Immediately after Barack Obama won the election last November I published an article revealing my own rather cursory investigation of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. I wanted to know more about him because I thought he had the potential to be a viable liberty-loving Presidential candidate in 2012. While I did discover some potential chinks in his armor, I concluded with the following:
It would be very difficult for me to not support Johnson if he were to run for President in 2012. As of right now, In my view he is the best positioned candidate to carry forward the message of liberty within the Republican Party. He may not be perfect on specific issues here or there, but Ron Paulians would be hard pressed to find another Republican candidate with his record and political viability. He served as a Governor for eight years. He didn’t raise taxes as Governor once. He promoted private business and free markets over government corporatism and regulation. Finally, and perhaps most pertinent, he enthusiastically endorsed Ron Paul for President.
There has been very minimal evidence for a Johnson 2012 bid until now. Jason Pye at UnitedLiberty.org reports that Johnson has formed a PAC and is set to release a book in December entitled “Seven Principles For Good Government”.
A few web sites have been set up by supporters in an effort to coax Johnson into running for President such as JohnsonForAmerica.com.
With this latest news it appears that Johnson is warming up to jump in the fray. I can see it now at the first GOP primary debate sometime in 2011:
Fox News Debate Moderator: Governor Johnson, you’ve been an outspoken critic of the drug war and support the decriminalization of marijuana. These positions don’t seem like Republican positions. This raises questions about your electability. Do you have any sir?
Gary Johnson: Who am I, Ron Paul?
Let us hope so, but this time, let us hope he wins.
You can use my letter to Congress as a guide to your own . . .
I want my Senators to oppose S 1803, and support S 604 instead. I also want my House Rep. to reject any attempt to foster a bill similar to S 1803 in that chamber.
S 604 would perform a real audit of the Federal Reserve, but S 1803, the so-called Federal Reserve Accountability Act, would actually help the Fed avoid accountability! It would . . .
* Severely limit the scope of any audit,
* Set unreasonable time-frames that will delay or postpone certain audits indefinitely,
* Permit some audits to be performed only one year after a program has been terminated.
Give me a break!
It should be perfectly obvious to any reasonable person that active Federal Reserve programs need the most accountability. And what about programs that are never terminated? Focusing audits on terminated programs is like closing the proverbial barn door after the cow is gone, while giving on-going programs a permanent pass.
Frankly, it seems to me that S 1803 is a fraud designed to preserve the status quo while fooling some Americans into thinking you’ve enacted a real reform. Where did this idea come from anyway? The banking lobby?
You politicians constantly claim that citizens who aren’t doing anything wrong have nothing to fear from their government. Well, if the Federal Reserve isn’t doing anything wrong then it too has nothing to fear. S 1803 actually enhances my suspicion that the Federal Reserve is probably doing lots of bad things!
The cure for this is transparency.
The self-serving political claim that Federal Reserve transparency would disrupt the financial markets is simply wrong. Financial markets require honesty and transparency for the efficient allocation of capital, and for systemic stability. The lack of transparency for Federal Reserve actions is actually the source of market disruption, and creates constant chaos in our international financial relationships.
Please audit the Fed! And make sure it’s a real audit, not a fake one.
Believe me, I’m paying close attention to how you represent me.
“All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to stand by and do nothing.”- Edmund Burke
My rebuke to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and my comments on the Constitution and federal powers of Congress in regards to health care and the “Commerce Clause.”
Last week, the U.S. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi,responding to a reporter’s questionof whether the Constitution gave Congress the authority to enact individual health insurance mandate, kept repeating, “Are you serious?”
Now, let’s give Speaker Pelosi the benefit of the doubt and attribute her impolite reply to simple disbelief. In fact, from her point of view her authority is unchallenged per a September press release, and many others such asPolitico’s Erwin Chemerinskyand even the contemporary Supreme Court agree.From her press release, Pelosi states:
“The Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production.Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care isessentially unlimited.“
The Speaker is certainly correct that federal Congress has certainly legislated on “many aspects of American life.” In fact, there is a lot more at stake with the Commerce Clause than “just” our health care – the entire authority for economic central planning rests on this single clause. I strongly disagree with Pelosi that the Constitution allows Congress broad power in this respect. First, the exact language frommy job description in Powers of Congress,Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“The Congress shall have Power… to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
Pelosi believes that she has the power to “regulate Commerce… among the several States” and I suggest that in blunt language she instead literally means to “control the economy… of the States.” Pelosi and her ilk accomplish this by confusing the modern meanings with the legal meaning and contemporary context of the founders.
Ron Paul is a hypocrite on health care along with 54 other Republicans, according to House Democrat Anthony Weiner (NY).
WASHINGTON, DC—A new study by Representative Anthony Weiner (D – Queens & Brooklyn), member of the Health Subcommittee and Co-Chair of the Caucus on the Middle Class, revealed that 151 members of the House and Senate currently receive government-funded; government-administered single-payer health care – Medicare.
On the list of recipients are 55 Republicans who have steadfastly opposed other Americans getting the public option, like the one they have chosen.
