PChristo Local Coordinator Location: St. Louis, MO Last login: 02/25/10 RSS feed
Hi! I'm a Washington University student who lives on the Hill in St. Louis. I recently moved here from Springfield, IL, where i was a candidate for Delegate to the RNC for the 18th district. I also served as the District Ballot Access Coordinator. I would like to do whatever I can to help pro-liberty Republican candidates in Missouri. The articles posted in my blog were written for my school's newspaper.
All over the country, legislatures have been passing resolutions that affirm their state's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Since the beginning of 2009, such resolutions have been introduced in over thirty-five states. Nearly half of those introduced go on to pass the legislature. Given this recent trend, it appears the United States are enjoying a rebirth of federalism which could define the future of inter-governmental relations. What is a state sovereignty resolution, you ask? The typical state sovereignty resolution begins by a recitation of the Tenth Amendment, the idea being that members of Congress must have forgotten it. Then, the resolutions go on to declare that the Federal government has over stepped its boundaries and should immediately cease and desist any action which is not explicitly delegated to them by the Constitution. The resolutions also call for an end to all federal mandates which are tied to funding. These resolutions do not carry the force of law, but rather are used to convey the sense of a legislature. Following passage, copies are sent to the President, Vice-President, all Congressional leaders, and the governors and legislatures of every state, all of whom, no doubt, diligently read them, change their behavior, and respond with letters of gratification for the legislatures' initiative. Despite being a boon to the U.S. Postal Service, these resolutions should be considered the first step in the process of states asserting their right to govern themselves. Over the past century, the Federal government has found a way to insert its grubby fingers into state policy at every available opportunity. From No Child Left Behind to Real ID (the nationalization of driver's licenses) along with mandates which determine the age at which one can legally drink and the speed at which one can drive on a state's road, the Federal government seems to be under the impression that their Constitutional mandate extends to every conceivable action in the course of a human's life. One might say that the interstate commerce clause is justification for all Federal intervention. Interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, however, has descended into the realm of the ridiculous. Take, for instance, the story of Roscoe Filburn, a farmer who grew wheat for his own farm and for sale to locals for home-use. Filburn was fined for growing over his quota of wheat under a federal law which dictated the amount of wheat an individual could produce. In 1941, the Supreme Court ruled in Wickard v. Filburn that the Congress was justified in its regulation on account of the fact that Filburn's wheat could have been sold on the open market and thereby potentially depress the price wheat. Such interpretations of the Federal government's authority could not possibly have been anticipated by the Framers of the Constitution. It seems that nearly 60 years after Filburn, some states have finally had enough of Federal meddling in areas which are clearly in a state's jurisdiction. As the authors of state sovereignty resolutions convene to plot their next move, it is unclear what the future of the sovereignty movement will be. Could several states band together, nullify a federal law, and spark a Supreme Court case which could define our modern understanding of the federalist relationship. Given the fervor of state sovereignty supporters, the possibility is very rea
In a previous article, I discussed the push to audit the Federal Reserve System. Since that time, Congress has made major progress in bringing about a transparent central bank. Now, with the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 (HR 1207) over 300 co-sponsors strong in the House, efforts have been made to gut the legislation and protect the central bank from any significant audit of its practices. Currently under the U.S. Code the Fed is exempt from audit regarding "(1) transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or nonprivate international financing organization; (2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters (3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or (4) a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to clauses (1)-(3) of this subsection," or, as I like to put it: everything they do. HR 1207 removed exceptions one through four and opened the Fed to audit of all their dealings. When the bill was referred to the Sub-Committee on Monetary Policy, the language was weakened by Chairmen Mel Watt. Watt, who has received over 200,000 dollars from the commercial banking industry since he entered Congress, stripped the bill of all section allowing for an audit, leaving only a hollow call for Fed transparency. It is unlikely that Watt, whose district has been gerrymandered such that he could be caught with a goat and still be re-elected, has been receiving very many calls from his constituents demanding a completely secret central banking system. Therefore, it is probable that Watt has other interests in mind when he prevents Federal Reserve transparency from becoming a reality. The Federal Reserve is regarded by the Austrian School of Economics to be the engine of the business cycle. In a theory promoted by Austrian economists such as Freidrich von Hayek and Ludvig von Mises, the Fed causes the business cycle by setting the interest rate lower than the natural rate dictated by the market. This deludes producers into believing there is more savings in the economy than truly exists and causes them to take excessive risks and produce more than could possibly be consumed. Consequently, producers have to take major losses and retract their projects. Furthermore, the Fed's inflationary monetary policy, agreements with foreign nations, and collusion with large banks affect everyone. The Federal Reserve is a creature of Congress, and therefore, it is the right of the people to know what the Fed is up to. There are concerns, of course, about preventing sensitive financial information from being released immediately. For this reason, the author of the bill, Congressman Ron Paul, has agreed to a time lapse between Fed action and an audit. This compromise is fair, and there is no reason why the American people cannot have full transparency in their central bank after such precautions have been added. The United States has now come the closest to Federal Reserve transparency since its mysterious inception on Jekyll Island 96 years ago. The more the Fed resists these efforts, the more reason we have to believe that they have something to hide.
