Government is really bad at protecting the little guy Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny

Posted 10/08/09 Last updated 10/08/09

My comments on another forum on health care and the role government takes in protecting consumers. The text written by the other person I am indenting in the quote boxes.

You bet healthcare is a HUMAN right. I feel sorry for those who put enterprise /money before mankind. And in terms of the Declaration of Independence... Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness... hard to acheive when being exploited by insurance companies... or lack of funds prevent medical treatment...

Do we agree that a right is something to which one is entitled, something which is inherently possessed? You have a natural right to your own life (no one can legitimately kill you), your liberty (no one can enslave you), and your property (no one can steal what you have labored to produce or purchase). If we agree on this, then health care cannot be a right, because health care must be produced by someone.

If a doctor removes a tumor from your lung, his time and talents must be employed to perform the operation. If the patient has a right to that operation, then it is in violation of the doctor's right to liberty and property (his time and talents) and (s)he is essentially a slave to the patient. Health care is not a right. It is a need. How we as a society provide for that need is the question at hand.

"And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. " - what happened there?

There is a difference between saying, 'we're all in the same boat so we all need to row together if we are to achieve independence from the Crown' and saying 'you are all entitled to the product of everyone else's labor, so start sharing'. Also, rights cannot be granted by any document; they are inherent: the fact that the Constitution and other founding documents refer to our natural rights does not mean that the Constitution, etc., are the granters of those rights.

If you so dearly heed the words of the Declaration of Independence, why not then stand with us in defiance of health insurance companies' tyranny over us! Was it not tyranny that inspired the D of I? Do you not see insurance and big pharma price gouging and claim denying and the majority of bankruptcies related to huge medical bills as tyranny? Or is it the corporations inalienable right to drain the good people of this country with high premiums and prices and low payout? What about the confirmed price gouging and rebranding the same drugs to prolong their marketability? How about denying domestic abuse victims for PRE EXISTING conditions? Health insurance ONLY cares about obscene profits - not you, not me, not your family, not mine, not anyone that costs them money! WAKE UP!

People on both sides of any divisive issue are always encouraging the other side to 'wake up', both believing that they themselves are fully 'awake'. Trust me, it's not like I haven't fully considered this issue. Either one of us is wrong or we both are, and its our job to civilly talk about the issue until we can come to an agreement. That's difficult since there's a lot of money being dumped in by those with a vested interest in the outcome, and that tends to muddy the waters of civil discourse. Facts are difficult to come by, sources are biased, and statistics are skewed. On all sides.

Health care in the U.S. is expensive because of massive government intervention - the regulations, mandates, etc., that have turned our health insurance industry into a byzantine third-party payment system rife with waste and lobbyists. The big players in the field have quashed competition by pushing through thousands of regulations designed to make it difficult and expensive for new health care providers and insurers to enter the field.

Health insurance is not insurance at all. If car insurance were run the same way as health insurance, we'd be crying for national car insurance reform right now, too. You'd need a full time job to get car insurance, and the govt would require all insurance plans to cover gasoline, oil changes, and repairs. All mechanics would have to be certified by a state board and attend 4 years of school before they could turn a screwdriver. You'd have no idea how much an oil change cost, but it wouldn't matter because someone else would be paying for it. Etc.

I challenge you to put yourself in someone else's shoes and imagine what someone without the good fortune you have might have to go through to get treatment. Perhaps you can ponder having to sell your home because you can't afford it with all your medical bills. Got a comfy car? Good because you may have to live in it. And I hope you never have a catastrophic medical crisis that may threaten your good fortune as it has for more than half of our countrymen that file bankruptcy every year.

This is a common accusation of those who want to force taxpayers to pay for other people's health care, food, housing, etc. If I oppose forcible taxation for the provision of services to the poor, then that makes me selfish and lacking compassion. To the contrary, I certainly am thinking of people less fortunate than me. My desire is definitely not to trample on the downtrodden, but to help them in a way that actually helps rather than to provide for their needs in a way that makes them dependent (and slaves to the state) and destroys real charitable giving. Believe me, I care for the poor just as much as you do.

The poor (and I myself probably qualify as 'poor') should seek support from their family, friends, churches, neighbors, charities, etc. When the government provides charity or a 'safety net' for people, it completely erodes these important community connections and depersonalizes the act of asking for support and the act of giving support. This depersonalization also makes it easy to ask for help when one doesn't genuinely need it, which leads to abuse and overuse.

Additionally, the government has no real incentive to get people off the dole and back on their own, while a personal donor does. The 'War on Poverty' has been running for decades, and we still have just as many poor people even though we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars. All of the tax money needed to pay for that has a tendency to drive more people toward government support, since they have less money of their own to begin with.

I find it ironic that in the name of freedom, some defend the freedom of corporations to oppress this country. UGH! Capitalism has become an ugly beast when we are so blind as to turn our backs on humanity.

We in the United States have corporatism, not capitalism. Over the years, companies have secured special privileges for themselves from government. The very concept of incorporation violates the rights of the consumers, because the people behind the corporations obtain, through government mandate, special protections from any damages that may result from their corporation's activities. This makes it much easier for companies to screw people over because the company, rather than the people that own it, bears most of the risk.

I absolutely oppose corporatism because it is NOT freedom. We do NOT have a free market or capitalism in the United States (nor really anywhere in the world). Capitalism is the scapegoat because we have what on the surface looks like capitalism but is actually a very mixed economy.

Companies only get as big and powerful as they are because government itself allows them to be. Without the protection of the government and the regulations that stifle true competition, these companies would be quickly replaced by other companies that provided what consumers actually wanted at a lower price and without screwing people over. Ask yourself: "If all health insurance companies are evil and constantly screwing the little guy and putting profit ahead of people, then why don't I get together with some friends and start my own insurance company that is actually nice to our customers and provides a good product at a fair price? People will come in droves to buy insurance from us and we'll rule the insurance market easily."

The answer to this hypothetical question is that you can't. Because the existing insurance companies have so heavily protected themselves with government that you cannot be nice to your customers and stay afloat. If we want to solve this problem, we need LESS government, not more. Government is and will always be the tool of Big Pharma, Big Banks, Big Everything. Government is NOT ON OUR SIDE because we only have votes and the Big Guys have the money. When you vote to put the government in charge of protecting us from the companies (through regulations, mandates, etc.), the companies themselves will, in short order, buy off the politicians and regulators and stack the deck in their favor. The companies can screw us over and be protected from retaliation by the system we voted into place.

I am tired of getting screwed over; we all are. We need to (gently and quickly) dismantle the system that is allowing this to take place.

My Public Statement to Congressman Tim Walz (D-MN) 09/22/2009 Posted by BeTheWheel

Posted 09/24/09

On September 22, 2009, Congressman Tim Walz was supposed to be at the county library in Fairmont, MN to meet with his constituents in our area.  Due to other obligations in Washington, Congressman Walz was unable to attend but sent two members of his staff in his stead, Mr. Rick Howden and Ms. Ann Spicer.  The following is the text of the statement I intended to make to Congressman Walz directly but instead made to his staff members and the others present:

Congressman Walz, thank you for coming today and welcome to Fairmont.  With all the talk about healthcare reform, I'd first like to applaud you for co-sponsoring what I feel is the most important legislation currently in the works in Washington, which is HR 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve.

Mayer Rothschild, who was founder of the Rothschild family international banking dynasty, and was listed by Forbes magazine as one of the "Twenty Most Influential Businessmen of All Time", said "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."  No truer words could have been spoken when you look at our current monetary system in the United States.  Our Constitution gave authority to regulate the value of our money to Congress, and demanded that the money in circulation be backed by things with value such as gold and silver.  The dollar bills you and I have in our pockets used to say "Gold Certificate" or "Silver Certificate" on them.  It was basically a receipt that said you owned a dollar's worth of gold or silver.  That is what gave the piece of paper in your hand value.   When the Congress printed more money, they paid no interest on it. 

Thanks to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Congress has handed over this Constitutional obligation to a secretive board of private bankers and created an institution more powerful than any of our elected offices, including the Presidency.  Besides the fact that nowhere in the Constitution does it give Congress the authority to relinquish their Constitutional obligation to any other body such as the Federal Reserve,  we have allowed Congress a clever way to acquire funds for every government program under the sun without having the ask We The People for it first.  Whenever they spend too much money, they borrow money from foreign countries, and the Fed prints money out of thin air to cover the shortfall.  Then we are told as citizens, we must do our patriotic duty and pay our taxes.

Now, we're supposed to believe that the paper in our pocket is the actual money.  That paper now says "Federal Reserve Note".  It is exactly that, a note.  It is something that we owe, rather than own.  And now, I have read that every baby born in America today, before it even takes its first breath of air, owes somewhere in the ballpark of $30,000 of our national debt.  And that is only based on obligations we've already incurred.  I have also read, when you factor in future entitlements to which our government has obligated the taxpayers, the number reaches closer to $200,000.  When the government reaches its debt ceiling, they simply raise the debt ceiling. 

I am no economist, but even I know the more paper dollars we have in circulation, the less they are worth.  When the Fed prints more and more money out of thin air, meaning it is not backed by anything of real value, it makes every dollar that you or I carry in our pockets worth less than it was before.  This is inflation, and there is no one that is harmed more by inflation than those who already have a hard time making ends meet.  So, government programs intended to help the poor, inevitably harm the very people they are intended to help when the government has no money to pay for the program and inflationary monetary policy is employed.  It is a hidden tax that no one talks about.  It is irresponsible as well as immoral.  Even Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has admitted to Congress, under oath, that inflation is a hidden tax that primarily harms the poor.  We have evolved from an economy based on capitalism and free enterprise to a mostly fraudulent economy that is based on consumer spending and easy credit and would be more accurately described as corporatism or economic fascism than capitalism.  This is made possible by a central banking system that protects all of its Wall Street friends from the consequences of ineptitude and risky business practices and has indebted future generations of Americans by encouraging all of us to not live within our means.  Well, what happens when foreign countries no longer wish to loan us money because we continue to pay them back with increasingly worthless U.S. dollars, ultimately resulting in a collapse of the U.S. dollar? 

We have already heard rumblings coming out of the UN of a new international currency.  Well, let me revisit the words of Mr. Rothschild.  "Give me control of a nation's money, and I care not who makes the laws".  If those words are frightening as they apply to our current monetary system, imagine if we operated under an international monetary system controlled by private bankers.  It's no wonder that even though we hear the campaign slogan of "change" every four years regardless of which political party happens to be in opposition, we never see any change.  If continued government growth and intervention into our financial, medical, and personal lives is what we want, then I guess our government is operating to perfection.

If liberty is what we desire, then I feel it is time to start holding our representatives accountable to their oaths of office, which is simply to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.  If we do that, then many of the other debates we are currently having become irrelevant.  We as a people will only have the freedoms and liberties that we are willing to fight for.  History has proven that.  It is up to us, not just Congressman Walz and his colleagues. 

Once again, Congressman Walz, I applaud you for cosponsoring HR 1207 to audit the Federal Reserve, and I ask that you continue to fight to make sure that this bill passes the House and eventually is signed by President Obama so that we can finally find out where all of our money is going.  You no doubt will meet heavy opposition from outside special interests in this fight.  I also ask that you simply uphold your oath of office to defend and protect our Constitution.  It is the moral and honorable thing to do.  You certainly will never make everyone happy by doing this, but you will never need to defend yourself for doing what is moral and honorable, which is to honor your oath.  There are thousands who will support you in that effort. 

The Constitution, and in particular the Bill of Rights, was written to restrain the power and scope of government, not to grant powers to it.  We are a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy.  That means there are certain things the government may not do, regardless of how many votes they can muster in the House or the Senate or how much favor and goodwill they enjoy in the court of public opinion.  The power of the government is derived from the consent of the governed.  In order to expand the power of the government beyond its constitutional limitations, We The People must give our consent through our elected representatives by amending our Constitution.  We, the governed, have consented to too much unconstitutional intervention into our lives, and as government has grown out of control over the decades, we are now subjected, on a daily basis, to government interventions into our lives to which we never consented. 

There is one verbal commitment I would ask that you would make to all of us here today, Congressman Walz.  It is no secret anymore that Congress often passes legislation without even reading the bills prior to voting.  This is unacceptable and indefensible.  I would ask that you make a vow to personally not vote for any legislation that you have not personally read and of which you have not had sufficient opportunity to obtain a thorough understanding, and that you will fight to prevent a vote on any legislation if you have reason to believe that your colleagues have also not done so.  Other than an imminent threat to our national security, there is nothing that you will ever vote on that is so urgent as to require such irresponsible and hasty measures.

In times like these, I believe it to be proper to seek counsel from the wisdom of our founding fathers, and I'd like to close with a couple of quotes that I believe are relevant to the issues of today.

The first is from Thomas Jefferson, and I'm assuming this statement was made sometime after the creation of America's first central bank, which I believe was name the First Bank of the United States, and was later dismantled.  Jefferson said, "The Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution. . . . I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

  In order to climb out of the hole we are in, we must first stop digging.  We often hear talk of reaching across party lines, and setting aside partisan politics in the name of "getting things done".  Unfortunately, "getting things done" usually means further shackling our kids and grandkids with the financial burdens of our generation's irresponsibility.  Rather than uniting to "get something done", it is time We The People set aside our partisan politics and unite in the name of Liberty.  We have created a huge mess because of our willingness to allow all of the governing to take place in Washington.  We must return to the guidance of the Constitution and the principles of self-government.  The concept of self-government means that we have the right to govern our own lives without government interference as long we do not interfere with the rights of others to do the same.  For those that believe the Constitution is outdated and no longer meets the needs of today, let us remember that autocratic rule and oppression are as old as history itself.  In the grand scope of history, liberty and self-government are still in their infancy, but are sadly on life support.  Our founders called our system of government the "Great Experiment" in a time when Thomas Paine said, "We have it in our power to begin the world over again."  Does it really only take 200 years for the concept of liberty to lose its luster?  What would those who sacrificed so much to create something never before seen in history say about what we have done to our country?  Our early patriots revolted over a 1 cent tax on tea, yet the tax burden that we now bear is staggering in comparison. 

