Liberty Maven

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Quote of the Day: “The Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.” — Joseph Sobran

Subject: Should you pay autoworkers to do nothing?

If the history of the current era is ever written properly it may be called “The Age of the Government Sponsored Scam.” The examples are piling up. Here’s the latest . . .

Did you know that GM and other automakers with UAW contracts have to pay many of their employees to do nothing! It’s called a Job Bank. Laid-off workers at Ford, GM, and Chrysler are paid 90% of their previous wages to sit in a room at the factory doing nothing!

Think of what this will mean if the politicians pass a bill to bailout GM, or Chrysler, or Ford. When you go to work you’ll be laboring part of the day to pay some members of the United Auto Workers union to sit and produce nothing.

Doesn’t that sound like a scam to you, and wouldn’t a bailout represent government sponsorship of this scam?

Do you think, perhaps, the Detroit automakers might not need a bailout if they didn’t sign such stupid contracts with the UAW union?

Do you think, perhaps, that no bailout should even be considered as long as such contracts are in place?

Do you think, perhaps, that the Democrats may ignore this problem unless they hear outrage about it from their constituents?

If you have Democratic representatives you may want to ponder whether they represent the unions, or you. Shouldn’t you ask them where their loyalties lie?

Or, if you have Republican representatives, do you think they might make an issue of this if you inform them of it?

Read More »

Given the direction the political winds are blowing, with world leaders meeting to determine how best to further intervene into the world’s monetary and economic system, the odds of returning to the stable days of the Gold Standard seems infinitesimal at best.  At the Christian Science Monitor, an op-ed titled Forget Bretton Woods II – we need a gold standard, editorialist Walker Todd says that absent the “integrity and restraint a gold standard provides” our country may be headed straight for hyperinflation. Using Weimar, Germany as an extreme example, he illustrated how desperate conditions could get:

Weimar Germany experienced one of the greatest inflations in modern history in 1922 and 1923. Eventually, the official exchange rate reached 4.2 trillion marks per dollar. Some Germans heated their homes by burning cash, since it was cheaper than buying wood. The inflation finally was tamed by government bonds promising repayment in gold, backed by land taxes also payable in gold.

And photographs from the situation in Zimbabwe illustrate clearly what could happen.  Here’s a man going out to lunch:
Read More »

Climate Czar. Technology Czar. Energy Czar. Car Czar. President-elect Barack Obama is already promoting the “czarification” of our government. Apparently, Obama wanted Al Gore to be the Climate Czar, but Gore turned it down. Also, while the Federal Reserve continues to create money out of thin air and Obama is creating czars out of thin air I have a suggestion. Why not create a Liberty Czar and put Ron Paul in the position? I’m not quite sure what his duties would be, but the name sounds cool for someone like Ron Paul. It’s not like any of Obama’s other czars will have any real authority, or will they?

What is a czar anyway? An online dictionary says the following:

1. also tsar or tzar (zär, tsär) A male monarch or emperor, especially one of the emperors who ruled Russia until the revolution of 1917.
2. A person having great power; an autocrat: “the square-jawed, ruddy complacency of Jack Farrell, the czar of the Fifteenth Street police station” (Ernest Hemingway).
3. Informal An appointed official having special powers to regulate or supervise an activity: a racetrack czar; an energy czar.

Let us all cross our fingers and hope that Obama’s definition is number 3 and not number 1 or 2. It seems to me a person aiming to distance himself from the past 8 years of George W. Bush’s “autocratic” style of leadership would eliminate this word from his vocabulary. Instead Obama seems to be embracing the concept, even promoting it as an essential part of his coming administration.

Read More »

We have all heard the claims that neither Obama nor McCain were eligible to become the President of the United States.  In fact, the legal disputes surrounding Obama’s Hawaiian Birth Certificate still abound, as well as the belief by some that he is a “Red Diaper Baby”, having been conceived by Communists for the advancement of the United States Communist Party’s agenda and having “spent his formative years – literally from the moment of his birth — interacting with members and sympathizers of the Communist Party, USA.”

Yet, now we have another angle to look at this, one which stands completely free of any of the previous lawsuits, and is brilliant in it’s simplicity.  According to The British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama was born, in fact, as a British subject, whether he was born in Hawaii or in Kenya:

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

On August 4, 1961, when Barack Obama, Jr. was born, Kenya was still a British Colony.  His father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a Kenyan native and, therefore, a British subject and citizen, making Barack Obama, Jr., a British citizen, as well, and ineligible to become President of the United States of America.

The originator of this suit, Leo Donofrio, is unique in that he is the only individual to have filed a truly bi-partisan suit:

Unlike other law suits filed against the candidates, Berg etc., this action was the only bi-partisan suit, which sought to have both McCain and Obama removed for the same reason.  (Later, Plaintiff also sought the removal of Nicaraguan born Roger Colera, the Presidential candidate for the Socialist Workers Party). The Berg suit will almost certainly fail on the grounds of “standing”, but Donofrio v. Wells, having come directly from NJ state courts, will require the SCOTUS to apply New Jersey law, and New Jersey has a liberal history of according standing to citizens seeking judicial review of State activity.