We now have the video evidence, courtesy of our undercover civilian journalist, James O'keefe, of the university creating reasons to shut down our protest.
Washington University Rebuilding the Wall Event
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=28156
This needs to be brought to the attention of as many media locations as possible. It is quite apparent that the liberals on the university campus are telling these students that if we don't like something then nobody should be allowed to do it.
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn`t buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion
silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
Posted by PChristo on 11/10/09 Last updated 11/10/09
Today, commemorating the fall of the Berlin wall 20 years ago, Washington University Young Americans for Liberty (WUYAL) staged an event on campus that incited great controversy. In order to demonstrate the consequences of socialism, WUYAL crafted a Soviet-style gulag. The four walled, 10 foot high stockade was displayed prominently in the middle of campus for most of the day. Around the prison marched guards dressed in Soviet regalia and inside were abused prisoners who had resisted the socialist regime. Playing in the background was the Soviet National Anthem and a speech containing propaganda to which the prisoners were forced to listen.
Students had a wide range of responses to the event. Some were amused, some were inspired and began arguing the merits of capitalism with our soviet guards, some regarded the event as petty, and others remarked that it was offensive to Russian Americans. The gulag drew a local radio station, the campus newspaper, and many bloggers who interviewed participants and passers by. Flyers were distributed with information regarding the realities of socialism and the destruction which it has caused in the 20th century.
It was not long before for some professors decided they were unpleased with this sort of political protest. A few walked by and remarked that they would "make some calls" in order to ensure that we were shut down. About two hours into the event, a university official approached the guards and demanded that we provide him with our paperwork. After successfully demonstrating that we were authorized by event services, he marched off. An hour or so later came a police officer following up on a complaint about the event which she received. After being assured that our event was peaceful, she too left. Finally, the University brought out the big guns. They came with several armed officers and a university official and instructed us to take down our protest on account of the fact that our tools were not inspected prior to the erection of the gulag.
Despite the University's antagonism, our message got out. Though we were forced to take down our gulag, we were able to distribute hundreds of flyers and reveal the destructive side of socialism to many students. It is unfortunate that universities believe in free speech only for the far Left. Thankfully, we were able to elude their bureaucratic system long enough to make an effect.
I am happy that you were able to open some eyes. It is important that people learn the differences between socialism and capitalism and this seemed to make it easy for many to see the differences. Keep up the good work.
Thanks for the post and update! I'm sure the demonstration made a few people reconsider what it means to give up your personal freedom for the safety blanket of big government.
Where there is one voice
there will be two ears...
and a small light
in total darkness
is brilliant.
You would have hoped that at least one "authoritarian"
would have honored the date,
and had humor enough
to at least say it...
"...tear down that wall...."
Having recently been interested in propaganda, I watched the first 6 of 7 parts of WWII's "Why We Fight" films, directed (mostly) by Frank Capra, and funded by the U.S. Gov't.
Part 5 is "The Battle of Russia". In that film it is actually stated that the Russian people were free, and were thus able to mount their resistance to the Nazis. This was stated twice, I believe. I was pretty shocked.
I wish we would toss out "right" and "left" and go with "Big government-small freedom" and "Small government-big freedom."
A totalitarian state uses propaganda, secret police against its opponents, emphasizes the goals of the state over the individual, wants to control every aspect of life, maintains itself by force and lacks accountability to the people, and possesses a one-party political system led by a powerful dictator.
Of course if there are two parties with the same ideas, you really have a one-party system. And you have "100% voter turnout", probably.
Pchristo,
What a delight to read a report such as this with my morning coffee!
Keep on keepin' on! My grandchildren need fighters like you!
Celtic reefer, The way we toss out "left" and "right" and start using "big government-small freedoms" and "small government-big freedoms" is to just do it. Even the main stream media will start using it. It's a good idea. We give a whole lesson on freedom with the use of eight words.