Thomas Paine said, "If there be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace".  Well, we have trouble in our day.  I pray to God that we will choose to find a remedy that does not further burden the generations of those who do not yet have a voice.  Will posterity refer to us as the generation that reignited the torch of liberty, or will they look back on us with contempt for leaving behind a legacy of lost liberties, indebtedness, and corruption?  I believe the answer to that question lies not in Washington, D.C., but with We The People.  An understanding of true freedom and liberty requires an ability to respect the differences of others and a willingness to allow others to pursue happiness in any way they choose as long as it does not interfere with the rights of anyone else to do the same.  It requires a willingness to refrain from imposing your beliefs or your goodness on others.  I believe that message, if delivered properly, is a powerful one and one that needs to be delivered now more than ever. 

Troy Stenzel

Fairmont, MN

Update: 'Health care unequivocally not a right' Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny

Posted 09/20/09 Last updated 09/21/09

Over the last couple of weeks, I've participated in a letter-to-the-editor exchange with a local high school social studies teacher on the subject of government-provided health care. (My previous blog post, Health care is unequivocally not a right, which was featured on the Campaign for Liberty front page on September 11, includes both letters.)

Scott Urban's reply to me was published on September 17, where he argued that the Golden Rule should apply to health care:

Either health care is an unalienable right or it is unequivocally not a right. We have a choice.

This is the fundamental argument underlying the health care reform debate today. How we, as a people, respond shall determine the well-being of countless future generations of yet unborn citizens.

Which vision for America's future do you embrace?

I presented my liberal vision (published Sept. 4) and Jon Kovaciny delivered his conservative rebuttal, published Friday.

I was saddened to read on the eighth anniversary of the greatest act of terror in American history, that some had forgotten how our neighbors and our government rallied to aid those who lost everything. The better angels of our national character inspired Americans to "do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

This powerful concept eloquently describes a universal ethic of reciprocity. The Golden Rule motivated our nation after 9/11 to care for each other and today it inspires the crusading spirit of health care reform. Those who share this ideal, recognize the unalienable right to medical care and a shared social responsibility to ensure equal human rights for all.

As a liberal, I believe that our neighbors should be treated with equal consideration, equal respect, equal compassion and equal medical care.

We, the people, are the government. We are our neighbor's keepers in times of war and peace. We made that irrevocable commitment with the radification [sic] of the Constitution.

Today, my liberal conscience demands all Americans have healthcare at all times and in all ways, regardless of their wealth. What do you think?

What is your conscience telling you?

I couldn't leave it at that, of course, so I sent in my reply right away, which is published in today's issue. Unlike last time, the editors didn't make any changes to my submission.

In his Your View reply published Friday, Scott Urban implied that my disapproval of government-provided health care indicates a selfish and uncaring attitude toward those in need. He also neglected to answer a single point I raised.

Urban chains together these words: consideration, respect, compassion, medical care. The first three are worthy attitudes we should all hold; the fourth is an action. It is our individual responsibility to act on these attitudes in the form of charitable giving and volunteerism.

Delegating this responsibility to the government is neither charitable nor truly compassionate: If I take $100 from my neighbor and give it away, that is not my compassion at work, but my desire to seize his money for a cause I support. Interposing a layer or two of government doesn't magically make it ethical, regardless of how noble the cause or how "selfish" my neighbor appears. Perhaps my neighbor would rather donate that $100 elsewhere, or employ someone for a day, or even purchase something, which employs others.

It is not the government's role to decide what our actions should be and impose them. Nor is it the beneficiary's right to receive any generosity, it is their blessing. We should exchange needed support through family, friends, and charitable institutions. The government's so-called "safety net" has eroded these important community connections and depersonalized the acts of giving and receiving. This depersonalization makes it easy to ask for help when one doesn't sincerely need it, which leads to overuse and dependency.

I suggest that Urban, along with all voters, read Col. Davy Crockett's 1884 speech to Congress, "Not Yours to Give", and view "The Philosophy of Liberty" on jonathangullible.com.

Credit where it's due: a couple of passages in my letter were originally written by a friend who gave his permission to reuse them.

The speech and video I to which I referred: Not Yours to Give and The Philosophy of Liberty.

The Prophetic Patrick Henry Posted by chuckp123

Posted 09/15/09 Last updated 09/11/09

I was recently reading through some of the Anti-Federalist papers. Being aware that Patrick Henry was an Anti-Federalist, I knew that he was an outstanding advocate for minimal government. However, I was unfamiliar with his speeches in opposition to the Federalist’s desire to abandon the Articles of Confederation in favor of a new constitution. As I was reading his speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 5, 1788, I became increasingly impressed with his foresight and skepticism of Hamilton’s “energetic” central government. Here were some of his best excerpts:

You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.

Here Henry is alluding to the classic argument between Collectivism and Individualism. Hamilton had been coming forth with several arguments for the increase in power of the central government in areas such as commerce and interstate trade. Appalled at these recommendations, Patrick Henry reminds the Federalists that the only purpose, if any, for government is to ensure that the people remain free, not that they try to regulate the ways in which the people exercise their freedom.

The Confederation; this same despised Government, merits, in my opinion, the highest encomium: It carried us through a long and dangerous war: It rendered us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation: It has secured us a territory greater than any European Monarch possesses: And shall a Government which has been thus strong and vigorous, be accused of imbecility and abandoned for want of energy?

This is another shot across Hamilton’s bow. Henry is making a very valid argument against the idea of a strong central militia. Hamilton argues in Federalist #29 that a standing army is necessary for national security, and that the citizens have no reason to fear a standing army out of concern for their liberties (although these fears were clearly justified just six years later when Washington and Hamilton marched an army up to Pennsylvania to put down the Whiskey Rebellion). Of course, an army with the purpose of keeping citizens in check is incompatible with any notion of freedom. As Jefferson stated, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

It is also worth noting that the American colonies, prior to the revolution, had no organized central military, other than the one instituted by England.  When freedom was at stake, the people defended it willingly.  Conscription and powerful standing armies are unnecessary in a free and peaceful country.

I mean, when it says that there shall not be more representatives than one for every thirty thousand. Now, sir, how easy is it to evade this privilege! “The number shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand.” This may be satisfied by one representative from each state. Let our numbers be ever so great, this immense continent may, by this artful expression, be reduced to have but thirteen representatives. I confess this construction is not natural; but the ambiguity of the expression lays a good ground for a quarrel. Why was it not clearly and unequivocally expressed, that they should be entitled to have one for every thirty thousand?

This is another demonstration of Henry’s foresight. He rightfully points out that the misleading wording in the proposed constitution would set a lower limit on the representative-per-citizen ratio, but would leave no upper bound. So effectively, the constitution could allow for there to be no more than one representative per state if the powers-that-be so desired. If we had one representative per 30,000 people, the legislators would be closer to the electing citizens, so would better represent them. If you do the math, you will realize that with the current 300 million American citizens, there would be 10,000 representatives in Washington. Some may protest: “With that many representatives, the federal government would never be able to do anything!” Exactly! Imagine how ineffective lobbyists would be in the House. It would be nearly impossible to mobilize that many legislators towards a means of further legislating away our freedoms for special favors.

Of course, in the current system, Senators would still be vulnerable to the efforts of special interests, but this problem would be greatly rectified if the Seventeenth Amendment were overturned. This would put the election of Senators back into the hands of state legislatures, rather than popular election. By keeping Senators accountable to state legislatures, Senatorial power would be held in check by the desire of state legislatures to maintain state sovereignty, effectively decentralizing federal power.

We are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the powers we put in their hands. I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny.

This quote speaks for itself. Leaders, whether democratically elected or not, will always desire power. No matter their intentions, government officials will always exercise their monopoly on violence to assume our personal rights with the intention of protecting us from ourselves. This is, of course, incompatible with any notion of a republic.

Throughout his anti-Federalist writings, Patrick Henry makes several fantastic arguments against a strong central government. Although the Anti-Federalists ultimately lost their fight against the new Constitution, we still have them to thank for the Bill of Rights. Their arguments in favor of sovereignty from the federal government are perhaps more important today than they ever have been. I would strongly encourage anyone interested in these issues to read more of their writings.

*I have also posted this to my infrequently-updated, sorry excuse for a blog at blog.mybigtop.com.

Health care is unequivocally not a right Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny

Posted 09/11/09 Last updated 09/17/09

The following letter to the editor was published in my hometown newspaper last week:

As a progressive liberal, I believe health care to be an unalienable American right. All United States citizens are endowed with this natural human birthright. Our republic was founded upon the principle of equal justice and equal opportunity. Justice demands that our federal government fulfill this fundamental obligation and ensure that every American citizen has the opportunity to receive the very best medical care available.

All Americans, from a newly-born child to an aging baby boomer, deserve equal opportunity to live and enjoy safe, meaningful and healthy lives. Working together, with unselfish hearts and open minds, we can guarantee that the life and health of every member of our community be equally respected, equally valued and equally protected.

In our democracy, the federal government has a historic responsibility to care for the welfare of all of its citizens, regardless of their wealth or income, race or ethnicity, religion or nationality, gender or sexual orientation, ability or disability.

In 1776, the Declaration of Independence founded our nation on the right to live a purposeful life. In 1789, the Constitution committed our government to care for the common welfare of all citizens. In 1865, Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address called for malice toward none and charity for all of our fellow citizens.

Today, the time has come for all true American patriots to come together to establish universal health care. It is our moral responsibility and our sacred duty to build upon the legacy of our founding brothers to forge a more perfect and a more healthy national union.

I replied with the following letter:

In his September 4 letter, Mr. Urban attempted to connect government-provided health care to natural rights and our nation's founding documents. His letter was littered with noble-sounding words and emotional appeals, but wholly inaccurate.

Health care is unequivocally not a right. It's especially not an American right, as Urban stated several times. Are those living in other countries somehow less worthy? Life, liberty, and property are rights; health care is a responsibility. Don't confuse the two.

Unlike rights, health care (and other goods and services) must be provided by someone. I have no more right to free health services than I would to a free shopping cart full of groceries. Whether I need a dozen eggs or an MRI, it is my responsibility to pay for them. If you need eggs or an MRI, please don't use the government to forcibly and anonymously extract money from me to pay for what you've received. Government "charity" is not charity at all, and it has destroyed real charity and created a permanent class of dependents.

Urban appealed to the Constitution's ‘general welfare' clause to legitimize federal provision of health services. This clause is a common excuse for government to do nearly anything it wants, as someone always benefits whenever the government hands out other people's money. ‘General welfare' is not doing nice things for individuals, but for the good of the Union as a whole.

The Constitution does not and cannot grant fundamental rights, nor can any document or proclamation-it instead prohibits our government from interfering with the rights that all people already have. It is this that made America unique and allowed liberty to flourish.

Which was edited (weakening it, I believe) by the paper's editors and published today:

In his Your View published Sept. 4, Scott Urban attempted to connect government-provided health care to natural rights and our nation's founding documents. His letter was littered with noble-sounding words and emotional appeals, but was wholly inaccurate, in my opinion.

Health care is unequivocally not a right. It's especially not an American right, as Urban stated several times. Are those living in other countries somehow less worthy? Life, liberty, and property are rights; health care is a responsibility. Don't confuse the two. Unlike rights, health care (and other goods and services) must be provided by someone. I have no more right to free health services than I would to a free shopping cart full of groceries. Whether I need a dozen eggs or an MRI, it is my responsibility to pay for them. If you need eggs or an MRI, please don't use the government to forcibly and anonymously extract money from me to pay for what you've received.

Government "charity" is not charity at all, and it has destroyed real charity and created a permanent class of dependents. Urban appealed to the Constitution's general welfare clause to legitimize federal provision of health services. This clause is a common excuse for government to do nearly anything it wants, as someone always benefits whenever the government hands out other people's money. General welfare is not doing nice things for individuals, but for the good of the Union as a whole.

The Constitution does not and cannot grant fundamental rights, nor can any document or proclamation - it instead prohibits our government from interfering with the rights that all people already have. It is this that made America unique and allowed liberty to flourish.

Ah well, at least it got published.

Among others, I received this message from a friend this morning (hopefully they won't mind me posting it here):

I read your letter to the Editor this morning, and I understand where you are coming from. I challenge you, though, to really look at the people who want to take responsibility for their health care but have no means to. This is not a question of wanting to take responsibility, but rather being able to afford to take responsibility.

You have a large family, and luckily you have a great job working for [my employer]. I'm sure you have nice benefits as well. But you can't tell me that you and [my wife] never struggled to make ends meet? And that's with both of you having college degrees. I challenge you to think of the people not like you. To think of the people who work unskilled jobs and make minimum wage. They cannot afford health care, and if they become sick-- well, it really is debt or death.

Having the government step does not mean limitation of freedom. The government was set up for a purpose. Just like social security was set up for a purpose. Don't be afraid, Jon. Life is not black and white. Even though you are 30 something, I still challenge you to really look at poverty in America and not so much what Health Care Reform can do for you-- but what it can do for our country.

You are a smart man. Look beyond yourself.

To which I replied:

I would have addressed your points in my letter but it's limited to 275 words by the Free Press--not a lot of space to make a convincing argument for anything. Also, they added "in my opinion" to the second sentence (as if anything in the LTTE section isn't an opinion) and re-paragraphed my letter in such a way that several of my points were broken up and other points were uncomfortably combined.

You mention Social Security, so I'll address that first. Social Security (like Medicare) is a giant Ponzi scheme that has only persisted thus far because it has been continually expanded. There is no actual money in the Social Security 'trust fund'. It will soon fail. In addition, it teaches people to rely on government (i.e. other taxpayers) for their support in old age, rather than making a concerted effort to save and/or having many children for support. Because people have fewer children as a result, there are fewer new taxpayers to support the aging population. People save less and spend more, consuming resources and leaving less money available for retirement.

More to the main point of your letter, I certainly *am* thinking of people less fortunate than me. They should be seeking support from their family, friends, churches, neighbors, charities, etc. When the government provides charity or a 'safety net' for people, it completely erodes these important community connections and depersonalizes the act of asking for support and the act of giving support. This depersonalization also makes it easy to ask for help when you don't *really* need it, which leads to abuse and overuse. Additionally, the government has no real incentive to get people off the dole and back on their own, while a personal donor does. The 'War on Poverty' has been running for decades, and we still have just as many poor people even though we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars. All of the tax money needed to pay for that has a tendency to drive more people toward government support, since they have less money of their own to begin with.

I currently have a $1200 bill to pay for an ultrasound and x-ray examination of my daughter's kidneys, all done in under 2 hours. At least half of that cost is due to well-intentioned government intervention. If I had any idea of the cost before the procedure was done, I would have sought a second opinion first and possibly pursued other, cheaper methods.

