which are also profits of the Fed which are tacked on to those interest rates in the double digits for most credit card purchases and those usurous fees and charges. Also reference was made to the outrage of the American people for being placed in the position of rescuing this "global market" that the American people had no voice or say in creating in the first place, and bailing out a global London based insurer, AIG, which to date has only accounted for less than 60 billion of the over 170 billion it received. And one of whose Chief Executives sits on the Council for Foreign Relations in New York, home of the Fed, and is from Israel. I wonder just how much of those bailout monies were simply earmarked for foreign aid to Israel, since it does appear that of AIG's global offices, it was only the London office that was in poor financial shape due to lack of regulation in that country over its investment and insurance practices. Mr. Bernanke's economic position may be improving, but did he actually look around Wyoming while he was there and speak to any of the locals after giving his speech? He also mentioned the outrage of the American people in not allowing those banks and big businesses to simply fail. Really surprising considering that the banks are all subsidiaries of the Federal Reserve itself in one way or another through its branch banks - so since the Fed prints the money, and those banks have been making money hand over fist due to reselling most of those lower rate interest loans on the global market, and their increasing junk fees and costs, just how were they ever bankrupt to begin with? The spins and logic here is incredible. Just why didn't they go through the formal bankruptcy process provided in the U.S. Constitution? That question also remains to be answered since the entire circumstances surrounding that bailout to most Americans is truly quite astounding in the Constitutional violations which occurred. And just why were those insurers allowed to reinvest those premium payments in high risk investments over the stock exchange in other areas of the financial sector anyway? Did any of those global bankers pose any of these questions, since the American public are dying really to know the answers still to some of these questions. Appears this speech was another public relations gesture, without much foundation in either truth, or evidence, at this point. Maybe Mr. Bernanke was simply speaking of the Federal Reserve as a branch of the federal government as the true U.S. economy which is now rebounding. And then some. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090821/ap_on_bi_ge/us_bernanke Categories: Finance, Civil Liberties, Domestic Policy, Federal Legislation, Current Events, Social Issues, World Affairs, Economy Tags: Federal Reserve, ben bernanke, wall street |
No comments yet.
http://www.fff.org/blog/index.asp Tuesday, August 18, 2009 The Economic Ignorance of Liberals In a recent article entitled Gunning for Health Care," New York Times columnist Gail Collins made a catty remark about libertarians. Referring to William Kostric, the New Hampshire libertarian who was openly carrying a pistol during a protest, Collins wrote: "Beyond an air of mild surprise, he seemed like your average hard-core Ron Paul voter - male, smug and obsessed with the money supply." That smart remark reflects one of the big problems that afflict American liberals: their dismal understanding of economics. I'd be willing to bet that Collins, who was a journalist major in college and has a M.A in government, has never read one page of Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt, Rothbard, or Bastiat. My hunch is that her understanding of economics is primarily based on the Keynesian nonsense that was taught to her in her undergraduate and graduate programs. Ms. Collins, it's not just that libertarians are obsessed with the money supply, it's that we don't like what the federal government has done to people's money, i.e., debase it decade after decade in order to fund the ever-increasing programs of the welfare-warfare state. An interesting aspect of this is that liberals purport to love the poor. That's what they based their support of the socialistic welfare state on. Yet, the Federal Reserve's debasement of the currency has oftentimes hurt the poor the most, especially those on fixed incomes or those who naively invested their savings in government savings bonds. Another interesting aspect to this is that many liberals have no idea that government is responsible for inflation. They think that inflation is some type of illness, like the flu, that periodically hits different nations. Why are libertarians concerned about inflation? Not only because it's so destructive but also because it's a severely dishonest, even fraudulent, way for government to be funding its operations. After all, if the government needs more money, then why not simply raise taxes? The reason they don't do that is that they fear an angry and outraged citizenry, much like they fear those angry and outraged Town Hall participants. So, instead of raising taxes they simply go out and print the money to pay for their projects, knowing that people like Ms. Collins won't have any idea that the government is the cause of the inflation. How is this increase in money supply ultimately manifested? Through a general increase in prices of everything that is priced in dollars. There's no other way to reflect this decrease in the value of the dollar, a decrease that is brought about as a result of a tremendous increase in the number of dollars in circulation. What will happen when down the road prices soar as a consequence of the Federal Reserve's expansionary policies? I predict that Gail Collins, like most other liberals, is going to exclaim, "This inflation is the fault of the speculator, the businessman, the greedy people, and OPEC." You see, Collins and other liberals are not going to be able to recognize that it's not actually the prices rising but rather the value of the dollar falling, which is manifested by rising prices. And the reason they won't be able to recognize this is, alas, because liberals just don't have a good understanding of economics. Indeed, when prices begin soaring my prediction is that Collins and most other liberals will begin calling for price controls and even wearing buttons on their lapels exhorting people to "Whip Inflation Now" and perhaps even displaying bumper stickers on their cars saying "Support the Fed." Through it all, of course, they'll be scratching their heads in befuddlement over why libertarians were "obsessed with the money supply." Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Categories: Education, Finance, Current Events, Philosophy, Social Issues, Economy, Monetary Policy Tags: |
No comments yet.
For months, is seems that there have been echoes of "Socialist" being spoken or shouted when the President and his administration have been referred to (by citizens). And recently (in the media) this has been compared to being "the new 'n-word'". Apparently, it's an unfair and hateful label that's being indiscriminately applied to the President - and only political bigots are using this term. But is it indeed unfair or uncalled for? And even if the President was proven to be an outright socialist...what's so bad about that, anyway? Even the original creator of the "Joker Obama" portrait doesn't seem to think socialism is necessarily a bad thing. (Read the last quote in the article.) Well, the answers to these socialism-coddlers isn't simple nor is it easy to communicate in convincing terms to people who see "Big Brother" as a good thing. (These people obviously never had actual big brothers!) But there are things in this world which we call "facts". And there is also something which is known as "reality". So we must be content to elucidate some of the facts and a bit of what constitutes reality, and hope for the best. Facts about Socialism and socialist thinking include the following...
Realities that exist, regarding President Obama include the following...
Whatever is done at the expense of the individual is done ostensibly "for" the community in general (in socialism). However, the fact is that when society is supposed to benefit from the sacrifices of the few, the resources are spread so thin that no one ultimately benefits. It would be as if one hundred people had bread, and would enjoy some jelly with their bread. But only one person possessed a jar of jelly. In an effort to mollify the jelly-less, the jelly-owner's big brother takes the jar and begins to distribute it. Hooray! Equality prevails! But the jelly is spread so thin that no one can taste it. (The most important point is that no one person's jelly should be stolen from them in the first place. All in all, it does illustrate the opinon that socialism is indeed a "bad thing".) Is this what we have been shown, in the first few months of our new President's leadership? Has he acted like a big brother, come to take the jar of jelly? Are those his stated intentions? If somehow, we all collectively misunderstood, and then we collectively began to (unfairly) connect him with "socialism" and applied the label - we collectively apologize. Sorry, big brother. Categories: Socialism Tags: president, Obama, socialist, socialism |
No comments yet.
http://www.fff.org/blog/index.asp Monday, August 17, 2009 Kahre's Conviction Is a Sad Day for America Last week, Las Vegas businessman Robert Kahre, the man who paid his workers in gold coins and silver coins, was convicted on all 57 counts of tax evasion. Forty-eight years old, he now faces the rest of his life in prison. His girlfriend and mother of his four children was also convicted. Sentencing will be in November. There is something seriously wrong with a society that is convicting and jailing people like Robert Kahre, Michael Milkin, Martha Stewart, and Joseph Nacchio. As the Russian people have experienced so well, this is what a socialist and interventionist society ultimately ends up doing - punishing ordinary business people for violating economic crimes and tax crimes, crimes that would be nonexistent in a genuine free-market society. If Kahre had been living sometime between 1787 and the early part of the 20th century, he wouldn't have been convicted of income-tax evasion. The reason? Our American ancestors understood that an income tax and an IRS were antithetical to a free society. That's why the United States was income-tax free for more than a century. Then the progressive income tax came to America, along with all the socialist and interventionist schemes it funds and the myriad of economic crimes and tax crimes by which government officials are able to keep businessmen in line. But it's not just the IRS that was upset with Kahre. Lurking behind his prosecution is another federal agency, one that is just as powerful and destructive, if not more so, than the IRS - the Federal Reserve. Suppose a person owes one hundred dollars in income taxes to the IRS. Let's say he has inherited 5 gold coins issued by the U.S. mint, each one having a face value of $20. Let's assume that each gold coin weighs one ounce and that the person is able to sell the coin in the marketplace for one thousand paper dollars. That means that the person's 5 gold coins have a value of 5 thousand paper dollars. Let's assume that the person sends in his five $20 gold coins to the IRS, in payment of his one-hundred dollar tax bill. Will the IRS issue him a refund, representing the difference between the fair market value of the coins and the amount of the tax owed, i.e., 4,900 dollar bills? Absolutely not. The IRS will say that the coins are legal tender at face value. They will keep the coins, sell them, and pocket the difference. But as Kahre has demonstrated, the government's representation that the gold coins are legal tender is false and fraudulent. Kahre and his workers struck a deal in which he agreed to pay his workers, say, 5 gold coins. That meant that their income was one hundred dollars. But the IRS and the federal prosecutors cried, "No! For purposes of the IRS, the workers are required to report the free-market value of the coins, not their face value." In other words, those gold coins and silver coins are not legal tender after all. It's all just a charade, one that Kahre had the audacity to expose. Why is a $20 gold coin worth one thousand paper dollars instead of twenty paper dollars? That's where the Federal Reserve comes into the picture. At one time, prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve, a $20 gold coin did trade for 20 paper dollars. In fact, the real money was the gold coin and the twenty-dollar bill was nothing more than a promise to pay the gold coin. Then the U.S. government called into existence the Federal Reserve System, nationalized and confiscated people's gold, and decreed a paper-money standard. Over the decades, it printed gobs and gobs of paper money to fund its ever-increasing welfare-warfare programs. Thus, the reason that a twenty-dollar gold coin today exchanges in the marketplace for one-thousand paper dollars, instead of twenty paper dollars, is because the Federal Reserve has been flooding the marketplace, decade after decade, with paper money to fund the government's operations. But the feds don't like people figuring that out because it might cause them to begin wondering whether the Federal Reserve should be abolished for having inflicted so much damage on the American people through monetary debasement. Kahre exposed in a very real way what the Federal Reserve has done to our money. According to the Las Vegas Tribune Review, after his conviction Kahre said to the judge: "Your honor," Kahre said when he stood to answer, "This last seventeen years of my life has been to get my issues" aired about taxation and the importance of a gold standard to back U.S. currency. "My life is basically over," Kahre said, indicating that before sentencing he wants to "spend time with family and tie up some loose ends." It's obviously a sad day for Bob Kahre. It's also a sad day for America. Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Categories: Education, Finance, Civil Liberties, Law, Grassroots News, US Constitution, Ethics, Current Events, Philosophy, Social Issues, Economy, Monetary Policy Tags: |
Comments (1)
8-13-09 Tea Party of Louisiana hosted a town hall meeting at Boudreaux's in Baton Rouge and invited District 6 Representative Bill Cassidy, and Louisiana Campaign for Liberty had a big presence. The forum was the House Health Care legislation, but the meeting's attendees explored other big government policies as well. Before the meeting began, we set up a table and passed out fliers on who we are and what we stand for. As the meeting got underway, district 6 coordinator Chris Hand delivered a rousing introductory speech. After Congressman Cassidy ran through all the problems with a government-run health care system, it was time for the audience to ask questions. Four different Campaign for Liberty members gave some of the night's most thoughtful and crowd-friendly questions. After the questions were over people swarmed to our table, as those around us could tell that we had enough passion for the entire crowd of well over 500 attendees. We had a number of Audit-the-Fed petitions signed, and met many future Campaign for Liberty members!
Categories: Campaign For Liberty, Media, Democratic Party, Grassroots News, Action Item, Federal Legislation, Current Events, Revolution, Video, Congress Tags: |
No comments yet.
Cardin Town Hall Meeting - We were there Categories: Education, Civil Liberties, Health Freedom, Grassroots News, Action Item, Current Events, Philosophy, Social Issues Tags: |
No comments yet.
http://www.fff.org/blog/index.asp Monday, August 10, 2009 Plaxico Burress's Doomsday Weapon The inanity of gun control is manifesting itself in the case of former New York Giants' wide receiver Plaxico Burress. Thanks to New York City's strict gun laws, which carry a mandatory minimum sentence, Burress is facing 3 1/2 years in the penitentiary. Burress, who had an expired concealed carry permit issued by the State of Florida, took his 40-caliber Glock with him to New York. While he was at a bar, the weapon slipped down his sweatpants and discharged when Burress was reaching for it. Burress was injured on the thigh. No one else was injured. Not surprisingly, the New York gun-control crowd has gone ballistic. Mayor Michael Bloomberg called for enforcing the mandatory 3 1/2 year sentence, saying that anything less would be "a mockery of the law." Burress testified before the grand jury, hoping that it would show mercy and not issue an indictment. The grand jury returned an indictment anyway. That leaves Burress with almost no options. If he pleads guilty, he's facing the mandatory minimum sentence. If he pleads not guilty, the prosecutors will easily be able to prove his guilt, especially since they presumably now have his confession under oath before the grand jury. There is always the possibility that the prosecutors will offer him a plea bargain, but if they do they're almost certain to demand jail time of at least a couple of years. Burress does have one other legal option though, a doomsday weapon that would strike fear in the heart of every gun-control advocate in the country, especially those in New York City. He ought to move to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he has the right to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in the country for purposes of self-defense and then carry that issue all the way to U.S. Supreme Court. After all, given that people have the natural and God-given right to keep and bear arms, as the Second Amendment recognizes, why shouldn't they have the right to keep such arms concealed? Under what moral or constitutional authority does the City of New York deprive a person of protecting himself from murderers, rapists, thugs, and other violent people? After all, it's not as if gun control has succeeded in preventing violent murders in New York City, any more than it has in Washington, D.C. As gun-rights advocates have been pointing out for decades, murderers don't obey gun-control laws. Since they have no problems violating laws against murder, rape, robbery, and so forth, they also have no problems violating laws against using weapons to commit such crimes. Therefore, all that gun control accomplishes is to prevent good people, such as Plaxico Burress, from defending themselves against the murderers, rapists, and robbers. How moral is that? Not moral at all. It's ridiculous. Plaxico Burress has no more business going to jail than you and I do. He's no criminal. What is criminal is New York City's gun-control law. Burress has nothing to lose. He ought to plead not guilty, contend that New York City's gun-control law is unconstitutional, and take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. He'd be doing us all a big favor. Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Categories: Education, Civil Liberties, Law, Grassroots News, US Constitution, Ethics, Current Events, Philosophy, Revolution, Social Issues, Socialism Tags: |
Comments (1)
The White House is asking you to tattle on anyone that is making statements against their health care by directly e-mailing them. Spread this far and wide!!! http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ As stated on whitehouse.gov: There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov. Categories: Media, Civil Liberties, Domestic Policy, Health Freedom, Democratic Party, Grassroots News, Action Item, US Constitution, Ethics, Executive Power, Current Events, Revolution, Social Issues Tags: Obama, Healthcare, spying, Constitution, treason |
Comments (12)
Categories: Education, Just For Fun, Economy Tags: |
Comments (8)
Can anyone answers the following question for me? As an outsider I have difficulty figuring it out.