It’s hard to say how this one will play out, but, if nothing else, it certainly will be fun to watch!

In George Will’s excellent commentary he accurately describes the hypocrisy of the McCain-Palin attack on Obama for promoting socialism.

Conservatives rightly think, or once did, that much, indeed most, government spreading of wealth is economically destructive and morally dubious — destructive because, by directing capital to suboptimum uses, it slows wealth creation; morally dubious because the wealth being spread belongs to those who created it, not government. But if conservatives call all such spreading by government “socialism,” that becomes a classification that no longer classifies: It includes almost everything, including the refundable tax credit on which McCain’s health care plan depended.

Hyperbole is not harmless; careless language bewitches the speaker’s intelligence. And falsely shouting “socialism!” in a crowded theater such as Washington causes an epidemic of yawning. This is the only major industrial society that has never had a large socialist party ideologically, meaning candidly, committed to redistribution of wealth. This is partly because Americans are an aspirational, not an envious people. It is also because the socialism we do have is the surreptitious socialism of the strong, e.g. sugar producers represented by their Washington hirelings.

In America, socialism is un-American. Instead, Americans merely do rent-seeking — bending government for the benefit of private factions. The difference is in degree, including the degree of candor. The rehabilitation of conservatism cannot begin until conservatives are candid about their complicity in what government has become.

Read it all here.

“Scenes are now to take place as will open the eyes of credulity and of insanity itself, to the dangers of a paper medium abandoned to the discretion of avarice and of swindlers.” -Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814

by Jake, the Champion of the Constitution

Originally published November 16, 2008 at http://www.nolanchart.com/article5477.html

Upset about the financial crisis and how it could negatively affect your life? Think it won’t effect your life?  Try reading my last article “Bank and Credit Union 2008 Body Count at 32“.  Well, speaking for myself, I’ve already harassed my Congress representatives to no avail, so I suppose it is time to show up at the FED itself.

END THE FED! protests will take place at the following 39 US cities on Saturday:

Atlanta, Baltimore, Birmingham, Boston, Buffalo, Charlotte, Chicago, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Dallas (Alex Jones of prisonplanet.com to attend, hope he does not break the below principles!), Detroit, Denver, El Paso, Helena, Houston (Ron Paul to attend), Jacksonville, Kansas City, Little Rock, Los Angeles, Louisville, Memphis, Miami, Minneapolis, New York City, Nashville, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Philadelphia,  Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Portland, Richmond, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Washington, DC.

Visit here to sign up, join, and find out when and where to meet up.

The site specifies that END THE FED! participants must agree to the following principles:

• Peaceful, Non-Violent Rally to Support Sound Money
• Cooperation and respect for local laws and authorities
• No harassment of Fed employees
• No blocking of pedestrian or vehicular traffic

“The trifling economy of paper, as a cheaper medium, or its convenience for transmission, weighs nothing in opposition to the advantages of the precious metals… it is liable to be abused, has been, is, and forever will be abused, in every country in which it is permitted.” – Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813

For any who are unaware, although the Federal Reserve was  created by Congress and President Wilson via the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the Federal Reserve’s use of paper currencies unbacked by gold and silver is unconstitutional, although this decision has been made many times by the contemporary executive and legislative branches, especially in times of war.

Read More »

Yesterday’s commentary by Peter Schiff is a must read. In “The Humpty Dumpty Economy“, Schiff suggests that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulsen is both a liar and incompetent. He explains the moral hazard, or unintended consequences of all this new regulation.

Before the current economic crisis became apparent to all, the most popular fable used to describe America’s uncanny economic resiliency was the story of Goldilocks. It was argued that our economy was skipping down a sunny path of moderate growth, low inflation and rising asset prices. However, a much better parable for our economy over the last decade would have been the story of Humpty Dumpty: a bloated, fragile shell perched on the top of a dangerously high stone wall. This week, all the government’s horses and all of its men scrambled to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Here is a look at some of this week’s highlights:

The Mother of all Moral Hazards

No doubt prodded by the administration, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac announced a new attempt to stop the fall in home prices and foreclosures through a loan modification program that would cap mortgage payments so that a homeowner’s total housing expenses would not exceed 38% of household income for home owners who are 90 days delinquent.

In a classic case of unintended consequences, the plan will encourage a massive new round of delinquencies and household income reduction as homeowners will jump through hoops to qualify for the program and maximize their benefit. Those who could conceivably economize to meet their existing obligations will now have a strong reason to forego such sacrifices. Those who are not 90 days past due will intentionally become so. In many cases, dual income families may decide to eliminate one job altogether as reduced mortgage payments combined with lower child care and other work related expenses will likely exceed the after-tax value of the lost paycheck.