There is an amazing amount of government in our health care system already, including health insurance mandates, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Indian Health Service, myriad regulations of all drugs, medical equipment, and services, personnel licensing requirements, etc., etc. Complying with these regulations is terrifically expensive and makes health care unaffordable; it also makes costs rise much faster than the general rate of inflation. Government wage controls during WWII led employers to add health benefits to attract employees, which coupled insurance to employment, which causes all sorts of problems and makes insurance unaffordable for the self-employed and those with part time jobs. (And it forces people to stay in jobs they hate so they don't lose benefits.)

Insurance companies, when they operate free from the government intervention that changes them from what they should be--insurers against catastrophic loss--into byzantine third-party payment systems (what we have in health insurance today), are the ultimate safety net.

Adding more government complexity to the mix will not improve what would otherwise be a simple and affordable system if the government would just get out of the way. If car insurance were run the same way as health insurance, we'd be crying for national car insurance reform right now, too. You'd need a full time job to get car insurance, and the govt would require all insurance plans to cover gasoline, oil changes, and repairs. All mechanics would have to be certified by a state board. You'd have no idea how much an oil change cost, but it wouldn't matter because the government would be paying for it. Etc.

I encourage you to read Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson", online here: http://jim.com/econ/ It was key to my recently-developed passion for economics (passionate? for economics? weird, I know!) and laid the foundation for my political activism.

Thanks for writing, and thanks for reading my reply.

Now I'm going to have to put in a few hours this weekend to make up for lost time at work! Besides, I need to earn a lot of money to help pay for everyone else's health care! :D

UPDATE September 17, 2009 - After I asked my friend about responding, I got this:

I see where you are coming from, though I whole-heartidly disagree. Unfortunetly, It is 11:18 [p.m.] and my brain is fried. I still have to [complete a work project] by 8:30am tomorrow morning. I would give you a response this weekend, but I work [second job] both Saturday and Sunday.

So I don't know if I'll respond to your points. But I do respond with this: I like that you stand strong by what you believe. But I still, and always will, push my conservative friends to look behind their bubble. Look beyond the hand you were delt. And approach everything with the attitude of "how will this help the greater good" as opposed to "how much is this going to cost me."
Okay-- time to dive into [work project].

I think I'll need a bit more time on this one.

Rockefeller Defends Federalism Posted by Murr25

Posted 08/19/09

 A paper I wrote a couple years ago when I was just starting to learn about libertarian ideals.

Rockefeller Defends Federalism

Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, born in Bar Harbor, Maine in 1908, was the grandson of oil baron John D. Rockefeller.  He began his life in family organizations including Rockefeller center, Creole Oil, and the Museum of Modern Art.  Later, he began his service in local government in 1933 as a member of the Westchester County Board of Health and then national and international politics in 1940 as the Coordinator of the Office of Inter-American Affairs under President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  He also served under Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Richard M. Nixon.[1]

He then went on to become the Governor of New York from 1959 to 1973 and campaigned for the Republican nomination for the Presidency of the United States unsuccessfully in 1964, 1968, and 1972.  After retiring from the governorship in December 1973, Rockefeller was nominated, under provision of the twenty-fifth amendment, by President Gerald R. Ford to be the forty-first Vice President of the United States of America on August 20, 1974.[2]

In February 1962 Rockefeller gave a series of three lectures at Harvard University that were subsequently made into a book in 1968 entitled "The Future of Federalism".  The three lectures were entitled Freedom and Federalism, Federalism and National Life, and Federalism and Free World Order.  These lectures set out to demonstrate Federalism's continuing management of our governmental and political system.  Being the governor of the large state of New York, Rockefeller was a very important person in the political arena of the era and this book gives an excellent look into his political philosophy that shaped policy.

Federalism is a political ideology that dates back to the framing of the constitution.  Federalists such as James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton believed in this system of government that gave authority to a strong central government and they wrote essays, collectively known as the Federalist Papers, to encourage Federalism's adoption by way of the Constitution.  It is ironic that these men would call themselves Federalists, though, because the word suggests they supported a federal union, which is a loose, decentralized system.  Instead they supported a strong national authority.[3] 

In the first lecture of his book, Freedom and Federalism, Rockefeller sets out to prove that Federalism is still a viable form of government to ensure freedom in the modern world.  First, he discusses the concept of federalism and its evolution in the U.S. by looking at national, state, and local government.  [4]

Rockefeller defines the Federal idea as "a concept of government by which a sovereign people, for their greater progress and protection, yield a portion of their sovereignty to a political system that has more than one center of sovereign power, energy, and creativity."

The people give up a part of their supreme, permanent authority to a central political system, the U.S. being a Federal Republic, in order to secure the nation's prosperity.  However, the central government shares authority with the state governments which share authority with the local governments.  Thus, our federal government has multiple locations for the people to take their grievances and ideas.  This shared authority is responsive to the people because that is ultimately where authority resides.

Rockefeller goes on to discuss the four ways in which the federal concept works.  First, it fosters diversity within unity.  The United States of America stretches from the Atlantic all the way to the Pacific oceans.  In this vast country, social and economic problems vary greatly from state to state and region to region.  Because of this, a generalized solution coming from the national government would be disastrous.  The federal concept calls the national government to work with the states and encourage them to find acceptable solutions to their problems.  Rockefeller sites federal aid to states as an example of this process.  Federal aid stimulates the states to action by offering matching funds by meeting specific conditions set by the national government and it sets out to equalize opportunities to states with unequal resources.  He states that his state of New York pays out $3 for every $1 it receives in federal aid but other states such as Arkansas receive $2.50 for every dollar paid.

Second, it permits and encourages creativity, imagination, and innovation in meeting the needs of the people.  If the problems of the people can not be solved by private sources they can turn to one of the three levels of government.  If the problem originates locally and can not be solved by local resources the people make take their case to the state government and if it can not be solved at that level the state, prompted by the people, may take their case to the national government.

Third, the federal idea is a pluralistic idea, meaning there is more than one basic principle.  A tightly centralized government stops the flow of ideas and invention from the people but a federal system provides for variety and creativity in political organizations, philanthropic associations, social intuitions, and economic enterprises.

Fourth, the federal idea is characterized by a balance which prevents excesses and invites the full, free play of innovation and initiative.  Each level of government is checked and balanced by the other which allows for national, state, and local governments to work new ideas without fear of reprimand from the next level.  This balance is allowed by the separation of powers between legislative, executive, and judicial branches, the absence of a one party political system, the permission for local governments to have a reasonable level of home rule, and especially the freedom of individual initiative.

Rockefeller next discusses a challenge to the balance of federal power between the three levels of government.  The growth of central government was caused by the pressures of the Great Depression and World War II and some think that state and local governments can not be involved in great political, economic, and social decision.         

As demands of society have increased the national government has become larger and more involved in state and local affairs.  But Rockefeller states that the growth of state and local government has been far more rapid with concern to social needs because the resources and attention of the federal government must be devoted more and more to defense, foreign aid, and international relations.  He backs this up by declaring that from 1950 to 1960, total national expenditures rose from 40.3 billion to 77.2 billion.  However, almost all of this ninety-two per cent increase went directly to the Defense Department.  By subtracting national defense expenditures the total only increased twenty-four percent.  Rockefeller adds that in the same period, total state expenditures increased from 13.2 billion to 32.5 billion, an increase of one hundred forty-six percent and local government expenditures rose dramatically as well.

Rockefeller goes on in defense of federalism by remarking that the constructors of the New Deal, while making major social advances and restoring the public confidence, did not have great comprehension of our economic system and that the most successful actions in social reform were experimented and practiced on the state level.  He adds that the elements of the New Deal which failed such as the National Recovery Administration and the Agricultrual Adjustment Act were not tested first at the state level.  These actions by the central government were not helpful to economic growth.

Lastly, Rockefeller discusses challenges to federalism dealing with the people.  Political aloofness, characterized by rationalizing withdrawal from political discourse as wise, is a major problem because it causes the youth to become detached and out of touch with reality.  He thinks some have become disillusioned with partisan politics and this is why they do not get involved or pay any attention.  Rockefeller states that political parties are good and does not criticize political independence and mobility. 

The distortion of political reality by use of labels is another challenge to federalism.  This obsession makes for rigid classification of laws, leaders, and policies as "liberal" or "conservative."  He states that all historical meanings of these labels have been lost and all they do is distort issues and confuses the people.  In Rockefeller's words the labels "substitute the slogan for thought, the false label for the serious goal.  It invites the citizen, in effect, to say: "Don't confuse me with the facts.  I've already made up my mind.""  Leaders, laws, and policies are not merely either conservative or liberal, instead they are either good for the country or not.

In The Federalist, No. 10, James Madison states, "A republic, by which I mean a Government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking."[5]  In this essay to the people of the state of New York, Madison was defending the federalism of the Constitution, the same idea that Rockefeller defends in "The Future of Federalism".  These two men, though separated by almost a century of American politics, are like minded thinkers that knew the idea of federalism must be explained and defended to their generation. 

[1] http://archive.rockefeller.edu/bio/nar.php

[2] http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0842152.html

[3] America's History, 6 ed., p. 195

[4] The Future of Federalism, p.1-28

[5] Documents to Accompany America's History, 6^th ed., p. 165

My Commentary in the Rochester Post Bulletin 8/7/09 Posted by Rongstad

Posted 08/19/09

http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=12&a=4109
55#comment

Keep up the good work everyone. Need some help down south! Posted by phathead

Posted 07/09/09 Last updated 06/23/09

That's southern Minnesota that is!

Possible GOP Gubernatorial contender says the GOP in Minnesota is changing...Due to none other than the Ron Paul campaign.

Anderson sees a change in the GOP base that has its roots in the 2006 Ron Paul presidential campaign, and that will influence the endorsement process. "It is a true libertarian Republican movement, and they're changing the party," she said in an interview. "There's less discussion about social issues and more discussion about the Constitution."

yea we know they mean 2008

Minnesota Independent article here

Printable petitions for S.604 and H.R. 1207 to Audit the Fed Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny

Posted 07/09/09 Last updated 07/09/09

Download a 10-line petition to gather signatures for S.604 and H.R. 1207, bills to audit the Federal Reserve. More information about these bills is available from the Campaign for Liberty's Audit the Fed page.

This petition has 10 lines per page, making it easy to count number of signatures when you have multiple pages to submit. The full petition text is at the top of each page so that it is clear that people knew what they were signing.

The files are two-page documents, which makes it easier to set up two-sided printing. If you will be printing one-sided pages, just print half the number of copies you need.

S.604 Federal Reserve Sunshine Act (submit to your Senators)

• PDF format
• Microsoft Word format
• Open Document format

H.R.1207 Federal Reserve Transparency Act (submit to your Representative)

• PDF format
• Microsoft Word format
• Open Document format

We used this petition to gather over 400 signatures in three days. Our Representative signed on as a cosponsor within a week.

To get signatures quickly, visit public places like busy parks and recreation areas, apartment buildings, and public universities. In most jurisdictions, you should legally be able to collect signatures from pedestrians on public sidewalks and other public lands. Go where the people are!

Sweet Land of Liberty Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny

Posted 05/28/09 Last updated 05/28/09

A letter to the editor I recently submitted:

Sweet Land of Liberty, where along the way did we lose you? Whatever happened to the America where government would not interfere with our lives and livelihoods unless we encroached on others' liberty and property?

Whatever happened to the America where we had the prudence to save for our own homes, health care, and education? Where we went to our families, churches, and charities for help in time of need, rather than asking government to extract it anonymously and forcibly from our neighbors?

What happened to the America where taxes were recognized as taxes, despite the many clever labels attached to them? Where we understood that the rich are the owners of the stores, factories, and offices where we work, and that voting an ever-larger "fair share" out of their pockets is a good way to get them to move away and take our jobs with them?

What happened to the America where businesses and banks that made too many mistakes cleared themselves away to make room for better ones to grow? Where hard work and entrepreneurial vigor were more profitable than political connections and lobbying groups? Where the Treasury actually contained treasure and the Federal Reserve didn't conjure trillions of dollars without even the courtesy to tell us who got the money?

What happened to the America where state legislatures didn't bow to the Federal government's every demand under the threat of losing funds? Where the states asserted their Constitutional right to be different from each other, and upheld their Constitutional duty to keep the Federal government from growing too powerful?

Government must be restrained if Liberty is to be retained.

Congressman Walz (D, MN-CD1) co-sponsors H.R.1207! Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny

Posted 05/07/09 Last updated 05/07/09

Nine days after a group of us delivered 424 signatures for HR 1207 to Congressman Walz's local Mankato office , he made a personal phone call to us from Washington. He let us know that he had talked to Dr. Paul about the bill and then decided to sign on as a co-sponsor! He cited a need for greater transparency in government. We now have five of Minnesota's eight Representatives on board with this important bill.

Mr. Walz left a voicemail for the person who had left contact information when we dropped off the petitions. I will post his voicemail and a transcript from the call here soon.

Keep asking your Reps to co-sponsor, and don't forget to thank them when they do!

Update: Here's the audio. (.mp3 840kb) ["Dave" is a local Campaign for Liberty member who spent many hours getting signatures for the petition.]

Transcript:

Hi Dave, Congressman Tim Walz calling you. It is Thursday the 7th of May. I hope you're doing well Dave. I just want to respond; I know you have been active, and I very much appreciate your citizenship of being involved in the issues that matter today. I wanted to let you know that I spoke with Congressman Paul. Ron is a friend of mine and I am a co-sponsor of 1207 now, and wanted to just let you know—I know you had an interest in that—we very much appreciate that. I agree with the bill on this; I've been a strong champion of transparency and I just wanted to sit down and get an opportunity and yesterday I did with Ron. And so just to let you know, if you have any follow-up you can call my D.C. office 202-225-2472, or I'm back in Mankato over the weekends, at my office or my home. Thanks, Dave. Good bye.

424 signatures delivered for HR 1207! Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny

Posted 04/28/09 Last updated 04/28/09

Here in Mankato, Minnesota, a group of five of us took our lunch hour to deliver a stack of petitions with a total of 424 signatures to the local office of Congressman Tim Walz (District 1). There was only one staffer present when we arrived; she welcomed and thanked us for our petition. She said that in the years she's worked there she has only received one other petition for anything at the local office. She did say that Congressman Walz has always been in favor of transparency in government, so hopefully this petition will give him the nudge he needs to become a cosponsor of HR 1207.