I just read a post by Paul McKain entitled "What is the Health Care Bill - REALLY?". He makes the following points that seem in agreement with the Liberty Counsel's summary from an earlier post (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=22827) and, at the end asks "Which brings me to the question - Who or What is this Bill really for?" Mr Paul McKain's points: To an outsider, it seems that those trying to rush the bill through see this differently from Mr McKain, or do they see it the same but have intentions different from the reasons given when they push the bill? On the second question: It seems the Fed is owned by Major Banks with shareholders that are not so easy to identify, so all this stuff happens because the president and the Fed say it should and most congressmen go along with it because their constituents do too little about it. Could the answer to who owns these major banks give THE answer to some of the other questions here? If, that is right, it comes back to the same old story of how we bring suffering on ourselves when our own responsibility slips. If I understand it right, per a previous post on here about "the strangest political secret", anyone could try to become a precinct leader of some kind who then would have some say over who gets into congress, so it would not have to about campaign money only. Then Congress could stand together and protect the constitution as they should be doing. Of course one would have to use channels that bypassed the mainstream media and got to enough people to let them see the bigger picture. And this seems to be because (again, if I have it right) those who started the Fed then acquired the main media a few years after and set up the CFR to control that; that has continued and expanded up till today even to the point where only CFR members get to the highest posts because they are the only ones who are granted sufficient approval by these media and so seem to the average joe to be the only choices (in practical terms - although others can run they seem insignificant as they don't get enough media coverage). It just seems that the people are under a constant onslaught on their liberties which is being aided and abetted by most congressmen at least because they read so little of what they sign. And where it is being originated, really? My appreciation for any enlightenment from those who are closer to these things.
Tags: |
No comments yet.
As my profile says, I'm in my first year of law school. My goal in getting a J.D. is certainly more noble than most (I want to provide cheap, if not free, representation on Constitutional issues as specific as gun rights and as sweeping as federalism and the separation of powers), but the farther things go down the toilet the less likely it seems that I'll actually be able to follow through. There are a couple of major problems: the economy and the state of legal education. The economy, as we all know by now, is tanking and not likely to recover for some time. There are still some parts of the country that aren't terribly bad off, but by the time I graduate that could easily change. Bad economies make for bad job markets, especially for attorneys. They just aren't high on most people's list of priorities. So even if I graduate with awesome grades and as many other benefits as I can accrue, it won't be easy getting my foot in the door anywhere, let alone hanging up my shingle and going into business for myself. The state of legal education is, however, my bigger worry. I'm in a law school that ranks high in terms of conservatism. In fact, Ave Maria School of Law is, I believe, about the 2nd most conservative law school in the country according to one ranking. Now, with a ranking like that, you would think there might be some good teaching going on. Not so. The professors here that deal with Constitutional issues don't seem to have much of a problem with most of what our Supreme Court does until it touches on their morality, such as abortion and contraception. If you couldn't guess from the name, this is a Catholic law school, so those are a big deal. But other areas, like the so-called "incorporation doctrine" and other such inanities that the Court creates out of thin air to justify itself, don't seem to ruffle too many feathers. A perfect example is my professor in Civil Procedure, the class that explains how a civil lawsuit actually goes through the system. He seems to have a good grasp on U.S. history, including the fact that states were meant to have powers reserved to them that the federal government could not usurp. But he seems to have no problem with the incorporation doctrine or other such craziness, unless, as I said, it ends up contradicting his Catholic morals. All this is not to criticize anyone who teaches there. I realize that a true understanding of the Constitution is hard to find these days, and mostly those with such an understanding exist outside of law schools. I say all this to make the point that much of what is wrong with this country is already so deeply ingrained into the thinking of the legal profession as a whole that trying to win a case on the true rationale would require every judge up and down the line to completely shift their paradigm of thinking. Never mind the fact that the Supreme Court is perpetually staffed with at least 4 hardcore liberals who couldn't care less what the Constitution actually means anyway. In short, the deck is stacked heavily against anything like real reform from the legal standpoint. The only two ways to make real progress are electoral victories in Congress so that we can impeach the judges and justices who don't do their job, or to mount a perfect case such that any court who rules the wrong way on it will have to deny common sense and thereby set themselves up for massive criticism. The problem with the latter option is that the Supreme Court generally doesn't hear a case unless it presents a relatively novel question of law or is one that has produced a significant split among the various courts of appeals, so that approach might never even touch the ultimate goal. Let's face it, our only real hope is to educate the public and get better people elected. While that is not to say that we shouldn't fight our judicial battles, it is to say that we need to pick them carefully and argue them even more carefully. Long live the R3volution! Categories: Law Tags: law school, Law, Constitution, Supreme Court, Impeach, congress, educate, elect |
Comments (3)
Liberty Counsel, a nationwide public interest religious civil liberties law firm, has read all 1018-pages of HR3200, Healthcare Reform Bill, and has provided a complete analysis of the bill. It is a monstrous government take-over and socialization of national healthcare. Please take the time to read the entire 10-page analysis here. You won't believe what you read. Then call your representatives and tell them to vote "no" for Obamacare. Pick out the top 10 reasons you think the healthcare reform plan is wrong for the country and share it with your representatives. Find your Congressman here. Find your Senators here. Yours in liberty, Donna Holt Interim Virginia State Coordinator Categories: Civil Liberties, Health Freedom, Action Item, Federal Legislation, Economy Tags: obamacare, Healthcare Reform |
Comments (26)
Letter to legislators (New Zealand example) Winnie's letter (below) is perfect for sending to any media outlet. It is short (we should try to keep these letters to between 200 and 250 words to ensure that they are not edited) and very much to the point. I think that if all of us sent this letter or one very much like it to our local newspapers, TV stations and radio stations, we would have an excellent chance of raising some interest in this issue. Dear [Legislator], It has been brought to my attention that Baxter International, a major multinational pharmaceutical company which has now received contracts from nations all around the world to produce and distribute a new swine flu (H1N1) vaccine, is under suspicion for the following reasons: 1- In February, 2009, Baxter's Austrian branch sent batches of what was supposed to be human influenza (H3N2) vaccine to 18 different European countries. These countries were to use these vaccine samples to produce human flu vaccines for their populations. One country, the Czech Republic, tested these batches and found them to be contaminated with live Avian influenza virus (H5N1 - Bird flu). Had this vaccine been administered to people prior to this contamination being discovered, it could have caused a deadly pandemic. 2- Baxter had been given stocks of Avian influenza virus by the U.S. government so it could work on producing a vaccine against any future outbreak of this disease. This virus was provided to them under the condition that they would adhere to the required Biosafety Level 3 strict controls. Had these controls been followed, this sort of contamination would have been impossible. There are only 2 conclusions one can draw from the fact that this contamination event took place. Either: Baxter were incredibly careless with their procedures causing an accidental contamination which then, incredibly, was allowed to get out into millions of doses of vaccine before anyone noticed; or The contamination was intentional and it was only a matter of luck and good due diligence on the part of the Czech officials that this was caught before anyone received the contaminated vaccine lots. 3- The outbreak of Swine Flu (H1N1) which has led the World Health Organization (WHO) to declare the highest possible level of pandemic awareness - Level 6 - began in Mexico City - right near a Baxter Labs facility which was working on experimental flu vaccine. This might be no more than a coincidence were it not for the fact that on August 28, 2008, Baxter Labs filed for a patent (# US20090060950A1) on H1N1 virus - almost a full year before this outbreak occurred or H1N1 had ever been heard of! This patent demonstrates that Baxter was working on a vaccine which would have been composed of several different types of viruses including human, pig, dog, horse and avian flu. Is it too much to expect that the company which sent out contaminated flu vaccines in February could not have done exactly the same thing several months later in May? The New Zealand Minister of Health, the Hon Tony Ryall, has asked Ministry of Health officials to urgently advise him on issues raised about a swine flu vaccine produced by Baxter International Inc. There is grave concern that due to the past record of contamination and errors made by Baxter Labs, none of their vaccines can be trusted. As a concerned citizen, I agree that there is cause to question Baxter's products and hope that you will also see that there are very serious outcomes possible if a pharmaceutical company, which has been given a contract to make vaccines which will protect health, instead distributes vaccines which spread disease and possibly, even cause death. It is my will that you do everything within your power to call for a public and transparent investigation of this situation and that any vaccines produced by Baxter International should be thoroughly examined by an independent laboratory for any evidence of contamination with adventitious viruses or bacteria and that the results of this investigation be made public as a matter of urgency. I thank you for your time and await your prompt response to my letter. Kind regards, References: Baxter Sent Bird Flu Virus to European Labs by Error http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTo3LbhcA75I Baxter Pharmaceutical Plant in Mexico- Ground Zero for Flu Outbreak
zero-for-flu-outbreak/ Letter Sparks Investigation of Baxter Vaccine by New Zealand Minister of Health http://www.naturalnews.com/026571_Baxter_New_Zealand_health.html Categories: Campaign For Liberty, Education, Media, Health Freedom, Republican Party, Grassroots News, Action Item, US Constitution, Ethics, History, Revolution, Video Tags: |
No comments yet.
This past Saturday and Sunday (July 25-26) members of the Campaign for Liberty in Louisiana's District 1 & 2 (aka Greater New Orleans) were at the Great Southern Gun & Knife show in Kenner, Louisiana. Among other things, our primary focus was to find new members and get attendees to sign the C4L petition to Sen. Mary Landrieu to support the Audit the Fed bill. (Sen. Landrieu is Louisiana's ONLY elected Federal rep that has NOT co-sponsored.) We downloaded the petition straight from the C4L Website's "Materials" section and simply printed "Mary Landrieu" on each sheet. We got 120 people to sign the petitions and names & emails from nearly 90 folks so that we could sent them more information about Campaign for Liberty. We expected to get some resistance from some of the attendees, but overwhelmingly our table, message, and organization was very well received! If you would like to find what materials we used and info about what what worked and what didn't, please shoot me a message and I'd be glad to share. To our friends across the state and across the country, I'd highly recommend doing this where you are. Here is a list of the upcoming ones in Louisiana and a quick google search for "gun show" and "your state" will give you plenty of information. Here are some pictures from the event.
Categories: Campaign For Liberty, Grassroots News, Miscellany Tags: New Orleans, Gun show |
Comments (8)
Ron Paul speaks about 8:36 into the video Categories: Ron Paul, Education, Globalism, Grassroots News, Current Events, Video, World Affairs Tags: |
No comments yet.
Categories: Revolution, Social Issues, Socialism Tags: |
No comments yet.
ACORN bossed the police around having them remove people from speaking with people who disagreed with Obamacare….such a shame.
in baton rouge Categories: Media, Civil Liberties, Domestic Policy, Health Freedom, Democratic Party, Grassroots News, Action Item, Federal Legislation, Current Events, Video Tags: |
Comments (2)
www.fema.gov National Level Exercise 2009 (NLE 09)National Level Exercise 2009 (NLE 09) is scheduled for July 27 through July 31, 2009. NLE 09 will be the first major exercise conducted by the United States government that will focus exclusively on terrorism prevention and protection, as opposed to incident response and recovery. NLE 09 is designated as a Tier I National Level Exercise. Tier I exercises (formerly known as the Top Officials exercise series or TOPOFF) are conducted annually in accordance with the National Exercise Program (NEP), which serves as the nation's overarching exercise program for planning, organizing, conducting and evaluating national level exercises. The NEP was established to provide the U.S. government, at all levels, exercise opportunities to prepare for catastrophic crises ranging from terrorism to natural disasters. NLE 09 is a White House directed, Congressionally- mandated exercise that includes the participation of all appropriate federal department and agency senior officials, their deputies, staff and key operational elements. In addition, broad regional participation of state, tribal, local, and private sector is anticipated. This year the United States welcomes the participation of Australia, Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom in NLE 09. EXERCISE FOCUS NLE 09 will focus on intelligence and information sharing among intelligence and law enforcement communities, and between international, federal, regional, state, tribal, local and private sector participants. The NLE 09 scenario will begin in the aftermath of a notional terrorist event outside of the United States, and exercise play will center on preventing subsequent efforts by the terrorists to enter the United States and carry out additional attacks. This scenario enables participating senior officials to focus on issues related to preventing terrorist events domestically and protecting U.S. critical infrastructure. NLE 09 will allow terrorism prevention efforts to proceed to a logical end (successful or not), with no requirement for response or recovery activities. NLE 09 will be an operations-based exercise to include: activities taking place at command posts, emergency operation centers, intelligence centers and potential field locations to include federal headquarters facilities in the Washington D.C. area, and in federal, regional, state, tribal, local and private sector facilities in FEMA Region VI, which includes the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. EXERCISE OBJECTIVES Through a comprehensive evaluation process, the exercise will assess prevention and protection capabilities both nationally and regionally. Although NLE 09 is still in the planning stages, the exercise is currently designed to validate the following capabilities:
VALIDATING THE HOMELAND SECURITY SYSTEM Exercises such as NLE 09 are an important component of national preparedness, helping to build an integrated federal, state, tribal, local and private sector capability to prevent terrorist attacks, and rapidly and effectively respond to, and recover from, any terrorist attack or major disaster that occurs. The full-scale exercise offers agencies and jurisdictions a way to test their plans and skills in a real-time, realistic environment and to gain the in-depth knowledge that only experience can provide. Participants will exercise prevention and information sharing functions that are critical to preventing terrorist attacks. Lessons learned from the exercise will provide valuable insights to guide future planning for securing the nation against terrorist attacks, disasters, and other emergencies. For more information about NLE 09, contact the FEMA News Desk: 202-646-4600.