Unfortunately, the last thing our economy needs is falling household incomes and even more bad debt. But that is precisely what this plan will give us.

Continue reading…

Most rational people agree that in the face of the current economic meltdown, all levels of government- federal, state and local- should spend less money.  What no one agrees on is how to spend less.  One person’s pork is another person’s vital service, and we usually don’t have trusted third parties to figure out which is which.

A case in point is the school district where I teach, Los Angeles Unified, the second largest in the nation.  California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has been issuing increasingly dire assessments of the state economy, with increasingly dire implications for education.  His latest assessment of likely cuts to education could swell LAUSD’s current $375 million deficit to more than a half-billion within this school year.  There is no debate about spending less.  Everyone in the district has become a spend-less conservative.

The disagreement, of course, is on what to cut.  The teachers’ union wants to cut the bureaucracy (while demanding a raise).  The school board wants to cut teacher perks like health care (while offering no raise).

Here’s what I want: All district “literacy coaches” should be sent back to classroom positions, all publishing enterprises that duplicate the expense of state approved textbooks should be discontinued, and district “literacy cadres” should be disbanded.

And here’s the rub: you the reader, well informed though you may be, have no idea what I’m talking about.  It’s local, insider stuff.  One can’t rally the troops with calls of “Down with literacy coaches!” as one can with teacher accountability or pay raises.

Read More »

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Quote of the Day: “In the long run men hit only what they aim at.” — Henry David Thoreau

Subject: How to cure political loneliness

* How many Americans want smaller government?
* How many Americans would support the “Read the Bills Act” and the “One Subject at a Time Act,” if they were introduced to them?

In today’s Dispatch we’ll answer the first question, and explain how we can use $50,000 in pledges made by two generous donors to answer the second question. We’ll also tell you how you can see and receive our new “I Am Not Afraid” t-shirt.

We start by tipping our hat to David Boaz at the Cato Institute for constantly calling attention to the kind of data we’re going to share below, and to Ramesh Ponnuru for providing a good recent summary of this information.

CBS pollsters have been asking the following question for decades, “Would you say you favor smaller government with fewer services, or larger government with many services?”

From 1996 through Jan. 2001 the smaller-government side had an average lead of a whopping 20 points. This lead has slipped in the current decade, but as of March-April of this year the sides were tied.

For most of the past three decades a majority of Americans (often a vast majority) have favored smaller government. And even now, when the propaganda drumbeat for more government in areas such as health care and the financial system has been extremely loud, the support for smaller government is close to a majority, according to this poll.

But there are other polls . . .

Read More »

After the latest “let’s eat our own” moment in the Republican Party by South Carolina’s Jim DeMint I have a suggestion for the GOP. Pssst… it has to do with Ron Paul.

First, here are DeMint’s scathing words (from CNN):

“We have to be honest, and there’s a lot of blame to go around, but I have to mention George Bush, and I have to mention Ted Stevens, and I’m afraid I even have to mention John McCain,” he said.

DeMint offered a long list of complaints about McCain’s record in the Senate and on the campaign trail.

“McCain, who is proponent of campaign finance reform that weakened party organizations and basically put George Soros in the driver’s seat,” DeMint said. “His proposal for amnesty for illegals. His support of global warming, cap-and-trade programs that will put another burden on our economy. And of course, his embrace of the bailout right before the election was probably the nail in our coffin this last election. And he has been an opponent of drilling in ANWR, at a time when energy is so important. It really didn’t fit the label, but he was our package.”

Bush and Stevens, he said, had corrupted the party brand by expanding the size of government and engaging in wasteful government spending. Had Republicans not strayed from their core beliefs in recent years, DeMint argued, the election results might have been different.

“Americans do prefer a traditional conservative government,” he said. “They just did not believe Republicans were going to give it to them.”

DeMint said he would introduce a Senate resolution next week to boot Stevens out of the Republican caucus, and “force votes” on Senate seniority rules that have allowed certain members to hold onto power. However, DeMint twice confused Ted Stevens with Ted Kennedy, drawing chuckles from the audience of Republicans, who hold neither senator in particularly high regard.

“One of our principles is that power corrupts, and you need to disperse it,” DeMint said. “And if our own party allows ourselves to be destroyed by this idea, and are not willing to stand up, then we have to change everyone at the top.”

Senator DeMint, I agree and have a suggestion for you. Put Ron Paul at the top, or at the very least, in some kind of leadership role. Once he’s there, listen to the man, and follow his example. He has the power to lead the Republican Party out of these dark days.

Of course, this is yet another hopeless dream. You won’t do such a thing. You, nor your party peers, have the guts. At the very least you have a severe lack of smell. The answer is right under your nose within your own party, but some kind of neo-conservative misfiring synapse is blocking your nose from smelling liberty.

Seek a doctor for what ails you. Seek Dr. Ron Paul.