And of course, we all forgot to bring a camera. We did, however, bring a copy of Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, and gave it as a gift to the office. I'm guessing it probably won't be read, but hey, anything's possible.

We had collected signatures from a wide variety of sources over the weekend and Monday--some from downtown, some on campus, some from single-family homes, townhouses, local parks (on the days it wasn't raining!), from our workplaces, and more. Our fastest collections came from the food court at the local public university, where we could approach a table with multiple clipboards and get several signatures in just a few minutes. A number of petitions were faxed or snail mailed to us from other parts of the district. To get signatures faster with less paper, we used this 10-signature-per-page version (.pdf) of the petition.

Perhaps more important than the 424 signatures we garnered were the 500-odd conversations we had with fellow residents on the lack of transparency in the bailout bonanza and the Federal Reserve itself. Most of these conversations were about two minutes long. A good number of people were already familiar with the Federal Reserve, but many more had little knowledge of the Fed or its powers; we didn't ask those people to sign, of course, but gave them our "Fed Factsheet" based on information pulled from the Campaign for Liberty site.

I would estimate that about 20% of people we talked to didn't want to sign (don't like to be on lists, not sure about the subject, no time, etc.) but I didn't talk to anyone in favor of continued government secrecy and closed-door policy meetings. Congress, are you listening?

Collecting signatures for HR1207 Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny

Posted 04/25/09 Last updated 04/26/09

Yesterday on my lunch hour I went to the park to get signatures for an Audit the Fed petition and got 25 sigs in about an hour. Did some door to door for half an hour and got about 10 more, and another 20 from my workplace and teachers and parents at my daughter's school.

This afternoon I went downtown and got about 50 sigs in an hour and half: I got a lot from the smokers who have to stand outside the bars to smoke, some from older folks, some from couples out for dinner, a couple of biker dudes and some from a group of punk/dreadlocky 20-something kids hanging out in front of a coffee shop a block from the police station. A member of that group set down his joint to sign, and told me a joke: "How many activists does it take to change a light bulb? None, cuz activists never change anything!" I was surprised to hear a lot of disdain for the Federal Reserve from people who actually seemed to know something about it: "All of our money is based on debt," and "where'd all the real money like gold and silver go?" were a couple of them.

It was interesting, and great to hear people's reactions. Of course, there were some who weren't interested in signing, but no one was hostile. I might head out later for some more signatures. We're going to canvass the local college campus on Monday, and turn in signatures to Congressman Walz's local office on Tuesday.

Response from MN 1st District Rep. Tim Walz on HR 1207 Posted by Murr25

Posted 04/16/09

April 16, 2009

Dear Mr. Murray,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Federal Reserve and appropriate legislative action with respect to it. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you may know, the Federal Reserve was originally created in 1913 to address the banking panics that plagued America's early history, although it now has a number of responsibilities with respect to maintaining stability in the monetary and financial system of the United States. Needless to say, the recent economic and financial crisis has given rise to many questions about the appropriate role and conduct of the Federal Reserve, including whether the Fed should even exist in its current form.

There are a number of legislative proposals on this subject. H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, would reform how the Federal Reserve is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States. It would require the Comptroller General to complete its audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve banks by the end of 2010. It would also require a report be made public about the substance of the audit within 90 days. H.R. 833 would eliminate the Federal Reserve System and all reserve banks, under the theory that Congress would then have stronger control of our monetary system.

Currently, both of these bills are pending before the House Committee on Financial Services. Although I am not a member of this committee, I will follow this issue closely and will keep your views in mind as I continue to work on legislation that provides economic security to all Minnesotans. 

Thank you again for sharing your views with me, and I look forward to hearing from you again in the future.  For more information about my activities representing southern Minnesota in Congress, please visit http://walz.house.gov and sign up for my e-newsletter.

Sincerely,

Tim Walz
Member of Congress

It took quite a while to get a response but at least it was on the topic of the FED and not generic.

Campaign For Liberty Handbills . . updated a whole bunch Posted by gride

Posted 03/31/09 Last updated 10/25/09

Ron Paul's weekly column on the state of the union

in a cheap to print and easy to distribute format

print ~ cut ~ fold ~ distribute ~ repeat

• Texas Straight Talk 10/19/2009 - The Very Busy Polititians in Washington DC
  
• Texas Straight Talk 10/13/2009 - Saving Face in Afghanistan
  
• Texas Straight Talk 10/05/2009 - Bombs and Bribes
  
• Texas Straight Talk 09/28/2009 - The Real Reasons Behind Fed Secrecy
  
• Texas Straight Talk 09/21/2009 - Trade Wars and Protectionism are not Free Trade
• Texas Straight Talk 09/14/2009 - Healthcare Reform is More Corporate Welfare
• Texas Straight Talk 09/08/2009 - Government Solutions Lack Understanding
  
• Texas Straight Talk 08/31/2009 - The Fed's Interesting Week
  
• Texas Straight Talk 08/24/2009 - We Need Sunlight to Disinfect the Legislative Process!
  
• Texas Straight Talk 08/18/2009 - The Free Market as Regulator
• Texas Straight Talk 08/10/2009 - Cash for Clunkers
  
• Texas Straight Talk 08/03/2009 - Healthcare Plan Based on Economic Fantasy
  
• Texas Straight Talk 07/27/2009 - The Immorality of Taxpayer Funded Abortion
  
• Texas Straight Talk 07/20/2009 - Healthcare is a Good, Not a Right
  
• Texas Straight Talk 07/13/2009 - Fed Independence or Fed Secrecy?
  
• Texas Straight Talk 07/06/2009 - Celebrating the Fight For Freedom on the Fourth of July
• Texas Straight Talk 06/29/2009 - Cap and Trade Will Lead to Capital Flight
• Texas Straight Talk 06/22/2009 - International Bailout Brings Us Closer to Economic Collapse
  
• Texas Straight Talk 06/15/2009 - Moving Toward Tobacco Prohibition
• Texas Straight Talk 06/08/2009 - GM, Amtrak, and an Increasingly Facist America
• Texas Straight Talk 06/01/2009 - Fight Government Encroachment into Healthcare!
• Texas Straight Talk 05/25/2009 - Torturing the Rule of Law
  
• Texas Straight Talk 05/18/2009 - Audit the Fed, then End It!
• Texas Straight Talk 05/11/2009 - On Af-Pak: Stop "Helping"
  
• Texas Straight Talk 05/04/2009 - When Government Plays Doctor
  
• Texas Straight Talk 04/27/2009 - Secession: The Ultimate States' Right
  
• Texas Straight Talk 04/20/2009 - Response to Piracy
  
• Texas Straight Talk 04/13/2009 - Fewer Taxes For Real Economic Stimulus
  
• Texas Straight Talk 04/06/2009 - Putting You in Charge of Your Health Care
• Texas Straight Talk 03/30/2009 - End the War on Drugs
• Texas Straight Talk 03/23/2009 - Bankruptcy is Economic Stimulus
• Texas Straight Talk 03/16/2009 - Earmarks Don't Add Up
• Texas Straight Talk 03/09/2009 - Imagine
• Texas Straight Talk 03/02/2009 - Is Spending the Answer?
• Texas Straight Talk 02/23/2009 - On Transparency of the Fed
• Texas Straight Talk 02/16/2009 - On Reinstating the Draft
• Texas Straight Talk 02/09/2009 - Freedom from Government
• Texas Straight Talk 02/02/2009 - Cures for Our Economic Disease
• Texas Straight Talk 01/26/2009 - Stimulus for Who
• Texas Straight Talk 01/19/2009 - Strengthening of Weakening the Economy
• Texas Straight Talk 01/12/2009 - Stimulating our Way to Rock Bottom
• Texas Straight Talk 01/05/2009 - Opportunities for Peace and Nonintervention
• Texas Straight Talk 12/29/2008 - Transition and Hope
• Texas Straight Talk 12/22/2008 - Government and Fraud
• Texas Straight Talk 12/15/2008 - Economic Freedom or Socialist Intervention?
• Texas Straight Talk 12/08/2008 - Gun Control: Protecting Terrorists and Despots
• Texas Straight Talk 06/07/2001 - The Case Against The Income Tax

              &
nbsp;             &n
bsp; ~~~~~~

and a few other printables

• Campaign for Liberty:  Mission Statement and Statement of Principles
• Young Americans for Liberty mission statement
• Declaration of Independence
• Bill of Rights
• John Adams - Thoughts On Government
• Patrick Henry - Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death
• Articles of Confederation

C4L featured articles

• October 24, 2009 - Obama's Tax on the Middle Class
  
• October 24, 2009 - The Case for Higher Interest Rates
  
• October 24, 2009 - What the U.S. Military Can't Do
  
• October 23, 2009 - Distrusting Climate Change Globalism
  
• October 23, 2009 - A Maoist in the White House
  
• October 23, 2009 - You Might Be A Constitutionalist If....
  
• October 22, 2009 - Health Care Hypocrisy
  
• October 22, 2009 - Why the White House Worries About Fox News
  
• October 22, 2009 - Hot-Air Conservatism
  
• October 21, 2009 - Alliances as Transmission Belts of War
  
• October 21, 2009 - Is a  Weak Dollar a Strong Sign? Not So Fast!
  
• October 20, 2009 - Will Todays U.S. Armed Ally Be Tomorrows Enemy?
• October 19, 2009 - Freedom's Destruction by Constitutional De-Construction
  
• October 19, 2009 - Let's Make Health Care Inexpensive Again
  
• October 17, 2009 - Climate Change, Socialized Medicine, and Population Control
  
• October 17, 2009 - Ignorance is Bliss
  
• October 16, 2009 - Warren Harding and the Forgotten Depression of 1920
  
• October 16, 2009 - The Imperial Presidency Marches On
  
• October 15, 2009 - U.S. Stock Markets are Disconnected from Reality
  
• October 15, 2009 - A Noble Prize We Can Cheer
  
• October 14, 2009 - These are Not Negotiale
  
• October 13, 2009 - Rich Uncle Pays your Mortgage
  
• October 13, 2009 - Pity the Imperialists
  
• October 12, 2009 - Second Stimulus or Hair of the Dog
  
• October 12, 2009 - War of the Worlds:  London, 1898; Kabul, 2009
  
• October 10, 2009 - Obama Deserves It
  
• October 10, 2009 - "Ravenwood" Comes to America
  
• October 09, 2009 - The Fed's Dilemma
• October 09, 2009 - Global Warming Scandals and Extortion for 'Dignity'
  
• October 08, 2009 - The Currency Cabal
  
• October 08, 2009 - The New Left was Right
  
• October 07, 2009 - Bernanke's Great Fib - The "Gold Standard" and the Great Depression
  
• October 06, 2009 - The Unemployment Racket
• October 05, 2009 - Looking Beyond Treason
• October 05, 2009 - Michael Moore wants to End The Fed ( He just doesn't realize it)
• October 03, 2009 - The Recovery That Isn't
• October 03, 2009 - A Truly Shocking Guantanamo Story
• October 02, 2009 - The Evil of Sanctions
• October 02, 2009 - Hand Off Iran!
• October 01, 2009 - The Afghan Disaster
  
• October 01, 2009 - A Somber G20
  
• September 30, 2009 - Net Neutrality Regulation vs Internet Freedom
• September 30, 2009 - Will NATO's 60th Anniversary Be Its Last?
  
• September 29, 2009 - The Second-Best Solution to Health Care:  Do Nothing
  
• September 28, 2009 - The Anti-Fed Revolution is Happening
  
• September 28, 2009 - What's the Real Emergency in Health Care Reform?
  
• September 26, 2009 - The Price of Pretense in Pittsburgh
• September 26, 2009 - A Surveillance Society or a Free Society?
  
• September 25, 2009 - Audit The Fed
  
• September 25, 2009 - The Four-Part Process Leading to Sustainable Development
  
• September 25, 2009 - How to Trap a President in a Losing War
  
• September 24, 2009 - More Government Wont Help
  
• September 24, 2009 - It's Time for a Real Discussion on REAL ID
  
• September 23, 2009 - Us or Them in Afghanistan?
  
• September 23, 2009 - Independece Needs Independents
  
• September 22, 2009 - Town Halls: If Congress Really Cared What You Think
  
• September 21, 2009 - Next They'll Have Us Salivating
  
• September 21, 2009 - The Battle Still Rages
  
• September 19, 2009 - Health Care Reform is more Corporate Welfare
  
• September 19, 2009 - Interventionism, Empire, and the Taliban
  
• September 18, 2009 - Is America Hooked On War?
• September 18, 2009 - Ignoring the Feds
  
• September 17, 2009 - Is Bagram Obama's New Prison
• September 17, 2009 - A Privacy Report Card for Obama
• September 16, 2009 - Obama's Medical Collectivism
• September 16, 2009 - The Continuing Push for Globalism
• September 15, 2009 - Say No to the Individual Health Insurance Mandate
• September 15, 2009 - The Fallacy of Equal Pay for Equal Work
• September 14, 2009 - The Problem with "Sustainable Development"
• September 14, 2009 - Afghanistan by the Numbers
  
• September 12, 2009 - The Natural Law Provides the Answers
• September 12, 2009 - George Will Abandons the War Party
• September 11, 2009 - The Causes, Aftermath, and Lessons of 9/11
  
• September 11, 2009 - How 9/11 Should Be Remembered
  
• September 11, 2009 - A Tribute to Trade
  
• September 10, 2009 - The Limits of Protest
  
• September 10, 2009 - Update on the Plans for a National ID
• September 09, 2009 - The FTC's War on Medical Free Speach
• September 08, 2009 - Why Are "We" Defending South Korea?
• September 08, 2009 - Unnecessary and Immoral
  
• September 07, 2009 - Honor Labor Day: End Compulsory Unionism
• September 07, 2009 - Get Out of Afgahnistan
• September 05, 2009 - Button, Button
  
• September 05, 2009 - American Militarism on Steriods
  
• September 04, 2009 - The Fed on the Defensive
  
• September 04, 2009 - The Misery Index: A Reality Check
  
• September 03, 2009 - A Need for Some Soul-Searching
  
• September 03, 2009 - Public Edumacation Refermation
  
• September 02, 2009 - Bush's Third Term:  You're Living It
  
• September 02, 2009 - The Marbury v. Madison Mantra
  
• September 01, 2009 - Ain't that America
  
• August 31, 2009 - The Corruption of Empire
  
• August 29, 2009 - Betting Against the Fed
  
• August 28, 2009 - The Liberal Fear of Guns
  
• August 27, 2009 - Are Misplaced Incentives The Inevitable Result Of Statism
• August 26, 2009 - What is this "Free Market" we keep hearing about? part 2
• August 24, 2009 - A Child Can Understand the Meaning of Debt
• August 22, 2009 - Dr. Leviathan
  
• August 20, 2009 - Will National ID Protect Us From Identity Theft?
  