Categories: Current Events, Video, War/Military Tags: |
Comments (4)
The Peoples Agenda: What can we the people do to take our country back?
Federal Level Solutions:
Please research these 4 items for yourself. ============== ============= ==================== State Level Solutions: Work to get your state legislature to pass a Sovereignty Bill with teeth. See example below:
"A Politician's Ear" Project: Define a Sovereign State formed by a Sovereign People. This is what our state politicians should be hearing from the people:
What is the meaning of Louisiana State Sovereignty? The Sovereign people of Louisiana, having created the Sovereign State of Louisiana, call on our state legislators to enact the following legislation: - Form an Alliance of Sovereignty between all 50 - All Federal Monies (corporation taxes, license fees, income tax, etc.) payable to the Federal Government from the state of Louisiana shall be collected by the State of Louisiana for distribution to the Federal Government. - All Federal Agencies and employees doing business in Louisiana shall be licensed and regulated by the State of Louisiana. This includes the Federal Courts located in Louisiana. - All Federal Law Enforcement personnel shall be licensed and regulated by the State of Louisiana and must register with the Sheriffs Office of the Parish they are operating in. The Sheriffs office must approve all Federal enforcement actions prior to enforcement. - All Federal employees will have mandatory classes on Constitutional Law and the Oath of Office in order to obtain their license. - Louisiana State Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all Federal Courts including the U.S. Supreme Court as it pertains to the State of Louisiana. - All Louisiana Senate and House Representatives in the US Congress shall return to Louisiana and report to the Louisiana State Legislature for further instructions. The Federal Government is trying to suggest that the Sovereignty Resolutions passed by the states means Succession. There is no Succession here. We seek to enforce the contract made between each state and the Federal Government (The Constitution). Each State Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the contract that formed the Federal Government. That contract is The Constitution. Let us debate the meaning of State Sovereignity. Your comments, ideas, and suggestions are needed. http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=21961
Categories: Foreign Policy, Education, Globalism, Civil Liberties, Action Item, US Constitution, Ethics, Current Events, Philosophy, Social Issues, Socialism, State Legislation, World Affairs, Economy, Congress Tags: |
No comments yet.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009 Private Bergdahl and the Silence of the Pro-Torture Crowd The pro-torture crowd sure seems quiet about the plight of 23-year-old private Bowe R. Bergdahl, the American soldier being held captive by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Why the silence? For eight years the pro-torture crowd has been defending the propriety of subjecting prisoners and detainees to such things as waterboarding, repeated waterboarding, walling, beatings, forced nudity, involuntary sexual acts, and even actions that "inadvertently" resulted in death. And for 8 years, the anti-torture crowd, including those of us here at The Future of Freedom Foundation, have been arguing against all of this, primarily on moral grounds. But ever since allegations about the torture began surfacing 8 years ago, we've also been making another argument, a practical one involving U.S. soldiers. We have continually argued that the use of such "interrogation techniques" would inevitably subject U.S. soldiers taken captive to the same mistreatment. Of course, even if the U.S. were treating its prisoners and detainees properly, it's always possible that the other side would nonetheless mistreat U.S. personnel taken captive. But one thing is for sure: Once the U.S. government took the torture road, it lost all moral standing to insist on the proper treatment of American soldiers taken captive. And it virtually guaranteed that U.S. personnel would be subjected to the same or similar methods of mistreatment, or worse. Suppose the Taliban releases videos showing Bergdahl naked, with Taliban soldiers, both male and female, standing around him and leering at him and laughing at him. Then, suppose that after that the video shows him being repeatedly waterboarded, maybe once or twice a day. Then, suppose it shows him in stress positions for long periods of time and being intentionally denied sleep over several weeks. Suppose he's thrown up against walls and beaten. Suppose he's "inadvertently" killed during his interrogation. What possibly could the pro-torture crowd say? That none of this constitutes a proper interrogation technique? That it's unfair? Wouldn't the whole world laugh at such claims? After all, if these things constitute proper interrogation techniques for prisoners and detainees in U.S. custody, why don't they constitute proper interrogation techniques for American soldiers and CIA personnel taken captive? The Taliban has released a video in which Bergdahl requests the American people to bring about the withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan. Given that the pro-torture crowd has long argued that confessions that U.S. "interrogation techniques" have produced are voluntary and valid, I wonder if the pro-torture crowd would say the same about Bergdahl's statement. During the entire time that the anti-torture crowd was making this pragmatic argument against torture, the pro-torture crowd was pasting those "support the troops" stickers on their vehicles. I can't help but wonder if Private Bergdahl might be saying to himself right now, "With friends like those in the pro-torture crowd, who needs enemies?" Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. http://www.fff.org/blog/index.asp
Categories: Foreign Policy, Education, Media, Law, Ethics, Executive Power, Current Events, Philosophy, Social Issues, War/Military, World Affairs Tags: |
Comments (2)
The Obama Administration, the salesmen for the New World Order, sent some of their people to sell the socialized healthcare plan to Louisiana. They did not advertise, possibly because they wanted little opposition. When the patriot groups in Louisiana caught on to this town hall meeting, we advertised and really got the word around about this meeting. The Obama Administration was not expecting a turn out of about one thousand people, with most in opposition to the plan.
Categories: Campaign For Liberty, Foreign Policy, Education, Media, Globalism, Law, 3rd Parties, Health Freedom, Republican Party, Democratic Party, Grassroots News, US Constitution, Ethics, Federal Legislation, Just For Fun, Revolution, Social Issues, Socialism, Video, World Affairs, Economy, Trade Tags: district 6, , council on foreign relations, CFR, new world order, Kathleen Sebelius, Reserve LA, Campaign for liberty, C4L, Bilderberg, louisiana |
No comments yet.
I(Patrick Le Blanc), Rishi Vyas, and John Delouise went to Reserve, LA to confront Kathleen Seblius of the Obama administration about her attendance at Bilderberg. This is what we got.
We also passed out dvd's on socialized health care we put together w/ ron paul and others talking about it. As well as C4L & "Audit the Fed" info. Campaign for Liberty reached a lot of people today. Major Success!!!! Categories: Campaign For Liberty, Foreign Policy, Education, Media, Globalism, Civil Liberties, Law, Domestic Policy, Health Freedom, Republican Party, Democratic Party, Grassroots News, Ethics, Current Events, Revolution, Social Issues, Video, World Affairs Tags: |
Comments (4)
The most important concept in this book is the difference between rights and privileges. For that reason, this chapter can be downloaded from my web site at no charge, and may be reproduced and distributed without written permission, as long as it is copied intact and without modification. A right is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person and incident upon another ... the powers of free action." Please note that rights are "inherent" in a person. This means that it is physically impossible for rights to be extracted from a person by any means. Imagine a brick made of lead. The first thing that will cross your mind is that this object will be heavy. Extremely high density or weight is an inherent quality of lead. If an object isn't heavy, you can be certain that it's not made of lead. You cannot put a lead brick into a vacuum and "suck out the heavy." You cannot put a lead brick into a microwave and zap it until it becomes light and fluffy. The quality of being heavy is one of the distinguishing attributes of lead. Now recall some of the dreams that you've had. You can't put the unpleasant ones into a bag and bury them in the back yard. You can share your dreams with others, but you don't have to worry that someone will steal them from you when you're not looking. Your dreams are an inherent part of who you are. No one can extract your dreams from you. The same thing is true about your rights. When you die, your dreams will die with you. If someone kills you, they will deprive you of life, but they can never deprive you of your right to life. I define a right as something you can do without asking for permission. The opposite of a right, therefore, is something you cannot do without asking for permission. Any time you need permission to do something it is a privilege. Black's Law Dictionary defines this as "a particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption." Rights and privileges are opposites. I have three corollaries to the definition of rights. They are: Let me demonstrate the principle behind my first corollary with an example. Suppose I walk out of my house onto my land. I can walk back and forth, back and forth, across my land anytime I want without asking anyone's permission. Walking across my land is a right. Now suppose I want to walk to the store located on the other side of your land. Can I walk back and forth across your land anytime I want to? Certainly not. Not without your permission. It is a privilege to walk across your land. Assuming that we've been neighbors for a while, it is possible that your response would be, "Sure you can take the shortcut, Mike. What are friends for?" So on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday I walk to the store making my way across your land. Let us now assume that something unpleasant happens to you. You misplace a winning lottery ticket, or your significant other leaves you for your best friend. You wake up Thursday morning in a terrible mood, looking for an opportunity to vent your frustrations. As I begin to make my way across your land you shout, "Hey, mister! Walk around! That's what fences are for!" The important concept here is that privileges are granted, and they can be revoked at any time for any reason. Once again, rights and privileges are opposites. Categories: Campaign For Liberty, Education, Civil Liberties, Law, Health Freedom, US Constitution, Ethics, History, Current Events, Philosophy, Revolution, Miscellany, Social Issues, Socialism Tags: |
No comments yet.
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> Your Civil Liberties are being taken away (under cover) with “The Pass” (which is the These bills will cost so much more than they are worth. The “Cap N Trade Bill” will raise prices on every thing you use or buy. It’s a hidden tax. You are looking at maybe three or four times higher than they are now. This includes utilities, fuel for your vehicles, your groceries, your clothes, any appliances, medicines and your health care. Every part of your life is affected. The “New Health Care Bill” will force you into a Socialist system of Government. They will tell you how, what, when and where to go and get things done (if they feel you are eligible). That is very scary. Can you imagine being told that you cannot have a procedure or medicine to take for your condition? Just when you thought nothing else could go wrong---- Check out this link under the "Health Care Bill": The “Pass Bill” Will follow you everywhere and always. It will have every detail about you on your “driver license”. Like your medical history, your spending history and if that isn’t enough, your whole life history. The House and The Senate are trying to pass these bills before they break in August. Now is the time to call all of your Rep. and Senators to vote against these ‘Bills”. Here are some contacts: U.S. Congress, with local office addresses: Senate Ms. Mary Landrieu (D) 328 HSOB Hale Boggs Federal Building U.S. Courthouse Federal Building Hibernia Tower Mr. David Vitter (R) 516 HSOB 3221 Ryan Street 2230 South MacArthur Drive 800 Lafayette Street 858 Convention Street 1217 North 19th Street 2800 Veterans Boulevard 920 Pierremont Road
House of Representatives Mr. Steve Scalise 429 CHOB 110 Veterans Boulevard 112 South Cypress Street 21454 Koop Drive Mr. Joseph Quang Cao 2113 RHOB 4640 South Carrollton Avenue Mr. Charlie Melancon 404 CHOB 1201South Purpera Avenue 124 East Main Street 8201 West Judge Perez Drive 423 Lafayette Street Dr. John Fleming 1023 LHOB Southgate Plaza Shopping Cente 700 Benton Road 6425 Youree Drive Mr. Rodney Alexander 316 CHOB 1412 Centre Court 1900 Stubbs Avenue
Dr. Bill Cassidy 506 CHOB 5555 Hilton Avenue Dr. Charles W. Boustany, Jr. 1117 LHOB 800 LaFayette Street 700 Ryan Street
In Liberty,
Categories: Civil Liberties, Health Freedom, Socialism, Economy Tags: |
No comments yet.
These are videos taken from freemarketcure.com on the follies of socialized health care. Uninsured in America
Two Women
Brain Surgery
The Lemon
Categories: Media, Civil Liberties, Health Freedom, Grassroots News, Federal Legislation, Current Events, Social Issues, Socialism Tags: |
No comments yet.
I had recently posted a thread about the amazing support the "audit the fed" bills have been getting and a link to this site so anyone intrested could help, on a gun/survival forum I am a member of. A couple of people just felt it neccesary to state that it would never happen b/c the Fed was to powerful. After I then proceeded to ask what were their ideas on what should be done. They had none. One guy then proceeded to ask me what my solution to the Fed problem was. This was my response: Well first off Campaign for Liberty is not Ron Paul's 2012 election campaign. Dr. Paul so far has stated that he will not be running for election again in 2012. Although I'd like it if he changed his mind but there's a good bit of time b/t then an now, so who knows. The mission statement of C4L is as is: "To promote and defend the great American principles of individual, constitutional government, sound money,free markets, and a non-interventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity." ________________________________________________ I felt this was a great response and wanted to share it. In the words of the great Patrick Henry, " I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Categories: Philosophy, Revolution Tags: discussion, naysaying, auditthefed |
Comments (6)
"A Politician's Ear" Project: Define a Sovereign State formed by a Sovereign People. This is what our state politicians should be hearing from the people: What is the meaning of Louisiana State Sovereignty? The Sovereign people of Louisiana, having created the Sovereign State of Louisiana, call on our state legislators to enact the following legislation: - Form an Alliance of Sovereignty between all 50 - All Federal Monies (corporation taxes, license fees, income tax, etc.) payable to the Federal Government from the state of Louisiana shall be collected by the State of Louisiana for distribution to the Federal Government. - All Federal Agencies and employees doing business in Louisiana shall be licensed and regulated by the State of Louisiana. This includes the Federal Courts located in Louisiana. - All Federal Law Enforcement personnel shall be licensed and regulated by the State of Louisiana and must register with the Sheriffs Office of the Parish they are operating in. The Sheriffs office must approve all Federal enforcement actions prior to enforcement. - All Federal employees will have mandatory classes on Constitutional Law and the Oath of Office in order to obtain their license. - Louisiana State Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all Federal Courts including the U.S. Supreme Court as it pertains to the State of Louisiana. - All Louisiana Senate and House Representatives in the US Congress shall return to Louisiana and report to the Louisiana State Legislature for further instructions. The Federal Government is trying to suggest that the Sovereignty Resolutions passed by the states means Succession. There is no Succession here. We seek to enforce the contract made between each state and the Federal Government (The Constitution). Each State Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the contract that formed the Federal Government. That contract is The Constitution. Let us debate the meaning of State Sovereignity. Your comments, ideas, and suggestions are needed.