It's that type of creative thinking that brought about the United States of America, and that's what will help bring about the re-establishment of our Republic.
Thank you,
Robert Walker
This is great news, I applied to Washington University for medical school this year and this will be another reason among a million that makes this school my top choice.
What a wonderful concept for bringing a reality to what has been solely a "conceptual" discussion. The University, on their own, added to the reality. You got great coverage and the comments on the update reporting confirm what a good job you did. You made your point to many people. Very well done, Wash U. YAL.
I'm looking forward to seeing the "more video to come" mentioned at the end of the FIRST THINGS article. Please keep up posted.
Haha... so a mock suppression of expression was replaced with a real suppression of expression? Only thing better would've been if the YAL had refused to shut it down and allowed themselves to be arrested. What better way to drive the point home than to have passing students witness pretend prisoners become actual prisoners and cops tearing down the structure.
So, after reading this post I did a quick Google news search for Washington University to see what kind of coverage it was getting, and was surprised to only hit the two links provided here.
So, I decided to shoot Glenn Beck an e-mail. I know lots of folks here aren't necessarily Fox News and/or Beck fans, but I figured if there was a national news network and/or personality that would give the shutdown of a demonstration critical of communism some coverage, them would be the ones. My e-mail's below if'n you're interested in sending along something similar.
to me@glennbeck.com, stu@glennbeck.com
date Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:31 PM
subject Washington University shuts down demonstration critical of communism
Glenn/Stu -
Please consider providing some coverage of this recent happening:
Basically, some students at Wash U set up a mock gulag to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the destruction of the Berlin Wall and to remind passers-by of the dangers of an oppressive government. After repeated attempts, the administration and LEOs finally shut the whole thing down.
It's the sort of thing that I think deserves at least a momentary national mention. If it doesn't come from Glenn Beck and/or Fox News, I don't know who it would come from.
As the nation considers much needed health care reform, we must seek to cure the disease of our health care system and avoid treating its symptoms. Most would agree that the main problem with healthcare in America is the exorbitant costs involved. The free market has consistently been proven to be the most efficient vehicle for providing consumers with desired goods at the lowest price. Many now claim that in healthcare, the free market has failed in this regard. It is important to recognize, however, that a free market in healthcare has not existed for some time, and for this reason, we continue to face costs which spiral out control.
Currently in the United States, we operate under a managed-care system, where government intrusion has touched nearly all aspects of medicine. One of the most devastating interventions has been in the insurance industry. For some time now, large insurance companies have used the government to push through regulations and subsidies that isolate their industry from the competition necessary to lower costs. Through code incentives that exempt employer-benefits from taxation, the insurance giants have managed to preserve the employer-based insurance system, and to prevent the possibility of individualized insurance policies, tailored to the needs of the buyer.
Also, through various regulations, the government has restricted the supply of healthcare to the populace. The government licensing system limits the number of medical schools, medical students, hospitals, and doctors available for use in the economy, and consequently, drives up the price. This fact is well known by the cartel that is the American Medical Association, which has been lobbying for trade protections since its inception in 1847.
There are solutions to these problems, but they do not involve increasing government involvement, for typically, when one is in a ditch, it is time to stop digging. A good start would be eliminating the employer-benefit exemption with a simultaneous revenue-neutral decrease in income taxes. This act would return insurance to its original intention, a backup plan for emergencies. Insurance was never intended to be used for everyday doctor visits, but rather for major, unexpected medical crises. Accompanying this change would be the institution of tax-free medical savings accounts where individuals could pay for every day medical expenses out-of-pocket. Introducing this sort of system would effectively lower the cost of healthcare because insurance companies and doctors would have to compete for customers instead of charging arbitrary figures to a price-insensitive population.
Another price lowering measure would be to legalize nurse-practitioners. Under our current system, it is illegal for nurses to perform certain medical services which they are completely capable of providing. In an effort to protect their trade, doctors have successfully lobbied for these restrictions, and kept the prices of these medical services unnecessarily high. A strong nurse-practitioner market would do wonders for providing healthcare for those less able to afford doctors.
These suggestions are just a few of the possibilities when it comes to getting government out of healthcare, and making care more affordable for all income classes. Unfortunately, the only suggestions from the Obama administration involve more government, more money funneled to insurance agencies, more regulation of the doctor-patient relationship, more mandates, more government committees, more false competition, and more interference with the natural allocation of goods and services that the free market provides. Obama's plan is not change at all, but more of the same nonsense that has infected our healthcare system for nearly a century. If this is all Obama has to offer, he can keep the change.
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
Local Coordinator
RSS feed