• August 19, 2009 - Biking Out of Iraq
  
• August 18, 2009 - "Secure Flight," Insecure Right to Travel
  
• August 17, 2009 - America's Socialized Health Care
• August 15, 2009 - Obama and the Post Office
  
• August 14, 2009 - An AntiWar Effort Only the Right Can Lead
• August 13, 2009 - Obama, Bush and the Limits of Power
• August 12, 2009 - Is There a Natural Anti-Liberty Mindset?
  
• August 11, 2009 - The Chill Effect
  
• August 10, 2009 - Will America Shrug?
• August 08, 2009 - What is this "Free Market" we keep hearing about?
  
• August 07, 2009 - When Will the Monetary Manipulation Stop?
• August 05, 2009 - The Fed's Phlogiston Theory of Recessions
  
• August 05, 2009 - Ukrainian Follies: Creating More Needless Defense Dependents
  
• August 04, 2009 - An Open Letter to Congressman Murphy
  
• August 03, 2009 - More War, Please
• August 01, 2009 - The North Carolinian Jihadist
• July 2009 - Modern Prohibition and Individual Liberty
  
• July 2009 - Why Not a Public Option for Automobile Insurance?
  
• July 2009 - The Insanity of "Universal" Medical Care
  
• July 2009 - What's the Establishment Got to Hide
• July 2009 - Less Government, More Sense
• July 2009 - Collectivist Republicans Losing Their Fight?
• July 2009 - Stop Obamacare Now!
  
• July 2009 - Constitutional Tranny
• July 2009 - Space for the Free Market
• July 2009 - The Return of America's Anathema
• July 2009 - Romans Chapter 13 Revisited
• July 2009 - The Surveillance State Threatens All of Us
• July 2009 - Bring Back the Declaration of Independence
  
• July 2009 - Why Not Permanently Cancel Aid to Honduras?
  
• July 2009 - Liberty is an Absolute
  
• July 2009 - How Polititians and the Media Change Our Mind
• July 2009 - TSA: Tyranical, Silly Agency
  
• July 2009 - Hands Off Honduras!
  
• July 2009 - Expanding Government is Destroying Liberty in the European Union
  
• July 2009 - While the Media Focused on Michael Jackson
  
• July 2009 - Independence and Liberty
• July 2009 - Water Boarding and the Future State of Torture
• July 2009 - Life, Liberty, and Property are Inseparable
• July 2009 - Cap and Trade Equals Fraud and Tax
• June 2009 - Real ID: A Real Warning on the Danger of Government
• June 2009 - The "American Clean Energy and Security'" Rip Off
  
• June 2009 - Fettered Free Trade
  
• June 2009 - Don't Mess with Iran's Evolutionary Process
  
• June 2009 - Dr. Ron Paul: No Longer the Lone Ranger
• June 2009 - Does Your Freedom Depend on Gold?
• June 2009 - Pro-Life and Anti-Intervention
  
• June 2009 - Politicians Talking Gibberish About Healthcare
• June 2009 - Iran: What's Really Going On
• June 2009 - Hero Or Villian?
• June 2009 - What To Expect From Sotomayor?
• June 2009 - Statement on Global Warming Petition
• June 2009 - Government Begets More Government
• June 2009 - James W. Von Brunn and the Poison of Collective Racism
• June 2009 - Do Patients Recieve About Half or Recommended Health Care?
  
• June 2009 - How Do We Defeat Racism and Discriminatinon Once and For All?
• June 2009 - Obama, like Bush, just doesn't get it
• June 2009 - Down for the Count
• June 2009 - North Korea: Paper Tiger
• June 2009 - A Nation of Hyenas
• May 2009 - The "Traction" Fallacy
• May 2009 - Medical Freedom or Medical Facism?
• May 2009 - Just Say No To Big Government
• May 2009 - America's Anti-Militarist Heritage
• May 2009 - A New Private-Public Partership: The Citizen Police State
• May 2009 - Romer, Bernanke, and the Flying Donkeys
• May 2009 - Justifying Iraq With Torture
• May 2009 - The Congressional Water Grab
• May 2009 - The Separation of Marriage and State
• May 2009 - The Backdoor Draft
• May 2009 - The Case Against the Fed "Money and Politics"
• May 2009 - Congress Must Audit the Federal Reserve
  
• May 2009 - Should the GOP Run Toward the "Middle"
  
• May 2009 - The Dangers of Voodoo Science
  
• May 2009 - Lockeing Up Leviathan
  
• May 2009 - The Trouble with "Single-Payer Healthcare"
  
• May 2009 - No Nation-Building in Somalia
  
• May 2009 - We Don't Torture. . . but Torture Does Work
• May 2009 - The Goodness Of Gold
• May 2009 - The Forgotten Man
• May 2009 - Not Our Quarrel
• May 2009 - Local Currency: A Real Stimulus Plan
  
• May 2009 - The War On Drugs Is A War On You
• April 2009 - A Century of Bipartisan Tyranny
• April 2009 - Obama Positioning For Backdoor Gun Control
• April 2009 - The Left, The Right, and The State
• April 2009 - Money and Power Corrupt. Would They Corrupt You?
• April 2009 - Environment and Monopoly
• April 2009 - The Fed And The Golden Fleece
• April 2009 - Drug Control? No, Citizen Control
• April 2009 - World Cop and American Daddy
• April 2009 - The Forgotten Right
• April 2009 - War is General Theft
• April 2009 - Income Tax Is Worker Exploitation
• April 2009 - The Disastrous Embargo on Cuba
• April 2009 - Three Health Care Myths
• April 2009 - The Bailouts Are Devouring The Economy
• April 2009 - States Rights and Left
• April 2009 - A Moment's Reflection
• April 2009 - A Medical Version Of The Patriot Act
• April 2009 - Putting You In Charge Of Your Own Health Care
• April 2009 - The Threat of Hyper-Depression
• April 2009 - Ron Paul:  End The War on Drugs
• April 2009 - Stimulating The Economy Into The Ground
• April 2009 - Public Advocacy is Not a Crime
• March 2009 - Don't Merge Big Auto
  
• March 2009 - Liberty and Law, not "Law and Order"
• March 2009 - A Look at the Jury System and Our Participation in It
• March 2009 - US Constitution is DeFacto Law of the Land until Lawfully Amended
• March 2009 - Daddy, Tell Me, What Exactly is a Derivative?
• March 2009 - How to Catch a Wild Pig
• March 2009 - The Mixed Economy In Crisis
• March 2009 - Why South Carolina Doesn't Want 'Stimulus'
• March 2009 - Obama the Socialist and the Cause of Poverty
• March 2009 - Iran - A Way Forward
• March 2009 - Peaceful Dissent and Government Witch Hunts
• March 2009 - E-Verify and the Emerging Surveillance State
• March 2009 - The Dream That Was America
• March 2009 - So-Called Isolationists Are the True Internationalists
• March 2009 - Fanny & Freddy - Why should you care?
• March 2009 - Death by Treasuries
• History of the Fourth Amendment
• March 2009 - Ten Reasons Why Conservatives Should Oppose War with Iran
• March 2009 - Obama's Bushanian Budget
• February 2009 - Whos Constitution Is It?
• February 2009 - How to Achieve Socialism
• February 2009 - Practical Foreign Policy Agenda for Obama
• February 2009 - What Does "Equal Pay for Equal Work" Mean?
• February 2009 - Roots of the Banking Crisis
• February 2009 - Something Must Be Done
• February 2009 - Tooth Fairy Economics
• February 2009 - Twighlight in Afghanistan
• January 2009 - The Fed Creates a Crisis and And Hampers the Recovery
• November 2008 - American Crisis Part 1
• January 2009 - American Crisis Part 2
• February 2009 - American Crisis Part 3
• Do Something Congress
• End the Fed
• Why an Understanding of Inalienable Rights is Important
• The Role of "the People" in Protecting Inalienabale Rights

New Deal or raw deal? Posted by wehrwd

Posted 02/27/09 Last updated 02/27/09

From http://media.www.msureporter.com/media/storage/paper937/news/2009/02/26/Voi
ces/New-Deal.Or.Raw.Deal-3650582.shtml:

New Deal or raw deal?

As President Barack Obama unveils his economic plans amid a worsening economy, many have started to make comparisons between Obama and Franklin D. Roosevelt, the president widely credited with getting America out of the Great Depression.

Time magazine ran an image of Obama as FDR on its cover with the headline, "The New New Deal." New York Times columnist Paul Krugman referred to "Franklin Delano Obama" and urged the president to call for a "new New Deal." Politico hailed Obama's economic plans as "the 21st century New Deal." CNN.com wanted to know, "Can Obama lead another New Deal?"

The assumption here is that a second New Deal is a splendid idea; that the first was a smashing success. Indeed, the New Deal is remembered fondly today for helping America get out of the Great Depression.

This perception isn't necessarily accurate, however. In fact, many economists are reaching the conclusion that New Deal policies may have prolonged the Great Depression.

Among them are UCLA professors Lee Ohanian and Harold Cole, who conducted a four-year study of the New Deal and concluded in 2004 that Roosevelt's policies actually extended the depression by seven years. If the federal government had not intervened following the 1929 stock market crash, America's recovery would have occurred fairly rapidly, they said.

Many people believe the government did not intervene until Roosevelt took office in 1933. But Herbert Hoover, today derided as a free-market ideologue who stood idly by as America's economy crashed and burned, was actually an avid government interventionist. In fact, Hoover bragged about spearheading "the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic," and when FDR campaigned against Hoover, he attacked the president for his "reckless and extravagant spending" and for believing "we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible."

Once in office, however, FDR only ramped up Hoover's efforts, generally with the same ineffective results.

The New Deal consisted of government growth and intervention on a massive scale. FDR's efforts included such measures as paying farmers to destroy crops and animals in an attempt to artificially raise food prices and therefore farmers' profits; engaging in massive deficit spending and trying to artificially increase wages and prices through the National Industrial Recovery Act (later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court) and then the National Labor Relations Act.

Yet unemployment under Roosevelt only fell below 17 percent one year, and as late as 1938, five years into the New Deal, unemployment was above 19 percent. In 1939 it was still at 17.2 percent.

Some argue the New Deal was working until FDR made a brief effort to cut deficit spending in 1937. But those who blame spending cuts for the 1937 and 1938 spikes in unemployment are essentially conceding the New Deal was a failure, since it failed to revive private-sector growth and any economic growth it sparked was hollow, dependent on government spending and not self-sustaining. In truth, though, other factors, including tax hikes and additional market interference through the National Labor Relations Act, were also involved.

According to Ohanian and Cole's research, unemployment in 11 key industries the three years following implementation of FDR's policies was 25 percent higher than it should have been considering the growth in productivity. The gross national product was 27 percent below what it could have been had the market been allowed to correct itself, since artificially high prices on goods and services lowered demand for them. Net private investment was down, as well.

Some in FDR's administration recognized their own failure. "I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started," Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau told the House Ways and Means Committee in 1939. 

Morgenthau also admitted: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work."

After a decade at work, in fact, the only thing New Deal policies did, in Ohanian and Cole's description, was short-circuit the market's self-correcting forces.

In a Wall Street Journal column earlier this month, the two wrote that many New Deal policies "violated the most basic economic principles by suppressing competition, and setting prices and wages in many sectors well above their normal levels. All told, these anti-market policies choked off powerful recovery forces that would have plausibly returned the economy back to trend by the mid-1930s."

Instead, the U.S. didn't pull out of the Great Depression until 1943, 14 long years after the stock market first crashed.

When government interference in the economy results in unintended but painful consequences, as we see now, many immediately start calling for further government intrusion. These people point to the New Deal as an example of successful government intervention.

The New Deal should indeed be used as an example, but an example of what to never do again.

Report from the 'Minnesota Misery Tour': Mankato edition Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny

Posted 02/19/09

I attended the Budget Hearing held in Mankato on February 19, 2009, one of many to be held around Minnesota in the coming weeks. The three-hour hearing was billed as a chance for members of the community to speak to their representatives about the enormous Minnesota budget deficit. The series of hearings has been referred to by some proponents of limited government as The Misery Tour, and let me tell you, that was a very accurate description of the event.

An estimated 350 people attended the event, filling the room over capacity. The event organizers said they had expected about 100-150 people when they arranged the meeting location. Of the 350, 90 had signed up to "testify" for the hearing, and probably two-thirds of this number were actually present when called to speak. Each speaker was allotted two minutes, but many speakers went over time by 30-60 seconds without rebuke. About eight area Minnesota representatives and senators were present.

But here's the problem: this was not a "community meeting" by any stretch of the imagination. By my estimation, about 85-90% of the speakers worked for and/or received benefits from state government programs. Numerous speakers represented the local public university (from the university president to professors to the student body president) and many more represented various organizations that receive most or all of their funds from the state coffers. They all begged the legislators that their program not be cut, because, they said, it was so important to so many people that the programs continued. A loss of 10-15% would be catastrophic, they said. And so on: "This is an investment in our future." "Demand for social services is through the roof; we simply can't help everyone even at current funding levels."

A number of people said, "Raise my taxes. These programs are worth it to me!" Apparently they've never considered the concept that since they work for the state, they don't really pay taxes at all. (What's the difference if they earn $50,000 from the state and pay $5,000 in taxes back to the state, or if they just earn $45,000 and pay no taxes?) One person spent her entire two minutes literally crying, with tears and a choked voice, about how she couldn't believe that Governor Pawlenty could possibly in good conscience suggest cutting the program she worked for.

The other 10% or so of the speakers, such as myself, were not beneficiaries of the many government programs on the chopping block. These speakers talked about being fiscally responsible, about returning government functions to the private sector, about the fallacy of government being able to create wealth and restore the economy, and concerning the impossibility to tax our way out of the deficit when our private sector productivity is crumbling under the tax burden already.