Categories: Education, Civil Liberties, Law, Grassroots News, Action Item, US Constitution, Current Events, Philosophy, Revolution, State Legislation Tags: |
Comments (2)
Thursday, July 16, 2009 Zelaya, Chavez, and Roosevelt One of the interesting aspects of the Honduran coup debate is with respect to the economic policies of ousted President Manuel Zelaya. Those who defend Zelaya's ouster are quick to criticize his leftist philosophy and programs, along with his ideological alliance with Hugo Chavez, the leftist ruler of Venezuela. Why is that interesting? Because Zelaya's and Chavez's economic philosophy and programs are no different, in principle, from those of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, who many Americans view as an icon and whose policies are still credited by many to have "saved America's free enterprise system." The obvious question arises: If socialism and interventionism are bad for Latin America, why do so many Americans still extol and praise Roosevelt for foisting them on the American people? In fact, I couldn't help but be amused over reading that Zelaya had raised the minimum wage in Honduras by 60 percent. The purpose? To help the poor, of course. That's the standard explanation that every statist gives for the minimum wage Of course, as every libertarian knows, that's ridiculous. If poverty could be ended through minimum-wage mandates, poverty would have disappeared eons ago. It doesn't take much for a government to issue a minimum-wage decree. The truth is that minimum-wage laws hurt the very people they purport to help because they lock out of the labor market those people whose labor is valued in the marketplace at less than the minimum wage. So, what happens to those unemployed people? They starve to death, unless the state puts them on welfare, which then makes them submissive, obedient, dependent wards of the state, scared to death that their dole is going to be cut off. Let's not forget that the minimum wage was one of Roosevelt's principal socialist and interventionist programs too. In fact, it was during the FDR administration that one of our nation's most important legal battles took place in the U.S. Supreme Court, a battle in which American statists prevailed over the advocates of economic liberty. In the 1923 case of Adkins v. Children's Hospital, the Supreme Court had declared that minimum-wage legislation was unconstitutional. The idea was that such legislation infringed upon people's liberty of contract, an aspect of liberty that was protected by the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. People have a fundamental right, the court held, to enter into mutually beneficial exchanges with one another. Liberty of contract was part of what became known as economic liberty. Who benefited from liberty of contract? Both the employer and employee! After all, if two people voluntarily enter into an agreement, both of them benefit from it. Otherwise, they wouldn't enter into it. Oftentimes, poorer people would work for what would seem to others to be a low rate of pay, acquire skills in the trade or business, and then go out and start their own businesses. Then Roosevelt came into power. Like Zelaya and Chavez, Roosevelt adopted various forms of socialism and interventionism, purportedly to "help the poor." His statist programs included Social Security, the AAA, the NIRA, agricultural subsidies, federal housing relief, mortgage moratoriums, confiscation of gold, redistribution of income, tax increases, and paper money. Not surprisingly, Roosevelt, like Zelaya and Chavez, was also an ardent supporter of the minimum wage. In 1937 - at the height of Roosevelt's New Deal - the Supreme Court overruled the decision in Adkins and upheld the constitutionality of the minimum wage. What was Roosevelt's role in this? After the Supreme Court had declared much of his socialist and interventionist programs unconstitutional, Roosevelt refused to follow the proper course of seeking a constitutional amendment for his alien plans. Instead, he came up with a notorious scheme that would enable him to pack the Court with ideological cronies who would vote to uphold the constitutionality of what he was doing to America. While the scheme failed, it might have placed sufficient pressure on one justice - Justice Owen Roberts - to cause him to shift his vote in favor of Roosevelt's position. While Roberts later denied that he had succumbed to such pressure, his vote became known as the "switch in time that saved nine." West Coast Hotel was a watershed legal decision, not only because of the minimum-wage issue but also because never again would the Supreme Court declare any law unconstitutional on the ground of economic liberty. Statism became an established way of life in America, as it is in Honduras, Venezuela, and other parts of Latin America. So, how come some people are so quick to criticize Zelaya and Chavez for their socialist and interventionist policies while extolling and praising those of Roosevelt? That's a good question! Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. http://www.fff.org/blog/index.asp
Categories: Education, Law, US Constitution, Ethics, Federal Legislation, History, Philosophy, Social Issues, Socialism, Economy Tags: |
No comments yet.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009 Padilla vs. Yoo: An Update There are two interesting developments in Jose Padilla's lawsuit against former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo, who was one of the authors of the infamous torture memos. First, the Justice Department is no longer defending Yoo in the case. He will now be represented by a private attorney, paid for by the Justice Department. Second, Yoo is appealing the ruling of the federal district court denying his motion to dismiss Padilla's case. A motion to dismiss requests the court to summarily dismiss the plaintiff's case without hearing any evidence. The motion essentially says: "Even if you accept as true everything the plaintiff is saying in his petition, he is not entitled to win as a matter of law." Generally, courts are loath to summarily dismiss cases brought by litigants. The general rule is that everyone is entitled to the opportunity to prove his case. Thus, in ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court will accept as true everything that is stated in the plaintiff's petition. If such facts, if later proved, can support a legal case against the defendant, the court will deny the motion to dismiss. Can a defendant appeal a motion to dismiss? The general rule is no because the courts frown on interlocutory appeals, that is, appeals that are taken before a case has been finally resolved. Since a denial of a motion to dismiss is not a final resolution of the case (because the case is allowed to continue forward), the general rule is that an appeal cannot be taken from it. So, why would Yoo be taking an appeal at this stage? My hunch is that he, along with a lot of other people in the Bush administration, are panicked over the judge's ruling and are now looking for every way possible to delay the continuation of the suit. Why? Because Padilla's lawsuit provides the means by which Yoo and other Bush administration people can be forced to testify under oath in a federal court proceeding as to exactly what went on in the so-called war on terror. Except for Padilla's case, giving sworn testimony is something the Bush people could easily succeed in avoiding, given congressional apathy toward an official investigation and executive branch opposition to criminal prosecutions. Why is Padilla's lawsuit important? Because the ultimate ruling in the case will apply not just to him but also to all Americans. The suit alleges that the U.S. government took Padilla into custody and held him for several years without charge, until finally indicting him and convicting him in federal district court of the federal crime of terrorism. For years prior to the indictment, Padilla was held in the custody of the U.S. military, where he was denied right to counsel, the right to due process of law, the right to bail, the right to a speedy trial, the right to a jury trial, and other procedural protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. He was also subjected to torture, sensory deprivation, isolation, sleep deprivation, and many other cruel and unusual pre-trial measures. The government takes the position that it had the legitimate authority to do these things to Padilla and that it, in fact, has the legitimate authority to do them to every other American, as part of its "war on terrorism." Yoo is saying that as a government lawyer who was just delivering legal opinions, he is immune from Padilla's suit. The district judge disagreed. He held that the U.S. government lacks constitutional authority to subject the American people to such treatment and that any lawyer who knowingly participates in a scheme to subject Americans to such mistreatment is not immune from suit. Given the predilection of the courts against interlocutory appeals, in my opinion the Court of Appeals will quickly rule against Yoo's appeal, enabling Padilla to continue with his case and begin taking sworn depositions. That will be when things start to get interesting. Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. http://www.fff.org/blog/index.asp
Categories: Civil Liberties, Law, US Constitution, Ethics, Executive Power, Current Events Tags: |
No comments yet.
Today we accomplished what is in my opinion the largest barrier to getting involved and getting a successful campaign started: actually getting out and working! The Campaign for Liberty in West Baton Rouge and many volunteers from across the river in East Baton Rouge came out to talk to the fine people of the River Landing subdivision in Addis about the Campaign for Liberty, our message, and about H.R. 1207/S.604. Six volunteers, including District 6 Coordinator Chris Hand and his daughter; East Baton Rouge Parish Coordinators Brent Fox and Patrick LeBlanc, as well as John Delouise came out to help. Which is awesome, considering when I first set this event up I expected to be doing this subdivision alone :-) We met at the Benedettos' Market grocery store, which luckily has tables in the shade to get set up with. After preparing the papers and going over our game plan, we set off, hitting the streets to talk to people about the Campaign for Liberty. After introducing ourselves and the organization, we informed them about our campaign to audit the Federal Reserve, and presented them with petitions to Nancy Pelosi to bring H.R.1207 up to vote and to Mary Landrieu to co-sponser S.604. People were very receptive, and many signed our petitions and membership sign-up sheets. Even more looked over the information we provided them and promised to visit CampaignForLiberty.com and sign the petition there. After covering the entire subdivision, the heat and impending rain drove us back to our organizing spot in front of Benedettos', where we made sure our signed petitions and membership pages were in order and talked about various liberty topics for a while longer. According to Chris Hand, we visited 81 houses today, which is even more awesome! Overall, the main goal was to gain more membership in the parish. Given the reception today, I think it's going to be a little easier than I had thought. -Kevin "Yeaux", West Baton Rouge Coordinator, Campaign for Liberty Categories: Grassroots News Tags: |
Comments (4)
I had just flown in from Nashville, TN and was driving home from New Orleans Airport to my house in Baton Rouge, LA when I noticed a cop was behind me. I switched lanes and he switched lanes, about a minute later I switched lanes again and he did the same. At that time I decided to pull over to determine why I was being followed. As I pulled off onto the shoulder, the police officer finally turned his lights on and followed me until I came to a stop. I turned down my radio and was about to get out of the car when I heard "DRIVER, PLEASE STEP OUT OF THE CAR WITH YOUR HANDS IN PLAIN SIGHT." I obeyed with my hands up high, parallel with each other, as I walked towards the police car. He got out of the car and I asked him why he was tailing me. I had a suspicion it was my "GOOGLE Ron Paul" and "George Orwell said this would happen" bumper stickers but I wanted to hear the legal reason for being followed. He told me I was stopped because I was swerving and that multiple drivers called 911 to alert them of my "suspicious activity." I denied that allegation and asked if he or any other police officer had witnessed me swerving. He said that no police officer had and instructed me to get my license, insurance and registration. This is when I was able to take the picture of the police officers from inside my car. I took 2-3 minutes to collect my thoughts and walked back to the police officer with the requested documents. By this time there were 3 police officers on the scene. The 2nd police officer (he seemed higher on the food chain) asked me where I was coming from. I ignored the question and told him that if I was not being arrested for anything I would like to get back on the road. He ignored me and asked if I had been drinking or doing drugs today. I again ignored him and asked to get back on the road if I was not being arrested. He asked why I wouldn't the answer questions. I told him because I was not obligated to as a sovereign citizen of Louisiana. I asked him why he was asking me these questions? This went on for about a minute until I noticed the 3rd police officer on the passenger side of my car appearing to open the door. http://www.reboottherepublic.com/pics/cops_7_12_09.jpg I asked the 2nd officer if they had a warrant to search my car. He said no and the 3rd police officer came over to join the group. The 3rd officer also asked if I had been drinking or doing drugs. I again ignored the question and said I would like to return to the road if I was not being arrested. The 3rd officer (much more of an asshole than the other two) asked if he could search my car. I asked if he had a warrant. He said no and asked why I wouldn't let him look in my car if I had nothing to hide. I asked him why would he want to search my car if there was no probable cause. He said my refusal to let him search my car was probable cause. This blew my mind. I explained to him how that is not probable cause and it was a circular argument and unless I was being arrested I would like to return to the road. I also asked if I was such a danger to others why didn't the officer immediately pull me over right away rather than wait until I PULLED OVER TO FIND OUT WHY I WAS BEING TAILED. He then very sternly told me that warrant or not, a police dog could be here in a few minutes and we would get this squared away. I had nothing to worry about, I don't drink or do drugs and told him I was fine with and informed him that I would be filming the entire incident (with my iPhone 3GS) so I can use it as evidence. BTW, I suggest everyone get a iPhone 3GS. You can film something and upload it directly to YouTube from your phone. Using this feature, I don't have to worry about my footage being thrown away by an out of control cop. Once it's on YouTube, it's out of their hands. Anyways, he did not like this response and told me he was done playing games and I was going to be taken to the police station so he could get to the bottom of this. I asked why I was being arrested and was told "Disturbance of the Peace." I asked whose peace I was disturbing and was basically ignored and put into the car of the 2nd officer. On the way to the police station I explained to the officer that my intent wasn't to be a nuisance, I respected him and his occupation but felt my rights were being violated. He was actually very cool and didn't defend the actions of the 3rd cop but I could sense he felt the guy went too far but he didn't want to get into the middle of it. We discussed NAZI Germany, the Nuremberg trials, etc. He was fairly educated and without coming out and saying it I could tell he knew this was bullshit. We get to the police station where I was cuffed to a bench in the hallway. A 4th officer came and spoke to me and we went over and over the same type of questions I had already answered by the first 3 officers. After going in circles, he left and I sat there for about an hour until the 2nd officer came over, uncuffed me and said I was free to go. I asked if I was going to be issued a ticket for swerving. He said no charges were being filed and I was free to go on my way because no officer viewed me swerving. I asked him what happened to my car. He went to check and found out it was still on the side of the road. I asked how I was going to get back to my car. He asked if a family member or friend could come get me. I said probably but this is not their problem, I was detained for no reason and expect the police department to provide me with transportation back to my car. He walked away them came back and said "let's go." On the way back to my car he was a bit more open. He told me how the 3rd officer had been accused numerous times of abusing his power but never charged with anything. We started talking and he was curious why I put up all that resistance if I had nothing to hide. I went on to explain what rights, freedom and liberty really are and even shared with him websites such as dailypaul.com where he could better educate himself. He was open to this and seemed very appreciative of my cooperation. I had a spare copy of "The Anatomy of the State" in my car which I went and gave to him. I shook his hand before I walked back to my car and after about 2 hours I was finally on my way home. I am not going to file any charges. The further away I can stay from a courthouse, the better. There are much bigger fish to fry at the moment. What is the moral of this story? Hopefully this will encourage others to practice civil forms of disobedience. Ryan http://www.reboottherepublic.com Categories: Ron Paul, Campaign For Liberty, Civil Liberties, Law, Domestic Policy, 3rd Parties, Grassroots News, Action Item, US Constitution, Ethics, Current Events, Revolution, Miscellany, Social Issues, State Legislation Tags: |
Comments (4)
Also appears at www.ourtimetostand.com in the Editorial section. JULY 10, 1832 (WASHINGTON, D.C.) - President Andrew Jackson today struck the first blow in ridding the nation of its central bank, the Second Bank of the United States. Jackson returned to the Senate, unsigned, a bill that would have extended the bank's charter for another 15 years. The current charter is due to expire in 1836. Along with the unsigned bill, Jackson sent a message explaining the reasons for his veto. A key portion of his veto message focused on monopoly, privilege, and favoritism: "It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society-the farmers, mechanics, and laborers-who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." Tragically, 81½ years from now, on December 23, 1913, the Sixty-Third Congress will reintroduce central banking to the United States by passing the Federal Reserve Act. Through its monetary policies, the Federal Reserve will gradually destroy the nation's currency to the extent that the American economy will collapse early in the 21st century. Sorry about that. # # # JULY 10, 2009 (FRONT GATE OF JACKSON SQUARE, FRENCH QUARTER, NEW ORLEANS, LA., AFTER GATES HAD BEEN LOCKED) - On the 177th anniversary of Andrew Jackson's veto of the bill to recharter the Second Bank of the United States, James Hines of SaintsAndFools.com and Tom Kowitz of OurTimeToStand.com memorialized the event at Jackson Square in the French Quarter of New Orleans. Kowitz's account appears below: So, I'm heading home from work at 5:25 on a Friday evening, when my cell phone rings. It's my good friend James Hines calling to see if I would like to go with him to Jackson Square in the French Quarter to light a candle in honor of Andrew Jackson. 'Nuf said. Of course I would. Fast-forward to about 7:45. The gates of Jackson Square are locked. No big deal - we'll light our candles at the front gate. Turns out we have 13 candles. Bad luck? Good omen? Bad omen? Well, for James, the original 13 colonies come to mind. Maybe a good omen. But for me, the year 1913 comes to mind. Maybe a bad omen. Candles in place, I ask James for a match. Long pause. James didn't bring matches. Or a lighter. Another problem. Not an insurmountable one, however, as we spot a few groups of people smoking vegetation of varying degrees of legality. James scores us a lighter pretty easily. Finally, down to business. Except the breeze that kicked up was just weak enough to not notice at first, just strong enough to blow out the candles every few seconds. Another problem. While we're fighting the breeze and struggling to get all 13 candles lit at the same time, it occurs to me that it might be interesting to try to communicate with Andrew Jackson. After all, we're in a place with more mediums per city block than anywhere else in the world. And not only that, they all accept fiat money! I explain all this to James, but he doesn't seem to like the idea. He'll light a candle for Andrew Jackson, but that doesn't mean he wants to talk to him. Next thing we know, a group of vampire hunters shows up at the front gate. The leaders of the Vampire Tour make it clear that they are licensed vampire hunters. They can't believe that someone else would try to occupy this particular space at this particular time. They are incredulous that we don't know that the front gate of Jackson Square becomes their box office at 8 o'clock every evening. Sheesh! So now we have another problem. And if there's anything worse than vampire hunters, it's vampire hunters with a license from the city. These guys are well-connected not only with local vampires, but with local bureaucrats. James and I don't want any trouble, so we ask for just a few minutes while we fight the breeze. At this point, James informs the leaders of the Vampire Tour of the amazing coincidence: We are vampire hunters, too! After all, we're going after the Federal Reserve, perhaps the world's most formidable vampire! Which leads to the highlight of the evening: One of the leaders of the Vampire Tour recommends we read The Creature From Jekyll Island. Now, that happens to be the most informative and powerful book I've ever read, and it changed my life. I've recommended it to more than a thousand people over the years, so it's particularly delightful to have a vampire hunter recommend the book to me at the very moment I'm honoring the man responsible for knocking off the Fed's predecessor. Soon the breeze died down, and we quickly got all 13 candles lit at the same time. We left them there, burning, along with a copy of Andrew Jackson's veto message to the U.S. Senate. Here's to you, Old Hickory.