The composition of the crowd, and, by extension, the content of the speeches, was what it was because the people who aren't current employees or beneficiaries of state programs will not feel the pain until well after the cuts are made and taxes are raised, so they had much less incentive to be at the meeting. The private sector will feel the pain later, when it's too late to do anything about it. However, now the legislators from that attended the hearing will be able to go back to the legislature and say that they heard over and over again that Minnesotans want increased taxes and maintained benefits levels. The limited government view, due to the natural audience bias, was barely a whisper in the cacophany of big-government begging.

If a "hearing" is coming to a town near you, please, show up. Sign up to speak. Your voice is needed.

Project Fair Convention 2010 Posted by YonCole

Posted 02/19/09 Last updated 02/17/09

Today is 2/17/2009 - you might be thinking that the next opportunity to make a HUGE difference for the Campaign for Liberty is a long ways off, BUT IT'S COMING IN THE NEXT 5 WEEKS!!!!  AND WE NEED TO MOVE NOW!

Summary: Get going on your Precinct Leader Training!  AND  Understand the Plan presented below: our action items and goals for the next 35 days!
-----------------

I recently started going through the Precinct Leader Training Program! -> If you are not doing this yet, it is INCREDIBLE!  The training materials are right on, and the research questions are helping me get connected with my precinct in a big way!  Sign-up to be a Precinct Leader and get going!  It's AWESOME!

Reading between the lines a new picture emerged in my mind.  Here is what I saw:

1) In 2008 we made a head first rush to see what we could do to get Ron Paul elected.  We went to precinct caucus, we brought friends, and we did everything we could to get Ron Paul supports into the National Convention as Delegates and Alternates.

2) In Minnesota we hit a few unexpected obstacles:  Especially in the state convention, we were not prepared for the kind of control the State Executive Committee would wield to make sure the convention resulted the way they wanted it to.

3) In 2010 we'll have the opportunity to endorse a candidate for governer, and in 2012 we'll have the opportunity to select P-BO's opposition candidate.  If we want to have some say in who runs, we need to ensure that our conventions are run fairly - and that means having pull on the State Executive Committee.

4) To get there, we need to understand the rules, and we need people to STEP UP in BIG WAYS!  Here is the analogy I'm working with.  Imagine if we could win every election and choose who we wanted in any/every office.  The ideal solution would be to start filling up the highest power seats with our best people.  But right now we run into a barrier: We don't have enough people taking ACTION to fill the seats that we want to fill.  Imagine, if you were suddenly and personally asked by Ron Paul himself to run for a particular position, would you have the courage to do it?!?

5) I am committing myself today to getting elected to the highest capacity that I am able to reach through the coming election cycles (in 2009, this is party leadership).  (State Republican Chairman, State Executive Committee, Congressional District Chairman, Congressional District Executive Committee, BPOU Chairman, BPOU Executive Committee).

6) I will simply do the best I can and see how far I can get.  And then in 2010, I'll run for office: (President[I would but I'm not 35 yet - only 28], CD2 Representative to the US House of Representatives, MN Governer, MN Senator, MN House of Representative).

7) I am TERRIFIED!  I have that feeling of standing on the edge of a cliff, because this is some big change in my life.  I never expected to feel this kind of internal pressure to actually DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

8) I want you to know, that if you are feeling that feeling too, you are not alone!  GO FOR IT!

9) The full picture includes a necessity that we must move to the next level, and the Precinct Leader Training Program is the Perfect Tool to help you do it!

10) The BPOU conventions are coming up!  Here is what we need to do to be ready:
   A) Know the Goal:  Get as many "Delegates/Alternates to the State Central Committee" as we can.
   B) Know the support:
        i)Only Delegates & Alternates to BPOU conventions get to vote for the State Central Committee Delegates and Alternages.  (The only people that get to vote were determined at the 2008 precinct caucuses).  Of all of these people, we need to know who are aligned with the Liberty Movement.  I have developed a phone script that I am experimenting with, and I am calling these people.  [I find out if they've read The Revolution, and what they thought, or if they would be interested in reading it.]
        ii) BPOUs can set their own rules for who can be elected as a delegate or alternate; if they may be nominated "at large" then ANYONE in the BPOU could be seated, even if they were not a delegate/alternate at the BPOU convention.  Non-Delegate/Alternate Ron Paul Supporters would be GREAT to get seated in these positions - so knowing your local support is another key!  They might be part of your SLATE (see below), or they might be willing to help with some phone calling.
   C) Know the rules:
      i) You'll need to check with your BPOU constitution to see the rules of who can be nominated for the State Central Committee Seats.
      ii) You might also need to meet with a nominating committee.
      iii) And you'll need to know how many Seats you have available in your BPOU.  (SD37 has 5 Delegate Seats and 15 Alternate Seats)
   D) Form a SLATE:
      i) Once you know the rules, gather your support in a meeting, and see how many people you have.
      ii) Who Here Would Be Willing to Be on the State Central Committee?  I would recommend feeling HONOR BOUND to say yes to such a question!
      iii) Have everyone give a practice 1-2 minute Nomination Speech, and have everyone present score them.  (Allowing as many repeats as anyone wants)
      iv) Take AS MANY TOP SCORERS as there are available Seats, and rank them by Score.
      v) Ask everyone present whether they feel comfortable promising to vote for this SLATE in the order given - take any comments, and see if there is any need for adjustments.
      vi) Once the order is resolved, that is your SLATE.
   E) Do anything and everything necessary to get your SLATE elegible to be seated (may mean meeting with the nominating committee).
   F) Get to the BPOU Convention and Vote for your SLATE!

11) We can do this!  In every BPOU where there is ONE (1) member of the Campaign for Liberty, we can SWEEP all of the State Central Committee Delegates and Alternates.  No one else is as organized as we are!  No one else is forming a SLATE.  Most people don't even know or care about this!

12) GETTING our members onto the State Central Committee is our NUMBER ONE goal for the immediate future!

13) Next steps will be:
   A) Getting our members onto the CD Executive Committees. (April)
   B) Getting our members onto the State Executive Committee. (June)
   C) Getting our members ready to run for office in 2010. (July '09 - Nov '10)
   D) Getting our members ELECTED in 2010! (Nov '10)

14) We'll also need to continue growing our support base, organizing that base, and replicating our successes far and wide!

15) You are a leader!  Take Your Next Step TODAY!  Sign Up for the Precinct Leader Training!

My Article in the Rochester Post Bulletin Posted by Rongstad

Posted 02/15/09

My commentary that appeared in the Rochester Post Bulletin on 2/10/09:

http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=12&a=3845
98

MN District 1 residents: Don't miss the Budget Hearings! Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny

Posted 02/12/09

There are five budget hearings in District 1 on February 19 and 20 ... and it's extremely important that the limited-government voice is heard at these events. Check the MN-CD1 page calendar sidebar for the event nearest you.

Be aware that you do have to SIGN UP IN ADVANCE if you wish to speak at these events.

The Minneapolis Fed thinks massive gov't intervention is a bad idea Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny

Posted 02/10/09 Last updated 02/10/09

This paper, posted on the Minneapolis Fed web site, has this for its abstract:

Studying the experience of countries that have experienced great depressions during the twentieth century teaches us that massive public interventions in the economy to maintain employment and investment during a financial crisis can, if they distort incentives enough, lead to a great depression.

So does having a monopoly on the money (monopoly money, in other words) count as a 'massive public intervention', dear Fed? I think it does.

The paper begins:

The current financial crisis has prompted these questions: Could the world economy enter a great depression like that of the 1930s? If so, what can governments do to avoid it?

Looking at historical experience can help us answer these questions. Since 2000, Timothy Kehoe and Edward Prescott have been running a project at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis to study the great depressions that occurred during the twentieth century. Kehoe and Prescott define a great depression to be a very large and sustained drop in output per working-age person below trend growth.

...

In the book Great Depressions of the Twentieth Century, published in 2007 by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Kehoe and Prescott, together with a team of 24 economists from all over the world, have studied the great depressions that occurred in North America and Western Europe in the 1930s, those that occurred in Latin America in the 1980s, and isolated experiences in other places and times. What lessons can be learned from comparing and contrasting these historical experiences? The authors of each of the studies in the book start by decomposing the decline in output during the depression into declines in inputs of labor and capital and a decline in the efficiency with which these factors are employed, measured as productivity. They find that a large drop in productivity always plays a large role in accounting for the depression. In some depressions, such as the U.S. depression of the 1930s, large drops in labor inputs also play important roles. In others, such as the Mexican depression of the 1980s, the drop in productivity accounts for almost the entire drop in output.

Looking at the historical evidence, Kehoe and Prescott conclude that bad government policies are responsible for causing great depressions. In particular, they hypothesize that, while different sorts of shocks can lead to ordinary business cycle downturns, overreaction by the government can prolong and deepen the downturn, turning it into a depression. [emphasis mine]

An instructive exercise is to compare the experiences of Chile and Mexico in the 1980s studiedin the chapter in the depressions book by Raphael Bergoeing, Patrick Kehoe, Timothy Kehoe, and Raimundo Soto. In 1981-82, both countries were hit by the shocks of rising world interest rates and falling international prices of the commodities that they exported - copper for Chile and petroleum for Mexico. These shocks exposed weakness in the banking systems in both countries and produced financial crises.

In 1982 in Chile, banks that held half of the deposits were suffering severe liquidity crises. The government took control of these banks. Within three years, the Chilean government had liquidated the insolvent banks and reprivatized the solvent banks. The government set up a new regulatory scheme to avoid mismanagement. These new regulations allowed the market to determine interest rates and the allocation of credit to firms. The short-term costs of the crisis and the reform in Chile were severe, and real GDP fell sharply in 1982 and 1983. By 1984, however, the Chilean economy started to grow, and Chile has been the fastest-growing country in Latin America since then.

In 1982 in Mexico, the government nationalized the entire banking system, and banks were only reprivatized in the early 1990s. Throughout the 1980s, in an effort to maintain employment and investment, the government-controlled banks provided credit at below-market interest rates to some large firms and no credit to others. Even the privatization of banks in the early 1990s and the reforms following the 1995 crisis have not been effective in producing a banking system that provides substantial credit at market interest rates to firms in Mexico. The result has been an economic disaster for Mexico: Between 1982 and 1995, Mexico experienced no economic growth and has grown only modestly since then.

Continue reading ...

Activism training school in Mankato - Feb 10 @ 5pm Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny

Posted 02/08/09 Last updated 02/09/09

American Majority Minnesota has been invited to host a a non-partisan activist training at Centennial Student Union Room 238, Minnesota State University, Mankato. The training will be a condensed 90 minute presentation on February 10th and it will cover "Campaigns and Activism" as well as "Holding Elected Officials Accountable" and "Communicating your Message"

Click here for details and to RSVP with American Majority Minnesota

Live in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area? Posted by Thomas Woods

Posted 02/08/09 Last updated 02/08/09

Then how can you not come to the Minnesota Campaign for Liberty's one-day event on February 28?  I'll be there, along with several other speakers.  When was the last time you got into a conference for a measly $20?  Hope to see you there.

Democracy vs. Republic : an important distinction Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny

Posted 02/05/09

Learning what type of government under which the United States was founded is an important yet much-neglected task for every voter. Unfortunately, the great majority of voters incorrectly believes that the U.S. is a democracy. Due to this, people's understanding of the proper role of government is also corrupted, and self-serving politicians and special interests easily gain power over the citizenry.

This article discusses the distinction and its importance in our political activity. If you prefer a video explanation of the different types of government, watch Overview of America, beginning at 07:59.

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual's rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain's parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority's power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual's unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson's.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:

"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."

This topic--the danger to the people's liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson's above-quoted comments).

The Framing Convention's records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people's liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy's form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it's turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."

It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madison's observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people's forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual's God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America's greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America's greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams' "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."

Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people's consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual's rights--to endanger the people's liberties.

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)

It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.

From The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles.

The Ticket Racket Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny

Posted 02/03/09 Last updated 02/03/09

Local governments often derive a substantial portion of their revenue from citations for moving violations. The incentives for local governments are obvious: It is politically much easier to collect revenue through citations than to raise taxes or cut spending, and more reliable than state or federal government aid, which fluctuates considerably depending on budgets and legislation.

Conflict of interest
Moving violation tickets are always defended as a way to promote safe roadways. If this were truly the case, then automated speed cameras would be very rare, as they rarely reduce fatalities and accidents. Instead, they are cash cows for the government. During recessions, increased ticketing makes up for lost tax revenue.

Every new uncontested citation is a net financial gain for the government body that issued it. As a result, officers in some jurisdictions may be given incentives or quotas (usually quietly) to ensure that the government can extort as much money as possible from travelers, especially those who live far away and will not be able to make court dates.

Contested citations don't make money for the local government, but they do make money for the issuing officer. Some officers knowingly give unfair tickets in the hope that they will be contested, because they typically get paid overtime to sit in court all day. This ties up our court system and wastes taxpayer money.

A regressive tax
Traffic fines punish the poor considerably more than the rich. A $175 fine could crush someone at the poverty level, while someone much higher on the income scale may have just spent that much on lunch.

In Finland, they fine you based on your income, which is more "fair" in this regard, although socialistic. An unintended consequence of this law is that cops will only pull over nice looking cars because it will mean the biggest fine. The incentives for governments to bilk the motorists remain and even increase.

The solution
State legislatures should move toward the conversion all fines for all traffic violations from dollars to points, in a plan something like this:

• All drivers begin with zero points.
• Each type of ticket is assigned a point value, based on its severity and the risk of the action to other drivers and pedestrians.
• Every day, any points against your driver's license are reduced by 1%.
• If you have over, say, 250 points, your driver's license is suspended until you go below 250 points.
• If you have over 500 points, your license is revoked and you have to retest.

Example
Dave gets one speeding ticket (+175 points), and a month later (-45 points), he gets parking ticket (+10 points), putting his balance at 140. The next day, he gets another speeding ticket (+175 points), leaving him at 315 points. As such, he cannot legally drive for 23 days, when his balance will fall below 250. But Dave decides to risk it and gets caught driving the next day with a suspended license, adding 250 points. His license is revoked, and his 561 point balance means that he can't drive again for 80 days, assuming he successfully retests.

Preventing abuse

There might have to be a small dollar fine levied in addition to the points fine, to prevent people from parking illegally all the time simply because they can afford the points. Or perhaps a $5/month charge whenever the point balance is above 25. Another method would be to require drivers to go back to driving school after grossing 750 points, lifetime cumulative. Drivers' points record (just the number, not citation information) could be made available as public information, which would allow insurance and car rental companies to base rates on your driver performance over the last several years. Chronic abusers, such as someone who continues to drive regularly after having their license revoked, would be given more traditional punishments, such as large fines and jail time.

Benefits
This plan would remove a large revenue block from local governments, requiring a shift to other sources of income, such as an unpopular increase in the more visible property and sales taxes, or forcing the government to cut its least necessary programs. In effect, government bloat would be reduced because revenue would be more difficult to obtain.

Traffic court caseload would be reduced as drivers would not have a financial incentive to fight tickets; they would merely need to drive well in order to lower their point balance.

Officers and governments would have no incentive to issue tickets for anything other than the currently stated purpose: safety. There would also be no reason for officers to let people off with a warning, or for generally safe drivers to try to talk their way out of a ticket.

In heavy traffic, officers could issue a small number of points against drivers without even pulling them over, which is impossible on congested roads. For example, if an officer observed a driver cutting in and out of a lane and riding the shoulder in order to get around stalled traffic, the driver could be penalized 15 points, and would receive notification of the penalty, with an explanation of the violation, in the mail.

Governments, no longer relying on moving violations for revenue, would likely reduce the number of officers on duty and/or move those officers to fighting more serious crimes, saving taxpayer money and improving enforcement in other areas.

----

I appreciate your comments on this plan. I have not seen a similar plan suggested elsewhere.

Thank you.

What is a conservative in the GOP to do? Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny

Posted 01/23/09

Conservatives have long been a major part of the Republican Party, but in recent years they have done little more than bankroll the non-conservative activities undertaken by others in the GOP's 'big tent'. Is the GOP still the place for conservatives to be? This article tackles the difficult issue:

The GOP heavily (almost exclusively) relies on conservatives for grassroots campaign workers and financial support. But the Republican Party has a long history of exploiting conservatives' efforts and misusing conservatives' financial contributions. In many ways, the situation is reminiscent of an abusive marriage. Is it time for conservatives to finally recognize the lies and abuse and move out of the house? Or is some sort of reconciliation still possible?

I will make my position clear from the outset. A divorce by conservatives from the GOP would be a disaster for all of the parties involved. Just like most marriages, the grass may look greener on the other side of the fence -- but it almost always isn't. This is true for the GOP and for conservatives.

The "big tent" speeches may be staple rhetoric of the GOP hierarchy; but, if conservatives pack up and leave, the GOP will be a big empty tent. (This mass migration would include the growing number of black and Hispanic conservatives in the GOP. These good hard working people are in the GOP because they understand and live by conservative principles -- not because they are part of some equal opportunity RNC scheme.)

Intelligent people do not choose a party affiliation because of the color of their skin. They choose it because it reflects their ideals. The GOP needs to understand, and it needs to understand this soon, that there is no Republican Party without conservatives -- and conservatives need to start acting on this fact.

Conservatives who decide to abandon the GOP will have a rough time finding a new political party to live with. The Libertarian Party is wedded to the "philosophy" of selfishness and Ayn Rand. The Constitution Party is barely a blip on the political radar.

If reconciliation between conservatives and the GOP is going to happen, conservatives must take firm control of the GOP. Here are some tough love suggestions for how this can be done:

CONTINUE READING the original article.

The fully Informed Juror... Posted by scott10

Posted 01/19/09

The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government.

http://www.fija.org/docs/jurors_handbook_a_citizens_guide_to_jury_duty.pdf

Money Freedom and a Call to Action Posted by jeffmichel

Posted 01/04/09

Money, Freedom, and a Call to Action

"It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."      -Henry Ford

 What if someone told you that that the monetary policy of the United States systematically enslaves every citizen? There is a movement in this country to abolish the Federal Reserve, and restore a monetary policy that is backed by gold. I have been studying the issue and following the movement for a year and a half and I've tried to explain these principles and persuade people to act, but my efforts have had minimal effects. I cannot however allow myself to let go of this cause, truth without action will ultimately die, buried in the noise that is blind acceptance of the way things are. It was Gandhi who said we must become the change we want to see. This means it is ultimately up to the individual to decide they will not participate in the wrongs they see in the world, and lead possibly to civil disobedience, or some other action. I think the best I can do in day to day discussion with people I come in contact with is raise awareness to the situation we are all in. The following article is a compilation of quotes from historical figures, some brief history, and current events regarding our dire situation. My hope is that some of the individuals who read this awaken to their gut feeling, and decide to act on it by educating themselves on the subject.

           "The Morgan interests took advantage... to precipitate the panic (of 1907) guiding it shrewdly as it progressed."- Fredrick Allen journalist Life Magazine

           JP Morgan, powerful banker and architect of the Federal Reserve Bank, instigated the panic of 1907 by publishing rumors that a prominent New York bank was bankrupt. He was fully aware of the consequences that would result. The public in fear of losing their savings withdrew their money on a mass scale. The banks then called in their loans which forced recipients to sell their property. This was the catalyst the banking elite needed to push central banking legislation through congress. The pretext of the Federal Reserve act ( passed in 1913, written by banker "lobbyists" not law men or economists) was that it would prevent an event like that from ever happening again, it would "protect us" as so much other anti liberty legislation does. If the Federal Reserve act was to be an economic stabilizer why did the great depression happen? Why are we in the economic crisis that we're experiencing now? The answer is money manipulation by the Federal Reserve.

Woodrow Wilson received campaign sponsorship from the banking elite and was elected in 1913. In return for campaign support Wilson helped push the Federal Reserve act into legislation, which was voted on two days before Christmas while most of congress was on vacation. Woodrow Wilson wrote later in regret. "Our great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit; our system of credit is privately concentrated. the growth of our nation therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men... who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom. We have become one of the most ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No government by free opinion, no longer a government of conviction and the vote of a majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of  small groups of dominant men." - Woodrow Wilson US President

Congressman Louis McFadden after the legislation passed, "A world banking system was being set up here... A super state controlled by international bankers... Acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. The fed has usurped the government."

Franklin D. Roosevelt US President- "The real truth of the matter is that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson."

In 1920 there was another panic created by calling in loans. This time the privately owned banks that failed were outside the Federal Reserve this resulted in the centralization of wealth on a grand scale. Congressman Charles Lindbergh Sr. stated, "Under the federal reserve act, panics are scientifically created. The present panic is the first scientifically created one, worked out as we figure a mathematical equation." Also from Charles Lindbergh Sr. "I was in Congress when the Panic of 1907 occurred, but I had previously familiarized myself with many of the ways of high financiers. As a result of what I discovered in that study, I set about to expose the Money Trust, the world's greatest financial giant. I knew that I could not succeed unless I could bring the public sentiment to my aid. I had to secure this or fail. The money trust had laid its plans long before and was already executing them." 

 The Federal Reserve System also had a hand in the great depression. Louis McFadden brought impeachment proceedings to the Federal Reserve board. Here is one of his statements regarding the crash and fall of the markets. "It was a carefully contrived occurrence. International bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair, so that they might emerge the rulers of us all." Louis McFadden had survived two attempts on his life already but in 1936 he was poisoned and killed at a banquet in Washington. He is a true American patriot and an unsung hero of America.

 You might be wondering why all this matters or how it affects you. This leads us to the income tax, the same principle that made serfs subjects of the king. The income tax is a direct tax on your labor which is unconstitutional in the first place. In the eyes of the constitution your wages or income is not taxable because you put labor in to earn compensation; the income is not profit because it is earned. The constitution considers taxable income as profits, and gains from corporate activity (money earned off investments and interest, not labor). Another problem with the tax on your labor is that it is not apportioned, meaning spread equally among the people. This is where things get kind of complex I'll keep it as short and sweet as possible and let you peel the onion yourself. When the federal government needs money they ask the Federal Reserve to print some, say 10 billion$. The Federal Reserve prints 10 billion$ in new currency (floods the market with more money which destroys the value of the dollars in your wallet... inflation). In return the Federal Reserve receives 10 billion$ in government bonds. Here's the kicker, the cash lent to the government by the Federal Reserve is loaned at interest, and the income taxes that we pay go directly to the federal reserve to pay the interest on the loans the government takes out. Now you're asking yourself well what about the services we expect, ever notice how everything we buy is taxed? Everything from gasoline to license fees to property taxes and everything in between is taxed and apportioned. Now the kicker's kicker inflation; Inflation is ultimately the devaluing of money, the destruction of your currency. The fed fixes the problem by perpetuating it. Congress turns to the fed when the economy falls on hard times so the fed does the only thing they can, print more money and lower interest rates. This only deepens the trough of the depression when it comes. After 9/11 the economy began slowing, the housing market however continued to rise. This was the first time in history where the economy slowed and the housing market continued to grow. How, money manipulating by the Federal Reserve, the lowering of interest rates that caused malinvestment. One can hardly blame the speculators and investors and home buyers if they understand that the whole system is sick (which is why we need a new monetary policy all together). That is just one contemporary example of how this scheme works to rob citizens. Now the grand daddy of kickers, understand that the Federal Reserve is a private bank, owned by a few of the most powerful and wealthy people in the world.

 To fully understand the significance of our current monetary policy, consider. The dollar used to be redeemable for gold, until the gold seizure of 1933. It was an executive order from president FDR; this time the pretext to justify was to save us from the depression. Over 1.5$ billion worth of gold was seized. Refusal to turn over any gold was punishable by $10,000 and or ten years in prison. Give us your gold or go to prison for ten years... is that a hallmark of tyranny? Another wealth/power grab by the federal government, in the name of protecting us. Study the gold seizure of 1933. Our currency's last ties to gold were severed by legislation passed during the Nixon presidency. Our currency used to have, redeemable for gold, written on it. Now our currency has, legal tender, written on it. So the value of our fiat paper currency is backed by our belief that it will purchase something. The purchasing power of the currency is manipulated by how much money the fed pumps into the economy, and the interest rates which are dictated by one un-elected individual. An intelligent person once informed is not so naive to believe that one individual has the wisdom to control the economy of a whole nation in a global market. One has to wonder with all the bailout packages being handed out. First all the taxpayers got money this spring that was no rebate (we are in a deficit). That was money printed out of thin air. Next $800 billion for Wall Street, That's right not seven hundred billion, remember it made it to congress then got shot down, then $100 billion more was added to it, and it finally passed. And finally the auto makers, December 11, 2008 $14 billion dollar bailout package for the auto industry failed, but we were saved!!! On December 19^th, 2008 the new and improved $17.4 billion dollar bailout package was passed. An historic day indeed, imagine the smiling faces of the executives and politicians at the signing statement photo op!!!  As I was saying, one has to wonder with all these bailouts and hyperinflation, what's going to be the straw to break the camel's back. It is time to reject our monetary system altogether and get back to sound money. End the fed.   

 The case for reform, economic liberty directly effects personal freedom. If you don't understand that you're still at square one, economic freedom is based on one moral rule. Everyone has a right to their life and the pursuit of happiness and nobody has the right to deprive anybody of these things, simple. You have rights because your life has intrinsic worth, because you are an individual. Now think of this, our current monetary system allows everybody to plunder everyone. The wealthy are more than happy to accept low interest or government subsidized loans for their business adventures, or bailouts when they can't pay up on risky loans. On the other end of the social spectrum there is free money available to almost anybody who will jump hoops and put the time in to get it. This money is available because the government barrows it from the federal reserve (at interest) ultimately at the expense of the tax payer. Our founding fathers considered it immoral to pass a burden of debt to the next generation. Under this system, unborn children owe the government money. You are forced to fill out a 1040 to prove your innocence to the internal revenue service. Or you could risk being audited and have everything seized (see definition of serfdom below). If none of that freedom and liberty jazz sounds attractive watch some of Ron Paul's speeches on www.youtube.com, he explains the ideas of freedom and liberty much better than I can, or just consider this. An item that cost $100 in 1913 would cost $2014.81 in 2006. An item that cost $100 in 2006 would in 1913 cost $4.96. A currency whose value is dictated by the markets actually gains value. An item that would cost $100 in 1820 (before the Federal Reserve Bank) would in 1913 only cost $63.02.

 Serfdom- Serfdom is modified slavery where the serfs are not so much considered property (as are slaves) of the king or lord they serve, but rather considered subjects that need to be controlled. Serfs were forced to pay taxes to their lord or king; in return they were allowed to work the land that was under the king's rule. In exchange the serf received protection, meals at harvest time, and in times of famine the lord or king was expected to support them by charity. Common wisdom was that the serf owned only his stomach; even clothes were considered property of the throne and could be confiscated.

 "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe, German poet Renaissance man

 "The refusal of King George lll to allow the colonies to allow an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, was probably the prime cause of the revolution." -Benjamin Franklin founding father

 "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies... if the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency... the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers
conquered"            &nb
sp;             &nbs
p;              
;              
        -Thomas Jefferson founding father US President

 "If you want to remain slaves of the bankers and pay the costs of your own slavery, let them continue to create money and control the nations credit."             
;              
              &
nbsp;             &n
bsp;   -Sir Josiah Stamp economist, director of the Bank of England

 "Give me control of a nation's money supply and I care not who makes its laws."             &
nbsp;          -Mayer Amschel Rothschild founder Rothschild banking dynasty

  "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin founding father

 "We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected the lights of publicity during those years... The super national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto determination practiced in past centuries. -David Rockefeller council on foreign relations 1950, grandson of John Rockefeller who was the founder of standard oil  

  "I am not asking your newspapers to support the administration, but I am asking your help, in informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed, I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers I welcome it, this administration intends to be candid about its errors. For a wise man once said an error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it... Without debate, without criticism no administration and no country can succeed." -John F Kennedy US president 

 These two previous quotes are very important. The first one implied that the media has a vested interest in not keeping us well informed. I have found this to be true from other books I have read, Static and Exception to the Rulers both written by Amy Goodman are excellent sources to support this argument and I suggest everyone who is concerned read them both (I recommend the audio book for Exception to the Rulers). Think about this, during all these bailout reports in the media, did any fundamental questions really get raised? I think the debate was limited to, should there be more oversight on how the money is spent? A good question might have been... How do you expect to save a free market economy with socialist interventions? Or did maybe the people controlling the economy cause this crisis? Or how are we going to solve the inflation problem that we're going to have in four or six months? The point is, don't expect to get sustenance from the main media outlets it will take some effort on your part. The internet is an excellent source with endless access to information, and a very valuable tool for free exchange of ideas, the discourse that is absolutely necessary in a free society as JFK stated in not so few words. This brings me to a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson in 1787. "All the perplexities, confusions, and distress in America, arise, not from defects in their constitution or confederation, not from a want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation." So my challenge to you is to forget about your party affiliation, get outside your comfort zone and challenge your own Orwellian "doublethink" (see definition below). Our politicians serving special interest lobbyist while enriching themselves are the reason we're in this mess. Take some time spend some effort and peel the onion so to speak. If we the people don't speak up, the streamlined men who talk in slogans and sound bites will continue to make the choices for us. There are solutions out there. People like Ron Paul and Peter Schiff have been warning us of these crises for a long time. The accuracy to which they described them is amazing. We are at a defining moment in history because we have a real chance to reject our monetary system, and restore liberty in America. Join the cause. Our revolution may not become sponsored by rock 'n roll like the flower children were, but I'm gonna end with a rock 'n roll quote. "Stop pointin' fingers and take some blame, pull your future away from the flame. Open up your mind and start to live. Stop short changin' your neighbors livin' off handouts and favors and maybe, give a little bit more than you got to give. Come on now Amen" -Robert Ritchie musician

 Doublethink-"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink." 