Tags: |
Comments (1)
I called Sen. Landrieu and Sen. Vitter today to talk to them about Cap & Trade. I, of course, told them both that they need to vote "No" on the bill. Without hesitation, I was told that they both already plan to. WOOO HOOOO!!! However, I do believe that we still need to call, email and fax them everyday till the bill is brought up for vote. Remind them everyday that we don't want this bill to pass. Otherwise, one of them might change their mind. Keep up the great work! For Freedom, Heather Categories: Action Item, Federal Legislation, Current Events, Economy, Trade, Congress Tags: cap, trade |
Comments (2)
Friday, July 10, 2009 Why Not Permanently Cancel Aid to Honduras? I've got good news and bad news about the coup in Honduras. The good news is that the U.S. government has suspended $16.5 million in military-assistance programs to Honduras and threatened that another $180 million in aid could be at risk. The bad news is that it's only a temporary suspension and only a threat of a cutoff, not a permanent termination of foreign aid to Honduras and its military. That's almost $200 million that the U.S. Empire is funneling into the coffers of Honduran officials, including those in the military. That is not a small amount of money. That large sum of money ends up in the pockets of thousands of Honduran politicians, bureaucrats, and military personnel. At the same time, it produces a deep sense of Honduran dependency on the U.S. Empire as well as a deep sense of loyalty and servitude to the Empire. Meanwhile here at home, most everyone knows that the U.S. Empire is bankrupting America with its out-of-control spending, on both domestic and foreign programs. With the feds continuing to spend considerably more money than they bring in with taxes, the national debt continues to soar. Massive currency debasement lies on the horizon. Yet, in the minds of many, the Empire continues to be a permanent given. No matter how bad things get at home, the Empire just continues doling out money to foreign militaries and foreign regimes with nary a concern about the adverse economic effects here at home. The Empire might suspend the payment of its military dole to Honduras and threaten a cut-off of other funds, but everyone knows that the largess will continue flowing as soon as Honduran officials do what Empire officials want. How much economic abuse will the American people permit themselves to be subjected to at the hands of Empire officials before they finally say, "Enough is enough"? The U.S. government has no more business taxing Americans to send foreign-aid loot to Honduras than to any other foreign regime. Don't Americans have the right to decide what to do with their own money rather than having it forcibly taken from them by the IRS so that it can be sent to politicians, bureaucrats, and military personnel in the Honduran government? What if the Honduran government cannot afford a big and powerful military without U.S. Empire largess? Well, that's just tough. It will mean that they will just have to do with a military they can afford, which might mean a few hundred soldiers. Of course, the primary beneficiary of that phenomenon would be the Honduran people, who would no longer be subjected to the brutality of their government's military personnel, many of whom, by the way, have been trained in brutality and torture at the U.S. Army's School of the Americas. Today, the American people are stuck in a very precarious economic quagmire. On the domestic side, they are dependent upon their socialistic welfare state, especially Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Thus, significant expenditure reduction is unlikely here. Further on the domestic side, they remain committed to the war on drugs, despite its manifest 35-year-old failure. Thus, significant expenditure reduction is unlikely here. Further on the domestic side, they continue to believe that massive federal spending will stimulate them to economic prosperity. Thus, significant expenditure reduction is unlikely here. Further on the domestic side, the national debt, both principal and interest, continues to soar. Thus, significant expenditure reduction is unlikely here. On the foreign side, Americans remain committed to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus, significant expenditure reduction is unlikely here. Further on the foreign side, they remain devoted to the U.S. Empire's network of worldwide military bases, its role as the world's international policeman, and its program of interventionism. Thus, significant expenditure reduction is unlikely here. It would seem, however, that if there were ever an area of federal expenditures that the American people could agree should be eliminated, it is foreign aid. What better place to start than a permanent cancellation of the $200 million being sent annually to the Honduran government? Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. http://www.fff.org/blog/index.asp Categories: Foreign Policy, Education, Globalism, Action Item, US Constitution, Current Events, War/Military, World Affairs, Economy, Congress Tags: |
No comments yet.
Dr Bill Cassidy came to Our Lady of the Lake Hospital June 30 and we were there to meet him. I handed him a copy of Creature From Jekyll Island and Chris set up a meeting with him. The economy will be the number one concern for the 2010 election, and the more politians that will talk about the Fed, the better. I really think the liberty movement will do great in 2010 as long as we keep it up. Charlie Melancon is the last holdout for HR1207. I have a feeling he will come around as long as we keep up the pressure. The companion bill to HR 1207 is S 604. And since Vitter was the second to co-sponsor, the only holdout in Louisiana is Landreiu. Already states like Washington, Vermont and Iowa are ahead of us in members per capita and organization. If we could get all 9 reps on board, we would have some serious bragging rights. There are some fantastic constitutional-minded folks down here in Louisiana. Recruit them. The best recruits are church leaders, comunity leaders, office holding polititians and their organizational assistants, professors and media personnell. The easiest recruits are Ron Paul supporters, anti-war activists, gun-rights activists, libertarians and free marketeers. Happy Independence Day civilianfox Congradulations LSU Tigers, World Series Champions!!! Categories: Campaign For Liberty, Education, Election News, Republican Party, Grassroots News, Action Item, Federal Legislation, Monetary Policy, Congress Tags: |
Comments (1)
Health Care, Health Insurance, & Pharma Oil Defense Telecoms Automotive Financial Biotech Railroads Life Insurance Other http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18394.cfm Categories: Civil Liberties, Domestic Policy, Grassroots News, Action Item, Commodities, US Constitution, Current Events, Revolution, Social Issues, Economy, Congress Tags: |
Comments (1)
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 Health Care Is Not a Right Amidst all the health care debate, there is one underlying assumption that hardly anyone challenges: the notion that people have a right to health care. The truth is that it's a nonsensical notion. People no more have a right to health care than they have a right to education, food, or clothing. After all, what does a right to health care mean? If I have a right to something, then doesn't that mean that you have a correlative duty to provide it? If you're a doctor, then it means that you are required to serve my needs, like it or not. If I need an operation, then you cannot say "no" because that would be denying me my right to health care. Thus, isn't the right to health care actually a power to force doctors to provide people with medical services? Now, the proponent of health care as a right might say, "That's not what I mean. Why, to force doctors to provide health care services to others would be akin to slavery, especially if it's for free. I think that doctors deserve to be paid for their services." Fair enough. But then doesn't the right to health care entail the power to force someone else to pay for it? Let's assume, for example, that I need hip-replacement surgery that will cost $25,000 and that I don't have the money to pay for it. Since I have a right to health care, that means that I have a right to get the money from you to pay for my operation. It also means that you can't say no because that would be interfering with my right to health care. Thus, the right to health care entails the power of everyone to get into the pocketbooks of everyone else. That's not only a ridiculous notion of rights but also a highly destructive one. Since obviously people can't go and take the money from others directly, it inevitably entails converting government into an engine of seizure and redistribution. Or to paraphrase Bastiat, such a concept of rights converts government into a fiction by which everyone is doing his best to live at the expense of everyone else. Meanwhile, while everyone is using government to get into everyone else's pocketbook to pay for his health care expenses, he is simultaneously doing his best to protect his own income and assets from being plundered by the government to fund everyone else's health care bills. Over time, it is easy to see how such a system devolves in everyone's warring against everyone else. It is also easy to see that such a system obviously does not nurture friendly and harmonious relations between people. This is especially true when these types of "rights" expand to such areas as education, food, clothing, and housing. The true nature of rights - the type of rights the Founding Fathers believed in - involved the right of people to pursue such things as health care, education, clothing, and food and that government cannot legitimately interfere with their ability to do so. Thus, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as described in the Declaration of Independence, doesn't mean that someone else is forced to provide you with the means to sustain or improve your life. It means that government cannot enact laws, rules, or regulations that interfere with or infringe upon your right to pursue such things. When Americans began looking upon rights as some sort of positive duty on others to provide them with certain things, that was when the quality of health care in America began plummeting. That was what Medicare and Medicaid were all about - the so-called right of poor people and the elderly to health care. It is not a coincidence that what began has the finest health care system in the world has turned into a system that is now in perpetual crisis. There is one - and only one - solution to America's health care woes - and it lies not in a government takeover of health care. In fact, the solution is the exact opposite: It is the end of all government involvement in health care - a total separation of health care and the state. That would entail not a reform or improvement of Medicare and Medicaid but rather their total repeal. At its core, the solution to America's health care crisis lies in the abandonment of the notion that health care is a right. Once people reach this fundamental realization, as our American ancestors did, the nation can get back on the road toward to a healthy, prosperous, and harmonious society. Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation http://www.fff.org/blog/index.asp
Categories: Health Freedom, Grassroots News, US Constitution, Federal Legislation, Philosophy, Social Issues, Socialism Tags: |
Comments (1)
Please join American Majority Louisiana on Wednesday, July 22, for an opportunity to make a difference in your community by learning about new tools and resources and by networking with other like-minded individuals and organizations. The training will be hosted at the Baton Rouge Area Foundation from 10:00 am until 2:00 pm at 402 N. Fourth Street Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The event is FREE and a complimentary lunch will be provided to each attendee. Some of the event topics include: Come enjoy great new information and become a part of Louisiana's rich history of individuals making a difference! To RSVP or for more information please contact Jacob Luneau at jacob@americanmajority.org This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or Jennifer Grigsby at jennifer@americanmajority.org or call (225)-281-4626. You can also RSVP by using our online registration form. NOTE: The trainers recommend that attendees bring a laptop to this training.
Categories: Ron Paul, Campaign For Liberty, Education, 3rd Parties, Grassroots News, Action Item, US Constitution, Revolution, State Legislation Tags: |
Comments (1)
Monday, June 29, 2009 Iranians Have Two Options: Obey or Die Many Europeans love to look down their noses at Americans over the issue of gun rights. They just cannot understand how Americans can be so uncivilized as to leave people free to own guns. Whenever I discuss the gun-rights issue with Europeans, I point out one fundamental fact, one with which they can never disagree. The fact is this: When European citizens become the victims of a tyrannical political regime within their own country, they have no effective choice but to submit to its dictates and obey its commands. Americans, on the other hand, would have at least one last option if a tyrannical regime were ever to assume power in the United States. That last option is violent resistance against the forces of government. Consider Nazi Germany. The Nazis were able to take power in Germany through democratic means (a point that democracy lovers often forget). After assuming power, they used two threats to assume tyrannical power: terrorism and communism. The threat of terrorism was rooted in the terrorist attack on the Reichstag. The communist threat was rooted in the Soviet Union. Using those two threats, Hitler induced the German parliament to grant him emergency powers by which civil liberties were suspended. Even though the suspension was supposed to be temporary - that is, until the crises over terrorism and communism were over - as a practical matter it became permanent. The Nazis used the period to consolidate their power over the citizenry and impose their tyrannical regime onto the German people. As a result of gun control, violent resistance to Nazi tyranny by the German people was not an option. As a result, most Germans became submissive, loyal, and obedient. This same phenomenon is now playing itself out in Iran. At first, the post-election demonstrations challenging the validity of the election results were drawing hundreds of thousands of people. Today, the protests are drawing only a few thousand. The reason? The tyrants in Iran are killing protestors and promising to execute many more after kangaroo tribunals find them guilty of acts that threaten national security. Everyone in Iran knows that there are now only two options: obey and meekly submit to the orders of the tyrants or die. Owing to gun control, shooting back at the tyrants' police and military, who are faithfully and loyally following the orders of their superiors, is not an option. Ironically, the right to keep and bear arms actually serves as an inhibitor to would-be tyrants. When they know that hundreds of thousands of protestors have the ability to shoot back at the police and troops, they inevitably factor that into their decision-making when deciding what steps to take against the citizenry. Could the United States ever end up with a tyrannical regime? Of course. And make no mistake about it: Such a regime could easily count on many members of the police and the military to faithfully and loyally follow orders to kill, torture, and incarcerate the citizenry. All the regime would have to do is tell the police and the troops that they're targeting communists, terrorists, and other serious threats to national security. In the recent case of D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court pointed out that the primary purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that Americans were not deprived of the means to resist tyranny by force. What the Court was referring to, of course, was not the tyranny of some foreign government but rather the U.S. government. Federal appellate Judge Alex Kozinski expressed the matter well in the 2003 case of Silveira vs. Lockyer: The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
http://www.fff.org/blog/index.asp
Categories: Education, Civil Liberties, Law, Domestic Policy, Grassroots News, US Constitution, Federal Legislation, History, Philosophy, Revolution, World Affairs, Congress Tags: |
No comments yet.
<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> the purpose of the constitution is to establish a set of privileges for the government. the important concept here is privileges are granted and can be taken away. rights are inherit in us and cannot be revoked unless you violate someone elses rights.
Categories: Education, Civil Liberties, Law, Domestic Policy, US Constitution, Federal Legislation, Miscellany, Social Issues, Socialism, State Legislation Tags: Rights, property |
Comments (1)
Do not stand confused at what you see here. We Are Constitutional Statesmen! Campaign for Liberty… The motive of our actions dumbfounds other political groups, since we have no ulterior motive outside of how we define ourselves. As others poke and prod us and check our pockets, we smile with hands out in gesture of peace. They are so used to power hungry wolves amongst their midst that they find it hard to accept the “sheepdogs” that have come to protect them… these sheep. Let us break this down for our political allies and adversaries to understand. Please pay attention, because it is just as I am defining it here. Campaign for Liberty has no agenda other than to become a permanent tool that our descendents can use to support and maintain the original design of Government portrayed by our Constitution of the United States of America, State Constitutions, and to enforce their rights to Self Governance. Our TRUE agenda is identified easily by our Name. There is no “double speak”. We are just as simple and honest as we look to be from the outside looking in. We keep our ideals out in the open. Bluntly, we openly “…wear who we are on our sleeves”, to quote my grandfather. Even more simply, by definitions provided by Webster’s Online Dictionary:
Campaign: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Campaign 1 : a connected series of military operations forming a distinct phase of a war 2 : a connected series of operations designed to bring about a particular result campaign>
For: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/for 1 a
Liberty: 1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice
THIS IS WHO WE ARE!!! A series of Connected Operations designed to bring Liberty.
Campaign for Liberty promotes IDEALS that WE as a Nation hold dearest! Our agenda is ONLY to be Free. Our integrity and intent can NOT be altered. For WE are a lodestone guiding All back to the designs of our Nation’s Founders. Apathy, Fear, Hate, and Turmoil flee from the light of Integrity, Strength, Persistence, Honesty, Intelligence, Honor, and the Enforcement of Our Constitution. Campaign for Liberty is an organization open to all whom wish to Remain Free and have Liberty. Our leadership consists of men and women who understand and promote self governance. Members and leaders within our group will not tolerate anything less from our leadership. THIS is Organization is Constitutional.
As a whole, we are Not conspiracy theorists. We educate ourselves on Facts and act accordingly. Our hot-blooded activism may shy away a few, but our goal is to inform and educate the public so that they too will either join or emanate Campaign for Liberty’s ideals., and in doing so, return America to it’s path of Manifest Destiny. Manifest Destiny… Manifest Destiny was never about land or property or how large our Union of States may be. Manifest Destiny is about Personal Freedom and Liberty being the Rule of Law, and other countries following suit. The reason new States celebrated their joining our Union was because our Constitution protected Americans from the tyranny of so many other forms of government, so long as we understood and enforced it. Our ancestors knew what it was to be ruled under tyrannical government. This is why they came to America! Fortunes could be won here by the fruits of Hard Labor! Government world wide owned the land, and gained wealth through the labor of its citizenry. No where else in the world was a commoner able to gain Property that was honestly theirs.
So you see, C4L is never about personal gain for one individual. “Our mission is to promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity.” - http://www.campaignforliberty.com/about.php And that, dearest would be allies, is all there is to it. No hidden agenda, no personal gain, no promoting individuals in government… just honest, straightforward integrity. We do promote Ideals that are “Common Sense” to Educated Americans. A Statesman holds these truths to be self evident, and in embodying said ideals, will be elected on merit alone. For when Americans are once again educated on what it is to be American, they will vote by their hearts and not what is popularized by media outlets.
To our adversaries: Do Not stand in our path. Our destiny grated to us by God empowers us with strength untold. Gears sent to turning by our forefathers have constructed this juggernaut powered by the People’s Will. We will not be turned aside. The tsunami of our Agenda will wash you away… and history will only remember you for what you are, Traitors of these United States and her People.
Sincerly, Chris Hand Campaign for Liberty Louisiana’s District.6 Regional Coordinator
NOTE: The Definition of Statesman: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statesman 1: one versed in the principles or art of government ; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies 2: one who exercises political leadership wisely and without narrow partisanship
Categories: Campaign For Liberty, Education, Civil Liberties, Action Item, US Constitution, Ethics, History, Current Events, Social Issues Tags: |
Comments (4)
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 Interventionism and Gun Control in Iran The situation in Iran is providing liberals with a harsh lesson about the First Amendment and the Second Amendment. It's a lesson that our American ancestors understood very well. Here's the lesson: Without the right to keep and bear arms, the rights of freedom of speech and peaceable assembly are meaningless. If tyrants own all the guns, then they know that they can suppress fundamental rights of the people without worrying about violent resistance to their tyranny. With a monopoly on guns, what incentive do tyrants have to end their tyranny? The tyrants know that a disarmed citizenry has but two options: obey the tyrants by submitting to their tyranny or die at the hands of loyal and obedient (and armed) military and police forces. Meanwhile, conservatives and neoconservatives are criticizing President Obama for not more openly supporting the Iranian protestors. Perhaps they have forgotten what happened to the Kurds and Shiites in Iraq after conservative President George H.W. Bush encouraged them to rise up and try to overthrow Saddam Hussein at the end of the Persian Gulf War. They got massacred, as Bush's military forces stood by and watched. While we're on the subject of democracy, perhaps we should remind ourselves of the secondary rationale that conservatives and neoconservatives used for invading Iraq - "democracy spreading." It went like this: Even though we invaded Iraq because we were certain that Saddam was about to explode mushroom clouds over American cities, after we failed to find any WMDs we decided that we actually invaded Iraq because we love the Iraqi people and wanted to bring them democracy. That's why we killed, maimed, tortured, sexually abused, and exiled millions of them and destroyed their country - so that the survivors could enjoy democracy. Well, we all know that there is no democracy in Iran. After all, despite those elections, the big elephant in the room is that those Ayatollahs who really rule the country aren't elected at all. They're the ones who decide who gets to run for office. Yet, do you see even one conservative or neoconservative traveling to Iran to stand with the protestors and defend democracy? Do you see even one of them demonstrating in the streets of Tehran and standing up to the Ayatollah tyrants? No, of course not, just as you never saw any conservatives or neo-conservatives standing and fighting with the Shiites and Kurds who were fighting against Saddam. That would entail taking individual responsibility for their beliefs, an anathema for conservatives and neo-conservatives. When they say that "we" need to be tough, what they mean is a vicarious "toughness," one that is measured by the toughness of the U.S. troops that they are so eager and willing to send into battle against the forces of the tyrants. But as with Iraq, it would be morally wrong and illegal for the U.S. government to invade and occupy Iran. It is up to the Iranians, not the U.S. government, to decide whether to resort to violent revolution to free themselves from tyranny, just as it was the right of the Iraqi people. If the Iranian people decide that they would rather submit to the tyranny than incur countless deaths in a violent revolution, that is their right, just as it was the right of the Iraqi people. The Iranian situation helps to remind us what a disaster conservatives, neo-conservatives, and liberals have been for our country and why the only hope out of the morass in which we find ourselves is with libertarianism. Liberals are obviously pleased that the Iranian people lack the means to violently resist tyranny and wish to disarm Americans too. Conservatives and neo-conservatives would use the U.S. Empire to invade Iran for the purpose of reinstalling a U.S. stooge into power and kill, maim, torture, and exile countless Iranians in the process. Libertarians, on the other hand, would prohibit the U.S. government from invading and occupying Iran or any other nation. Moreover, understanding that the right to keep and bear arms is the best check against tyranny, libertarians will continue resisting any effort by the gun-control crowd to disarm the American people here at home. Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. http://www.fff.org/blog/index.asp Categories: Foreign Policy, Election News, Current Events, World Affairs Tags: |
Comments (1)
Posted this today in one of the local online newspapers - the Houma Courier...I don't think he will read it or care..but then again, maybe he will get a grip:
Mr. Melancon is now a minority of Congressmen who have not yet supported HR 1207, which is the Federal Reserve Tranparency Act. Why he is not supporting the bill yet, and what one might think his intentions are for not already supporting it already, are quite disturbing and scary. If he does not support the bill, remember him next election time, please. What HR 1207 is about has already been disseminated in large detail already, and he has also acknowledged in writing that he understands what it is about! Google it, learn about it, and ask your representative to do his job.
Categories: Finance, Domestic Policy, Grassroots News, Action Item, Just For Fun, Economy, Monetary Policy, Congress Tags: |
Comments (2)
Senator David Vitter jumps on board to co sponsor S.604 (companion to HR1207). Please contact his office and thank him. http://vitter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm Categories: Ron Paul, Republican Party, Federal Legislation, Economy, Monetary Policy, Congress Tags: |
Comments (1)
Within the context of the divine comedy a priest or preacher can a find material which explains exactly what is happening in merica. In the first ring of hell sinners chase a banner round the ring, never allowed to capture it. In vain the pursuit continues throughout eternity. In such a manner do Americans pursue imagined wealth under the auspices of the Federal Reserve. Vain pursuit is their lot. For 100 years, a central bank has held aloft a piece of paper with vaious denonominatios printed on it. Worthless, it is propagated by those who have been given control through means unlawful to dispense it to the masses as a means of attaining happiness. The masses, ignorant of the circumstances in which they find themselves, fall victim to this fraud. Only through education by those who have been able to penetrate this fog can the masses again enjoy the light which has always been there.
Tags: |
Comments (1)
Another gem from the LSU campus newspaper opinion sections this past spring semester
|
No comments yet.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009 Boumediene Confirms the Wisdom of Our Ancestors In the debates leading up to the enactment of the U.S. Constitution, our American ancestors made a demand. If we accept the Constitution and the federal government it is calling into existence, they said, then we demand passage of a Bill of Rights immediately after the Constitution is adopted. The reason they made that demand was twofold. First, they didn't think the Constitution, as written, adequately protected them from potential abuses of power at the hands of federal officials. Second, they were certain that in the absence of express protections of rights and guarantees, federal officials would do very bad things to people, including innocent people. They were right on both counts. Just ask Lakhdar Boumediene. For 8 years we've been told by federal officials, including the president, the vice president, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the CIA, that the prison camp they established in Cuba housed dangerous and evil terrorists. Trust us, they claimed. There are no innocent people here at Guantanamo Bay. But of course the critical question was: How do you know? How do you know that these people are really guilty of terrorism? And whenever some asked that question, the answer always has been: Trust us. We're federal officials. We know a terrorist when we see one. Yet, the Pentagon has now released to France a man named Lakhdar Boumediene, who has been imprisoned and tortured at Guantanamo Bay for almost 8 years. Why did the Pentagon release Boumediene, a man they held and treated as a dangerous and evil terrorist for almost 8 years? One reason: he was innocent. Yes, innocent. Completely innocent. The president of the United States, the vice president, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the CIA imprisoned and tortured an innocent man for almost 8 years, and then simply released him without even the hint of an apology. Perhaps I should mention that Boumediene has a wife and two small daughters, ages 13 and 9. He's missed the last 8 years watching his daughters grow from toddlers into young girls. In the post-9/11 paranoia that gripped U.S. officials, Boumediene was arrested in Bosnia on suspicion of having bombed the U.S. embassy in Sarajevo. Bosnian courts dismissed the charges for lack of evidence. U.S. officials didn't like that. Despite the lack of evidence, they were sure that Boumediene was guilty. So, they simply kidnapped him in Bosnia and whisked him away to their torture and sex abuse prison camp in Cuba. Boumediene's name might be familiar. It is his name that appears in a major Supreme Court decision entitled Boumediene v. Bush, which established that the Gitmo prisoners could challenge their imprisonment in U.S. federal courts through habeas corpus. You'll recall that the Pentagon's position was that its power should be omnipotent - beyond the principles of the Constitution and the control of the federal courts. The case of Lakhdar Boumediene reminds us why our American ancestors demanded passage of the Bill of Rights. They weren't too excited about the idea of calling a federal government into existence. They were certain that federal officials would start doing things like imprisoning and abusing innocent people. That's why the Bill of Rights requires a speedy trial - to ensure that people aren't imprisoned indefinitely or for 7 1/2 years. That's why it includes a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments - to ensure that federal officials wouldn't torture and abuse people. That's why it includes a right of trial by jury - to provide an independent process by which it can be determined whether a person is guilty or not. That's why it includes a guarantee against self-incrimination - to ensure that federal officials couldn't torture or otherwise coerce confessions out of people, including the innocent. If you would like to read a recent interview with Lakhdar Boumediene after he arrived in France, click here. For a recent video interview with him, click here. Thank goodness for the wisdom, foresight, and courage of our American ancestors for demanding passage of the Bill of Rights. It's their wisdom, foresight, and courage that are so desperately needed today. Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. http://www.fff.org/blog/index.asp
Categories: Civil Liberties, US Constitution, Ethics, Executive Power, Current Events, World Affairs Tags: |
No comments yet.