To get started

www.mises.org

www.lewrockwell.com

www.campaignforliberty.com

www.thefreeliberal.com

www.zeitgeistmovie.com watch the movie Zeitgeist

watch Freedom to Fascism a documentary by Aaron Russo

read The Revolution a Manifesto, and A Foreign Policy of Freedom, both by Ron Paul

read  Static, and Exception to the Rulers by Amy Goodman

read The Assault on Reason by Al Gore

read The Twilight of Gold by Henry Regnery

read 1984 by George Orwell

watch Peter Schiff and Ron Paul on www.youtube.com

 These are some avenues I suggest if you're interested in learning more. There's a war for your mind don't surrender to apathy and "the tube"!!! There is a wide spectrum of political philosophies among the authors listed above, but the message of freedom, liberty, and prosperity is prevalent throughout their philosophies and that, the message of freedom has a unique power to unite everyone!!!

Thank you, Jeff Michel

Congress Throws Out Baby (Clothes) with the Bathwater Posted by mstebbins

Posted 01/04/09 Last updated 01/04/09

Congress, in its impeccable wisdom, effectively voted last year to shut down the children's resale clothing business via the "Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008." Not a soul in the House dared to vote against "children's safety," proving many in the Congressional cesspool of counter-productivity neglect to read legislation before voting. (I'll cut a break for the 25 who abstained, as they potentially didn't vote because they hadn't an opportunity to read the bill.)

The act requires lead testing of all products sold for children aged twelve and under, including but not limited to clothing and toys, regardless of the date of manufacturing and the high improbability of lead in the clothing, particularly that manufactured domestically. Goodwill, other thrift stores, and one-person shops reselling new and used children's clothing, making a couple dollars per item, would have to forgo a year's worth of profit to fund third-party testing services, essentially putting most out of business. Further, as I understand it, the testing requires the destruction of an individual unit out of a batch, and would therefore not work for unique items.

Taking effect February 10, 2009, this ex post facto regulatory taking comes precisely at a time when lower-income and newly unemployed parents most need inexpensive children's clothing and the dollars they receive from selling or consigning their children's briefly used items.

While clothing is one of the few areas in which the market demands recycling, stores with existing, untested merchandise will have to opt for sending truckloads of perfectly good clothes to the landfill. And parents who purchased that expensive special occasion dress with plans to resell it after one wear are simply out the money. Not even Goodwill can take it now.

After planning my own recession-proof business, a children's resale shop, where one was lacking in my neighborhood, I'm lucky to have found this news story yesterday, before signing a lease. Although I am out some minor capital expenses and inventory costs, the regulatory taking could have had a worse toll, and at least I avoided the $100,000 fines or five-year's imprisonment.

Challenged Ballots in the Coleman/Franken contest Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny

Posted 11/23/08

Minnesota uses paper ballots that are electronically read, unlike much of the country which uses purely electronic voting. This provides for some interesting ballots when a recount takes place, as is happening with the Coleman/Franken faceoff. View the contested ballots.

I particularly enjoyed this one from Beltrami county:

Liberty RSS Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny

Posted 11/06/08

RSS is a great way to keep up on liberty-related news and events. Here is an excellent compilation of liberty-minded RSS feeds.

Candidate statement: Greg Mikkelson for U.S. Congress Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny

Posted 10/28/08 Last updated 10/28/08

Greg Mikkelson

Hello, I am Greg Mikkelson from Lake Crystal, MN. I’m running for US Congress in our first district, because I’m very concerned about our future, our Nation’s future, and our children’s future. Our National debt must be controlled now. This is like a credit card charged against our children. As the father of two children this is a terrible legacy to pass on. Personally we know how debt adversely affects us; this is the same for our country. Debt can lead to inflation, which leads to higher food and fuel prices or eventually higher taxes to pay off this debt. The longer we wait to control our national debt, the more painful it will be.

Long before we had a government and Wall Street, America was on the road to greatness. It was the people doing all types of jobs and through their hard work and productivity that made America great. These are the people and the method to get us out of our financial problems. I’m against the $700 billion bailout and I don’t think it is right to reward bad behavior. We are in this mess because of over spending, by taking money from the social security trust fund, and encouraging sub prime mortgages. The government must stop trying to manipulate the economy. The only control they have is short-term, but in the long run, the markets must dictate where we are going and what must be done. The government must realize that every solution they come up with has consequences, which may be good for some, but very painful for others and future generations. I believe the people that have been paying their mortgages; living up to the rest of their responsibilities should not be paying for this bailout through a larger national debt. These are the people whose voices need to be heard and the only ones who can truly solve this problem thru their hard work and productivity.  

We must stop dividing our country with issues and party lines. We need to start dividing our country between those who are interested in party politics and controlling people and those who have a vision for the future and are willing to be part of the solution, not the problem. Our country is great because it was formed as a republic form of democracy, which is of the people, for the people and by the people, not of the politicians, for the politicians, by the politicians.  I want to be your representative not a politician.

This election is more important than just me winning; this election is about us winning as a nation. It is about our future, our children’s future and our grandchildren’s future.

I would appreciate your support on Nov. 4th. Thank you

Please forward this to interested friends and family in our first district.

Prepared and paid for by Greg Mikkelson

Candidate statement: Anthony J. Moosbrugger for Judge-3rd District Court 1 Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny

Posted 10/28/08 Last updated 10/28/08

Anthony J. Moosbrugger

Vote for Anthony J. Moosbrugger November 4^th

Anthony was born and raised in Burnsville, Minnesota, graduating from Burnsville High School.  Anthony’s father is a retired Assistant Minnesota Attorney General, and his mother is a retired kindergarten teacher and homemaker.  Antony is married to Jill (Strecker).  Jill is a service manager at Wells Fargo in Rochester and owns Captured Moments Photography, Inc.

Anthony attended St. Cloud State University and received a bachelor’s degree in Political Science.   He later attended William Mitchell College of Law, receiving his Juris Doctor in 2002.

Anthony has had a variety of different employment experiences, having started working in high school to help fund is college education and continuing to work throughout his post secondary education.

After graduating law school and obtaining his license to practice law, Anthony volunteered at the Neighborhood Justice Center in St. Paul representing indigent clients in criminal defense matters.

In 2003, Anthony was hired at Gullickson, Peterson & Ziebell, P.L.L.P. in Kasson, and later Ziebell Law Office.  Anthony is currently working at Burville Law Office, P.A. in Farmington, Minnesota.

Anthony is active in the legal community, having been a member of the Olmsted County Bar Association, and currently a member of the Minnesota State Bar Association, the Dakota County Bar Association, and the Dodge County Bar Association.

When not practicing law or volunteering in the community Anthony enjoys running, restoring automobiles, and riding motorcycles.

Anthony is seeking a judicial position because of the tremendous opportunity such a position would provide him.  Anthony believes that Judges are public servants, and possibly have the most important public service responsibility in our country.  Anthony believes that he is a public servant at heart, and being a judge would give him the opportunity to fulfill his mission of helping others, and also bring an optimistic reputation to our judicial system.

A vote for Anthony on November 4th rather than the incumbent judge will first and foremost put the decision in the hands of the people.   If re-elected, Anthony’s opponent will be forced to retire during his next term.  If that happens, his replacement will be appointed by the then sitting governor, without participation from the voting public.  Anthony also feels a change is needed in Dodge County.  Although he practiced before his honorable opponent and has respect for him, Anthony feels that sitting on the bench for 32 years is too long.  After such a long time in one position it is only natural for a person to become less effective.  Anthony will bring a new perspective to the court and a great deal of energy that is lacking.  Anthony is a great listener and will make sure everyone is given their opportunity to be heard.  Anthony will work toward an aggressive process for case management that will result in less time and money spent in the courtroom.

Anthony has the unusual advantage of having practiced in multiple areas of the law, which gives him the experience necessary to be an effective Judge. Anthony has handled criminal defense cases, practiced as a city prosecutor, handled a variety of family law matters, including dissolutions, child support, custody, contested adoptions, grandparents rights, harassment restraining orders, property divisions, and guardianships,  Anthony has also handled a variety of general civil litigation cases ranging from landlord/tenant disputes to mechanics liens to contract disputes.  

Anthony understands that the cost of litigation makes it impossible for some to have their day in court.  Recent budget cuts further that problem as resources are becoming even more limited.  To help remedy this problem Anthony will concentrate on case management so that files do not unnecessarily stall, increasing both fees for litigants, but also extra expenses for the courts.  Anthony will also promote creative ways for litigants to resolve their issues short of trial whenever practical and appropriate.

Anthony truly enjoys serving others.  This is shown by his pro bono work for Southern Minnesota Legal Services, which earned him the 2007 Third Judicial District Minnesota State Bar Association Pro Bono Award.  He has volunteered for Faith In Action for the last 5 years, including being a member on their board and a past president.  He volunteers on the Dodge County Sheriff’s Posse.  He is a member of Rotary and actively participates in service projects that support his communities.  With all the experiences Anthony has had volunteering for these various organizations, which has given him the opportunity to meet a wide variety of different people and learn valuable skills in patients, listening, and understanding, he has become familiar with many important qualities a judge must possess.

Make note of those yard signs! Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny

Posted 10/28/08 Last updated 11/05/08

There are millions of political signs adorning people's lawns right now, and the vast majority of them will disappear by November 5. Most of them will be run-of-the-mill signs, but occasionally you'll bump into a custom gem like this one:

While these signs are still up, they provide a valuable source of information - people with yard signs can generally be assumed to vote, and are quite possibly politically active in other ways. Over the next several days, take a walk (or drive) through your precinct and write down the addresses of these homes and which candidates, issues, or ballot initiatives the signs speak in favor of.

The list you build will be valuable for future elections and political activism. It could have dozens or hundreds of addresses on it, which is useful for future doorknocking and lit-drop efforts. If you take the time to look up the addresses online (using reverse address lookup services or even your county property tax registry web site) you can put names and/or phone numbers to your new database.

McCain: The GOP's Bailout Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny

Posted 10/28/08 Last updated 10/28/08

Would President Obama be worse for America than President McCain? Undoubtedly. Obama has considerably less respect for constitutionally limited government than does McCain, even if McCain's support is more apparent on the campaign trail than in the legislative assembly.

Many, many Republicans plan to vote for McCain on November 4 not because they find him to be a good conservative candidate, but because, quite simply, they are terrified of an Obama presidency. If you talk frankly with ten Republicans, you will likely find one who supports McCain, two who support Palin, and seven who shudder to think of a Democrat like Obama in the White House.

But step back for a minute and consider what would happen with Democrats in control of the executive and legislative branches. Yes, government meddling in our lives would increase significantly, and yes, the erosion of our constitutionally guaranteed liberties would continue. These would be lamentable, certainly. But what will happen to the Republican party?

Picture a dozen Republican activists gathered at the local county GOP headquarters on election night to watch the results come in. McCain wins a few states; Obama wins a few states. But Obama's states are larger and bring in many more electoral votes. After a couple of hours, the mood in the office grows increasingly dejected, and people gradually pack up and head for home. A few stay, however. Rather than sorrow, these few feel a righteous anger welling up inside them. Being good conservatives, they don't start a riot and break shop windows, but they do go home that night with their heads full of thoughts. What will happen now? What will we do? What will I do? What can I do for my family?

After a week or so of mulling things over, one of these angry Republicans decides it's time to step up and run for state representative. The next election is two years out, so there's a lot of time to build a very strong campaign. Another angry Republican signs on as her campaign manager, and another as her treasurer. One by one, those who left the election night party in defeat begin to see a glimmer of hope. Why wait until next year to really start campaigning? So they start making phone calls to voters and find a lot of very angry Republicans, now vigorously motivated to undo the damage soon to be wrought by Obama.

Now turn the tables. Same scenario, but this time McCain pulls off an unexpected victory. The Republicans celebrate late into the night and congratulate each other on the many hours they put in helping McCain to win. They go home, happy and relieved.

The next day, the next week, the next month goes by with nary a visitor to the county GOP office. McCain, now President, continues his legacy, reaching across the aisle to work with the Democrats at nearly every turn. Pork barrel spending bills get vetoed once in a while, and a couple of Democrats and a Republican are "made famous" for their pork additions, but the rate of government growth seems to increase month after month. Rank-and-file Republicans are increasingly dissatisfied with their chief representative, but it is very difficult to criticize McCain's shortcomings without aiding the Democrats in their local campaigns.

Then, a Supreme Court justice retires due to health reasons. McCain appoints a reasonably conservative replacement, but the Democrat-controlled Senate refuses to confirm his choice. The eventual choice is not viciously liberal, but is clearly a disappointment to the pro-life crowd. In 2012, the Democrats maintain their control of Congress, and McCain is voted out of office by a large margin.

It comes down to this: A McCain presidency will be as good for the Republican party as the bailouts will be for our economy. Just as our failed banks have been propped up through government intervention at the expense of future prosperity, having McCain in the White House would be propping up the GOP for four years while completely undermining chances at recovery and future growth. While the experience of living under an Obama presidency will no doubt be painful, at least in an economic sense, we can be confident that this pain will drive the Republican party back to its roots and, in time, restore the United States to its heritage as a constitutional republic, a sweet land of liberty.