Thanks Nathan for the link. 'The USS Liberty': America's Most Shameful SecretNEW YORK - On the fourth day of the 1967 Arab Israeli War, the intelligence ship 'USS Liberty' was steaming slowly in international waters, 14 miles off the Sinai Peninsula. Israeli armored forces were racing deep into Sinai in hot pursuit of the retreating Egyptian army. 'Liberty,' a World War II freighter, had been converted into an intelligence vessel by the top-secret US National Security Agency, and packed with the latest signals and electronic interception equipment. The ship bristled with antennas and electronic 'ears' including TRSSCOMM, a system that delivered real-time intercepts to Washington by bouncing a stream of microwaves off the moon. 'Liberty' had been rushed to Sinai to monitor communications of the belligerents in the Third Arab Israeli War: Israel and her foes, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. At 0800 hrs, 8 June, 1967, eight Israeli recon flights flew over 'Liberty,' which was flying a large American flag. At 1400 hrs, waves of low-flying Israeli Mystere and Mirage-III fighter-bombers repeatedly attacked the American vessel with rockets, napalm, and cannon. The air attacks lasted 20 minutes, concentrating on the ship's electronic antennas and dishes. The 'Liberty' was left afire, listing sharply. Eight of her crew lay dead, a hundred seriously wounded, including the captain, Commander William McGonagle. At 1424 hrs, three Israeli torpedo boats attacked, raking the burning 'Liberty' with 20mm and 40mm shells. At 1431hrs an Israeli torpedo hit the 'Liberty' midship, precisely where the signals intelligence systems were located. Twenty-five more Americans died. Israeli gunboats circled the wounded 'Liberty,' firing at crewmen trying to fight the fires. At 1515, the crew were ordered to abandon ship. The Israeli warships closed and poured machine gun fire into the crowded life rafts, sinking two. As American sailors were being massacred in cold blood, a rescue mission by US Sixth Fleet carrier aircraft was mysteriously aborted on orders from the White House. An hour after the attack, Israeli warships and planes returned. Commander McGonagle gave the order. 'prepare to repel borders.' But the Israelis, probably fearful of intervention by the US Sixth Fleet, departed. 'Liberty' was left shattered but still defiant, her flag flying. The Israeli attacks killed 34 US seamen and wounded 171 out of a crew of 297, the worst loss of American naval personnel from hostile action since World War II. Less than an hour after the attack, Israel told Washington its forces had committed a 'tragic error.' Later, Israel claimed it had mistaken 'Liberty' for an ancient Egyptian horse transport. US Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, and Joint Chiefs of Staff head, Admiral Thomas Moorer, insisted the Israeli attack was deliberate and designed to sink 'Liberty.' So did three CIA reports; one asserted Israel's Defense Minister, Gen. Moshe Dayan, had personally ordered the attack. In contrast to American outrage over North Korea's assault on the intelligence ship 'Pueblo,' Iraq's mistaken missile strike on the USS 'Stark,' last fall's bombing of the USS 'Cole' in Aden, and the recent US-China air incident, the savaging of 'Liberty' was quickly hushed up by President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. The White House and Congress immediately accepted Israel's explanation and let the matter drop. Israel later paid a token reparation of US $6 million. There were reports two Israeli pilots who had refused to attack 'Liberty' were jailed for 18 years. Surviving 'Liberty' crew members would not be silenced. They kept demanding an open inquiry and tried to tell their story of deliberate attack to the media. Israel's government worked behind the scenes to thwart these efforts, going so far as having American pro-Israel groups accuse 'Liberty's' survivors of being 'anti-Semites' and 'Israel-haters.' Major TV networks cancelled interviews with the crew. A book about the 'Liberty' by crewman James Ennes' was dropped from distribution. The Israel lobby branded him 'an Arab propagandist.' The attack on 'Liberty' was fading into obscurity until last week, when intelligence expert James Bamford came out with Body of Secrets, his latest book about the National Security Agency. In a stunning revelation, Bamford writes that unknown to Israel, a US Navy EC-121 intelligence aircraft was flying high overhead the 'Liberty,' electronically recorded the attack. The US aircraft crew provides evidence that the Israeli pilots knew full well that they were attacking a US Navy ship flying the American flag. Why did Israel try to sink a naval vessel of its benefactor and ally? Most likely because 'Liberty's' intercepts flatly contradicted Israel's claim, made at the war's beginning on 5 June, that Egypt had attacked Israel, and that Israel's massive air assault on three Arab nations was in retaliation. In fact, Israel began the war by a devastating, Pearl-Harbor style surprise attack that caught the Arabs in bed and destroyed their entire air forces. Israel was also preparing to attack Syria to seize its strategic Golan Heights. Washington warned Israel not to invade Syria, which had remained inactive while Israel fought Egypt. Bamford says Israel's offensive against Syria was abruptly postponed when 'Liberty' appeared off Sinai, then launched once it was knocked out of action. Israel's claim that Syria had attacked it could have been disproved by 'Liberty.' Most significant, 'Liberty's' intercepts may have shown that Israel seized upon sharply rising Arab-Israeli tensions in May-June 1967 to launch a long-planned war to invade and annex the West Bank, Jerusalem, Golan and Sinai. Far more shocking was Washington's response. Writes Bamford: 'Despite the overwhelming evidence that Israel attacked the ship and killed American servicemen deliberately, the Johnson Administration and Congress covered up the entire incident.' Why? Domestic politics. Johnson, a man never noted for high moral values, preferred to cover up the attack rather than anger a key constituency and major financial backer of the Democratic Party. Congress was even less eager to touch this 'third rail' issue. Commander McGonagle was quietly awarded the Medal of Honor for his and his men's heroism - not in the White House, as is usual, but in an obscure ceremony at the Washington Navy Yard. Crew member's graves were inscribed, 'died in the Eastern Mediterranean..' as if they had be killed by disease, rather than hostile action. A member of President Johnson's staff believed there was a more complex reason for the cover-up: Johnson offered Jewish liberals unconditional backing of Israel, and a cover-up of the 'Liberty' attack, in exchange for the liberal toning down their strident criticism of his policies in the then raging Vietnam War. Israel, which claims it fought a war of self defense in 1967 and had no prior territorial ambitions, will be much displeased by Bamford's revelations. Those who believe Israel illegally occupies the West Bank and Golan will be emboldened.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/margolis12.html
Categories: Foreign Policy, History, War/Military, World Affairs Tags: |
Much more important, the US government's long, disgraceful cover-up of the premeditated attack on 'Liberty' has now burst into the open and demands full-scale investigation. After 34 years, the voices of 'Liberty's' dead and wounded seamen must finally be heard.No comments yet.
I received this message from one of my friends in the Republican State Central Committee.
Fellow Conservatives- This past Saturday in Covington, the Republican State Central Committee met and one of the actions taken was in regard to proposed resolutions. Below is one of the resolutions which was passed unanimously which supports HR 1207, a House Resolution which requires a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve. Thus far we have 190 congressmen that are co-sponsors; and, in La, 5 of our 7 congressmen have co-sponsored. The only two congressmen that have not co-sponsored the legislation are Democrat Congressman Melancon and Republican Congressman Cao. Please email or call these congressmen and request that they co-sponsor this legislation.
Thank you for considering my opinion and please spread the word of the importance of this legislation. Anthony Emmons Rep State Central Committee Dist 42
RESOLUTION OF THE LOUISIANA REPUBLICAN PARTY REGARDING THE "Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009" Whereas, as of June 5, 2009 190 members of the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress had co-signed the following legislation; Whereas, as 5 of the 7 Congressmen of the State of Louisiana have co-sponsored HR 1207; Whereas, the Republican Party of Louisiana is cognizant of the importance of monetary policy to our country's national sovereignty and economy; Whereas, since the inception of the Federal Reserve the U.S. Congress has never conducted a formal and thorough audit of this most important of private corporations which controls the monetary supply of the USA; Whereas, this proposed legislation requires an audit of the Federal Reserve and does NOT promote nor require the elimination and/or dissolution of the Federal Reserve; BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the Republican Party of Louisiana: Urges all federally elected officials, the Louisiana State Legislature, the Governor and all citizens to support and promote the adoption of HR 1207 as cited in its entirety below:
To amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009'. SEC. 2. AUDIT REFORM AND TRANSPARENCY FOR THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. (a) In General- Subsection (b) of section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking all after `shall audit an agency' and inserting a period. (b) Audit- Section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: `(e) Audit and Report of the Federal Reserve System- `(1) IN GENERAL- The audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks under subsection (b) shall be completed before the end of 2010. `(2) REPORT- `(A) REQUIRED- A report on the audit referred to in paragraph (1) shall be submitted by the Comptroller General to the Congress before the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date on which such audit is completed and made available to the Speaker of the House, the majority and minority leaders of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the committee and each subcommittee of jurisdiction in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and any other Member of Congress who requests it. `(B) CONTENTS- The report under subparagraph (A) shall include a detailed description of the findings and conclusion of the Comptroller General with respect to the audit that is the subject of the report, together with such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the Comptroller General may determine to be appropriate.'.
BE IT RESOLVED THAT THIS RESOLUTION was Adopted this 6th day of June, 2009, in the City of Covington, Louisiana. Respectfully Submitted by Anthony Emmons Republican State Central Committee District 42
Categories: Campaign For Liberty, Grassroots News, Federal Legislation, Monetary Policy, Congress Tags: |
Comments (8)
Monday, June 8, 2009 Obama Needs to Pull the Beam Out Mainstream commentators are both surprised and impressed over an admission that President Obama made in his speech in Cairo. Obama publicly acknowledged what no U.S. president has ever dared to state - the U.S. government's overthrow of the democratically elected prime minister of Iran in 1953. Obama's exact words were: "In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government." "Played a role?" That's one way to put it but it's a bit disingenuous. In actuality, the U.S. government didn't just "play a role" in the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh. It was the U.S. government, operating through its CIA, that planned, initiated, and brought about Mossadegh's overthrow. Moreover, what Obama failed to mention was what the U.S. government did in the aftermath of the overthrow. It reinstalled the brutal Shah of Iran into power because he was loyal to the U.S. government. For the next 25 years, the Shah proceeded to terrorize the Iranian people, including with torture chambers, with the full support of the U.S. government. Obama is also being disingenuous when he implies that the CIA's regime-change operation was part of some Cold War project. The main motivation for the operation had come as a result of Mossadegh's nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, which had been run for decades by the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Since Iranian officials had foiled British attempts at regime change in Iran, the British government persuaded the CIA to do the dirty deed on its behalf. What was missing from Obama's speech was any indication of apology or remorse or even just an acknowledgement that what the U.S. government did was morally wrong. Stating an historical fact is not the same thing as saying, "We're deeply sorry for what we did to your country and we promise we'll never do it again." Obama's inability to express a sincere apology for what the U.S. government did to the Iranian people goes to the heart of the problem facing our nation. It reflects not only a refusal to own up to the wrongdoing of one's government, it also reflects an intention to continue carrying regime change as part of the arsenal of U.S. foreign policy tools. In his speech in Cairo, Obama should have issued a genuine apology to the Iranian people and, for that matter, to the American people. Even better, he should have apologized to the people of every country which has been the target of a U.S. regime-change operation. A good place to start would have been Iran. Then, Iraq, where U.S. regime-change operations have killed, maimed, and exiled millions of people, including the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children who died as a result of the more than 10 years of brutal sanctions imposed by the U.S. government and the UN. Then, onto to Guatemala, where the CIA's regime-change operation precipitated a civil war that last decades and killed hundreds of thousands of Guatemalans. Then, Cuba, Chile, Indonesia, Panama, and other countries, where U.S. regime-change operations have wreaked assassination, death, injury, torture, and destruction. A few days after Obama's Cairo speech, he was in Germany, where he pointed out the crimes of the Nazi regime with respect to the Holocaust. But it's always easy to point out the sins of others and condemn them. It's much more difficult to look at one's own self - or one's own government - and confess and repent one's own sins. Or to put it another way, it's easier to pull the speck out of someone else's eye than it is to pull the beam out of one's own eye. Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. http://www.fff.org/blog/index.asp
Categories: Foreign Policy, Education, Globalism, Law, US Constitution, Ethics, Executive Power, History, Current Events, Philosophy, Social Issues, World Affairs Tags: |
No comments yet.
I have no way of proving this assertion,nevertheless, I feel compelled to make it. Since 9/11, America has been flim flammed and sent on a trail of false leads so we could end up with a brand new bureaucratic nightmare, Homeland Security. Through this portal every conceivable attack on Personal liberty has been launched. Using technology developed during the "Cold War", the CIA is now intent on placing Americans under surveillance. 9/11 has never been allowed to be examined by the American People, it is a realm totally under the control of the Feds. Under government tutelage, anything published concerning the events of that day have come from the government home of propaganda. Anything to the contrary, is subject to ridicule, at least. Because the government stated it , it is received as gospel, divinity has spoken. Where are the Patrick Henry's of our time? Have they gone to ground, to frightened of a governemnt controlled by a central bank to come forth and rally the people in a truly just cause? In the two houses of our government, only one man calls in the wilderness, Ron Paul. He alone espouses the epitaphs which can lead America back to its once gloried state. Once, because we have long since departed from the path that our forefathers set upon in the storied times of our revolutionary hitory. We can be great again, but that depends on how badly we once more want to care for ourselves, for our independence. Tags: |
No comments yet.
Monday, June 1, 2009 Loving Freedom While Destroying It A few days after 9/11, a friend of mine at the conservative Heritage Foundation proudly exclaimed to me that Heritage had immediately jumped out in favor of the Bush administration's war on terrorism, with positions papers and articles. At the same time, Heritage continued to carry the same mission statement on its website: "to formulate public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional values, and a strong national defense." What my friend failed to recognize is that by jumping out in favor of the war on terrorism, the Heritage Foundation was, at the same time, supporting a policy that permanently precluded the achievement of "free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, and traditional values." Look at what the war on terrorism has brought our nation: 1. The attack, invasion, and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, which are still taking place some 8 years later, along with the deaths and maiming of hundreds of thousands of people, the exile of millions of people, and the destruction of both countries. Such actions have ensured the perpetual threat of terrorist retaliation, which means the war on terrorism has become a permanent feature of American life. We should also bear in mind that neither attack was done with the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, thereby further denigrating the very document that conservatives purport to hold dear. 2. Federal spending continues to soar out of control, not just to fund ever-growing welfare-state needs at home but also because of the ever-growing expenses associated with the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. That can only mean ever-growing taxes, borrowing, and inflation. Yet, while conservative scholars, including those at Heritage, seem to understand the economic dangers posed by out-of-control federal spending, taxation, government debt, and inflation, what's fascinating is that they don't see that it's the very policies they support that destroy sound money. 3. One of the aspects of the war on terrorism that has most fascinated me is how conservatives have either supported or pooh-poohed the torture and sex abuse that has taken place at the hands of the U.S. military and the CIA. Before 9/11, never in my wildest dreams did I ever think conservatives, who generally pride themselves on their religious values, would ever endorse or downplay the torture and sex abuse of other people. I would have thought that they would be so shocked and appalled by it all that they would be demanding investigations to determine whether such acts were not just the product of some dysfunctional CIA agents and U.S. soldiers, but instead part of a well-organized governmental policy to discourage resistance to U.S. power. Alas, not so. Conservatives continue to oppose any investigation into the matter, whether through criminal prosecution or by truth commission. 4. The war on terrorism has vested the U.S. government with the power to seize Americans as "enemy combatants" and to deny them trial by jury and due process of law, powers that that cannot possibly be reconciled with the principles of a free society. Since the war on terrorism is permanent, so are the powers that are integral to waging it. 5. Americans are also now subject to the constant threat of random searches of their email and wiretapping of their telephone calls. Even if it's done illegally, everyone knows that no federal official who does it is ever going to be punished for doing so. How can living in a society under the constant threat of being spied upon and monitored be consistent with freedom? Yet, that's an integral part of the war on terrorism. As part of its mission statement, Heritage also calls for a "strong national defense." But deep down, conservatives have to realize that such a position is disingenuous. In actuality, conservatives support a federal military and military-industrial complex that has nothing to do with defending the United States, especially given that no nation on earth has the military capability of attacking, invading, and occupying the United States. When the conservatives say they support a "strong national defense," what they really mean is an enormous military with the capability of establishing and maintaining bases in countries all over the world and imposing its will universally through foreign aid, assassinations, invasions, coups, sanctions, embargoes, and the like. The perversity of that pro-empire, pro-intervention foreign policy is that it produces the very conditions for terrorist blowback, which is precisely what happened with 9/11, which is then used as the excuse to continue indefinitely the policies that destroy freedom here at home, including foreign invasions, occupations, out-of-control federal spending, kidnapping, torture and sex abuse, rendition, and suspension of civil liberties. Libertarians, like conservatives, favor "free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, and traditional values." What distinguishes us from conservatives, however, is that we will don't endorse governmental policies that destroy what we support. That's why, unlike conservatives, we oppose a foreign policy of empire and intervention and favor the restoration of a constitutional republic to our land. Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. http://www.fff.org/blog/index.asp
Categories: Foreign Policy, Education, Civil Liberties, US Constitution, Ethics, Current Events, Philosophy, Social Issues, War/Military, World Affairs, Economy, Congress Tags: |
No comments yet.
This is a great clip from two people that have no C4L connection that I am aware of talking about HR 1207, though not mentioning it by name, and saying all the right things about the Fed. Let's take a moment to enjoy it, then keep pushing!
Categories: Campaign For Liberty, Finance, Media, Economy, Monetary Policy Tags: |
No comments yet.
As a point of reference in interpreting what the founding fathers wished to avoid with respect to the language in the Constitution on religion as contained within the First Amendment, it might be informative to read the text of Ben Franklin's speech on the day it was ratified. The failure to provide a "Bill of Rights" for the people of this nation against any abuse of the new government was actually was holding up the Constitution's ratification, hence, Mr. Franklin's speech and the promise that the first work of this new government would be those first ten amendments. And while freedom of religion was the intent in order to prevent what had occurred in England between the Catholics and the Protestants for centuries and then establishment of the state-wide Church of England, it is clear from the text of Mr. Franklin's speech that the provision was intended to protect the freedom of the states on this issue, and also so that no "sect" of the Christian faith was declared the "official" U.S. religion nationwide. The provisions also with respect to the exclusion of "religious tests" for holding office were actually also to protect religion also since the requirement of the British people to swear allegiance to the sovereign over the Pope or God was the cause of much of the religious strife in their homeland whose entire belief system was based on biblical foundations above man-made or "sovereign" law. "Freedom of religion" is quite different than the ACLU definition which clearly is toward banning religion and religous reference from all public forums and squares. Below is Franklin's pre-ratification speech: Mr. President, I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right - In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects; great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength; efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred. On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument. And while the "separation of church and state" will continue to be debated and misconstrued, mostly by the ACLU and the atheists, what is lost is that the "separation" of church and state was actually given for the church's protection and to protect the freedom of Americans to worship at the church of their choosing, not to protect the government from the "interference" of the Christian faith at all. The entire concept of providing for freedom of religion in this country as an individual right in and of itself as primarily Christian or deists themselves, but who abhorred the positions many were placed in during their lives in England having to swear allegiance to king and country when the sovereigns edicts were against their moral and religious principles and beliefs. The government of the founder's acknowledged religion and religious beliefs and provided for it in our national culture, with the specific provision for its inclusion attempting merely to avoid the differences in the scriptural teachings with respect to the Protestant and Catholic sectarian differences having application at a governmental level nationwide, since the federal government actually was intended to have few and limited powers over the states and people over-all. Historically in its origins, the Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim beliefs wars were primarily due to intolerance of other faiths, each desiring a "country" of their own where their faith was clearly "nationwide," while the Christian wars were fought over sectarian differences between Catholics and Protestants and the various denominations, rituals and practices within them. Tolerance of other religions practices and beliefs is actually uniquely Christian in it's origins in its scriptural provisions, as Christ himself taught in the Golden Rule and parable of the Good Samaritan in loving one's neighbor or enemy AS oneself, and doing unto another as you would have them do unto you - allowing them their freedom to worship God in the manner that you yourself enjoy, whether affiliated with a specific church or not, so long as it does not impinge upon the rights of other of his children to worship in the manner they see fit. And "of" is not "from" except, perhaps, in a language other than English. Categories: Civil Liberties, Domestic Policy, US Constitution, Social Issues Tags: Religion, Freedom, Liberty, civil, Rights, Constitution, Law, Founding Fathers |
No comments yet.
Last week Barack Obama called leaders of the insurance industry, pharmaceutical companies and labor organizations for a pow-wow regarding one of his fundamental quests as stated during his campaign: health care reform. Although these three industries are not in any way directly tied to patient care and delivery, it appears Mr. Obama is playing diplomat with this issue and appeaser with these industry leeches in order that they don't lose a piece of their pie under any anticipated governmental program. Under Obama's plan, it is estimated that approximately 119 million Americans would shift from private insurance to the governmental plan, putting America on the path toward a completely government run socialized health care system. This, of course, would not sit well with the private insurance carriers who would stand to not only lose business, but their very shirts and the jobs of many who are currently hawking those policies to private businesses and individuals. The pharmaceutical industry, of course, is quite concerned because under any government plan generics and other effective lower cost drugs (think penicillin and cheaper antibiotics) on which there isn't as much profit would most likely be the preferred and "authorized" treatment with Uncle Sam picking up the tab. Many of those drug company representatives peddling their "new and improved" wares to doctors would also lose their jobs in the process, and a few of those free bonus trips, and the physicans and health care providers a few holiday gifts. The unions earned their seat at the appeasement table due to the fact that any government plan would impact Big Labor and their own health care plans which have their administrative mark ups also built in which would, most likely, be negotiated away during the next collective bargaining session. Mr. Obama during his campaigns assured the American people that the governmental plan he was proposing would simply be an "alternate," with Americans then able to make a choice between the government plan or retaining their own private carriers. What was left unsaid, however, is that most private insurance is not bought by individuals in this country, but by their Big Business employers. Employers who have shareholders to answer to, and are now facing economic woes of their own throughout many major industries due to this Washington precipitated economic meltdown. Just how long do you think those employers will keep those group plans once the government plan undercuts them? What also was left unsaid is that the Obama plan also intends to parent America's children and youth, and mandate that parents must insure their children and themselves, and also feed Washington in providing fines and fees for non-compliance. In other words, another non-consensual tax in the making that, if Medicare and Medicaid are any indication, will be used for other "discretionary" purposes and be an unaccountable bottomless pit of taxation. I look for this scenario to go one of two ways: (1) Mr. Obama will continue in his role as appeaser to all with the exception of Joe Citizen, and will attempt to placate the union bosses and fat cat pharmaceutical executives and insurers by cutting back his legislation to be a bare bones "emergency treatment" policy, with the intent not to totally "socialize" health care in this country but afford Americans then to visit their local insurance agent and sign up for supplemental coverage. Sort of like Plan A or B supplements for the seniors, only privately obtained. And those supplemental plans will be also subject to increasing costs based upon claims as with the plans now offered, with the government plan as "primary," which will not kick in unless and until you have used the government benefits first, with the insurance industry then able to use the government as the scapegoat for denied treatments. (2) Or Mr. Obama and Congress in the fine print of the bill will enter into public/private partnerships with the major insurance carriers in this country, and Big Labor privileges of adding in their profit and cut into the government contracts to the amounts which will be required to be withheld from employee/union member paychecks as "administration" fees, with the pharmaceutical industry perhaps being afforded longer patent rights for new medications retroactively and sums for promised grants for future research costs, especially since the embryonic stem cell bill now has been accorded them for their future profits also. (NOTE: the patent for the original outrageously expensive drugs for AIDS which are used by and large still today expire in 2017, since litigation over ownership rights for the drugs began almost immediately after its "discovery" and have extended the patents on them already an additional 10 years since the patents don't begin until ownership is established, with two companies now sharing those profits since the case was subsequently settled in the early 90's). The lives of Americans, and especially the large baby boomer generation, are now being bargained for between the insurers, pharmaceutical industries, and big labor. And I wonder just what recourse will be included for citizens if denied treatment, or if there are any delays or negligence in the care received by government employed physicians and hospitals? What kind of shell game then might Americans face in attempting to redress those grievances between the bureaucrats, insurers, big labor and pharmaceutical companies playing "Who's on first?" Another take: http://www.getbetterhealth.com/tag/galen-institute Gee, I wonder if in this instance as in others whether following our Constitution might be a better idea, and break up the "associations" of these large industries in order to facilitate a truly free market once again, and get Big Labor out of the insurance and health care business which they had no right to enter into in the first place. Maybe simply beginning to perform their Constitutional function in regulating and overseeing both the type of plans sold at either federal or state levels depending on carrier customer base and home office location. For accountability, then funding a centralized complaint department for the American citizens to utilize which might be a better useage of those stimulus monies instead of what is going to become another Lawyers Employment Act in its violation of citizens privacy rights with that concocted national health care database for citizens medical information for the feeder industries and states nefarious purposes in the interest of "public unsafety." I foresee such a bureaucratic administrative nightmare in the end will result in eventually putting small business physicians and software providers out of work, and ultimately increase costs due to government fees and costs which will be tacked on to the patients bills in order utilize that huge mistake-in-the-making system to store and transfer patient records, even if the correct records get transferred. Just imagine the potential lawsuits for unauthorized, misused or incorrect information. Maybe what we need to do here is step back a moment and look at the legal and "long view." What a novel idea. Categories: Civil Liberties, Domestic Policy, Health Freedom, US Constitution, Federal Legislation, Social Issues, Congress Tags: government, federal, health, Care, national, Obama, socialism, hospitals, doctors, labor unions, pharmaceutical companies, insurance |
Comments (1)
March, 2009 Categories: Education, Finance Tags: |
No comments yet.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/11/ge-corporate-sponsor/ Please review the above article. You will NOT believe what you are about to read..... Insider trading on Wall Street has nothing on these people, nor does Bernie Maddoff...... Where does it end. America is hanging on the verge of economic collapse; employees are being laid off, there's nothing left to cut back on---and now we have a new business venture between the three amigos.... that have no shame, no ethics, no regard for the law, just self-induced financial gratification irregardless of what the American Public has to say or think...... Thought your medical records were private? Not any longer.... Getting an audit of the money trail---TOP SECRET AND IMPOSSIBLE!! MAY GOD HELP US ALL :-)
Categories: Ron Paul Tags: |
No comments yet.
Recently, in addition to the nomination of self-described "transnationalist" Harold Koh, liberal constructionist and dean of Yale University, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been making the rounds of local colleges, universities and law schools with also her transnationalist views. A "transnationalist" is the politically correct equivalent of a "globalist," and political correctness is a religion the transnationalists subscribe to wholeheartedly. Except when it isn't in accordance with their upside-down logic and world and global view. A recent example of this would be Janet Napolitano, a woefully misled and misguided fellow lawyer whose "right wing extremist" memorandum trashes the American Bill of Rights on every level. Recently, Justice Ginsburg had this to say about the place and reverence the U.S. Supreme Court should have with international courts and decisions in their findings: "I frankly don't understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law," Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday during a symposium at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law honoring her tenure on the nation's highest court. "There is perhaps a misunderstanding that when you refer to a decision of [foreign courts] that you are using those as binding precedent," Mrs. Ginsberg said. "Why shouldn't we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article from a professor?" Now, with respect to the law in these United States, if you hold that there is a higher authority than the United States Constitution with respect to the duties of a Supreme Court Justice then, Ms. Ginsburg, you are not "in good behavior" with respect to your sworn oath of office. Its really quite simple. In fact, you hold your current lofty position due to the provision contained within that particular document. The Justice is further on record as stating: "The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a close kinship to the view of the U.S. Constitution as a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification," Mrs. Ginsberg said in a speech four years ago. "I am not a partisan of that view. U.S. jurists honor the Framers' intent 'to create a more perfect Union,' I believe, if they read our Constitution as belonging to a global 21st century, not as fixed forever by 18th-century understandings." Really, Justice? The framers faced far greater threats and dangers than we can even imagine in this high tech, obtain a warrant within minutes, era. Far worse than global warming, Middle Eastern terrorists, or stock market variations. They defended an entire Eastern Seaboard with only canon and musket, as I recall. And just in case you have forgotten or have not read it lately, there is a process within the Constitution in order to so amend it if need be to include any of those provisions they might have left out for 21st Century America. And the Justices actually are not a part of that amendment process. But since those founders held with "unalienable" rights as God given, I don't think those have change much since the Magna Carta, which preceeded our Constitution by several hundred years. And if you abridge with them, or alter them, the consequences in the increase of inmates now in our jails, a nation with the highest prison population now in the world, is telling in how far afield both the state and federal government have gone in not recognizing those "natural rights." Another former Justice and fellow transnationalist, Sandra Day O'Connor, also is on record with a few comments on the place of international law in the highest court in the land at an awards dinner at the end of her career on the bench: "I suspect that over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues," Mrs. O'Connor said, adding by doing so "may not only enrich our own country's decisions, I think it may create that all important good impression." I don't think the framers also were believers that making a good impression and impressing the rest of the world held much sway when it came to personal liberty, justice and freedom in this country. In fact, wasn't that what that first war was all about, severing this country's ties to the laws and practices they found intolerable in Britain under "sovereign" law and nothing more than tyranny? I won't address in this article Justice Ginsburg disse |