Weiner said, “Even in a town known for hypocrisy, this list of 55 Members of Congress deserve some sort of prize. They apparently think the public option is ok for them, but not anyone else.”
It is extremely difficult for me to believe that Ron Paul’s name appears on this list legitimately. According to many sources he refused to accept Medicare while practicing medicine. He’s known as a man with integrity who practices what he preaches. I could find no other sources refuting and explaining why Paul’s name appears on the list, but admittedly, I didn’t look very hard.
I’m curious if there is a reasonable explanation from Paul such as the argument he uses for putting in earmarks for his constituents and then voting against them. Or maybe Weiner’s “study” is the equivalent of quoting people out of context and Paul doesn’t accept Medicare at all. In any case, I think an explanation is warranted.
What is hiding in plain site about Weiner’s argument though, is that he is making the assumption that the health care public option is equivalent to Medicare, which is broke. Yet they also argue that the public option will lower health care costs. Hypocrisy is an epidemic in the halls of Congress.
The healthcare bill and the cap and trade bill both threaten to completely remake two of the largest sectors of our economy. The President and Congressional leaders tell us these massive makeovers are so urgent that these bills must be passed soon — so soon that they can’t allow time to read them, even for 72 hours. But notice . . .
They’re taking months to work out the gruesome details
Most health care reforms won’t begin until 2013
The effects of the cap&trade bill won’t be seen for decades
After spending months on both of these bills, secret provisions will still be added at the last minute
In short, Congress is taking a long time to reach the point where they’ll rush these bills to a final vote, but then it will take years or decades for these bills to really take effect.
This is a contradiction. DownsizeDC.org’s Read the Bills Act would resolve the contradiction by compelling Congress to be deliberate.
You can use my letter as a model for your own, or simply past it into your personal comments . . .
Congress is taking months to craft legislation on health care and cap and trade. These bills will then have delayed implementations, or delayed effects. But despite these facts I know that you’ll rush them to a vote at the last minute, without taking the time to read them, understand them, or debate them. This is a contradiction.
I also know that many secret and probably unrelated provisions will be added to them at the last minute. This has happened so often in the past that I know you’ll do it again with the health care and cap & trade bills. This is irresponsible.
Neither I nor you will really know what you’ve passed for days or weeks after the final vote. This is intolerable.
For the most part, the value of the dollar is given cursory attention by the financial media. Typically, its movements are assigned an importance on par with much less determinative metrics such as natural gas futures and construction permits. It’s only when major milestones are reached that anyone really takes notice of the dollar. We are living through one of those times.
The great dollar rally of 2008-2009 has come full circle. When the financial crisis exploded in its full ugliness in mid-2008, the dollar, which had steadily declined over the previous four to five years, put in a rally for the record books. By March 2009, as investors across the world sought safety from the financial storm, the index had surged more than 25%. Since then, the dollar has steadily declined to the point where nearly all those gains have vanished. In short, the panic rally has given way to the long term trend.
So, as the dollar index makes fresh 52-week lows on a nearly daily basis, discussion on the greenback is heating up. And while real insight on the topic is hard to find, the debate centers on the battle between two conventional opinions – both of which are wrong.
The first camp, which is generally supportive of government intervention in the economy, argues that dollar’s decline is a positive for both the economy and the stock market. The second camp, which tends to fall on the more conservative end of the political spectrum, views the dollar’s decline as a problem but feels that tough talk and slightly higher interest rates are all that is needed to restore ‘King Dollar’ to its throne.
First of all, a weak dollar is no better for Americans than a lower paying job is for a worker. And although I would prefer that the dollar remain strong, I know that currency values are a function of supply and demand, not wishful thinking. The past years of reckless monetary and fiscal policy have created conditions that must push the dollar down. Vastly expanded debt levels and monetary expansion have created a greater supply of dollars, while poor investment performance and diminished industrial capacity have lessened the demand for dollars.
This cover-up provision couldn’t have passed on its own merits. That’s why the Congressional leadership attached it to the completely unrelated DHS funding bill.
We must force Congress to stop combining unrelated legislation into one bill. Protest what they did with the cover-up measure and tell your representatives to introduce and pass DownsizeDC.org’s One Subject At A Time Act (OSTA).
Here’s what I wrote in my personal comments . . .
The Homeland Security Appropriations Act (H.R. 2892) is a perfect example of why we need OSTA. The prisoner abuse cover-up law it contained had absolutely nothing to do with the funding or activities of the DHS (Department of Homeland Security).
Those opposed to the cover-up measure had an ethical responsibility to oppose the bill as a whole. There was no urgency to pass this bill. Congress could have funded the DHS at current levels with a continuing resolution. That’s why I think a vote for H.R. 2892 was really a vote for the prisoner abuse cover-up.
Those who voted for this bill failed in their duty to uphold the law. Those who failed to protest the inclusion of the cover-up bill in unrelated legislation are likewise guilty. But it gets worse . . .
I also believe this cover-up will put our troops in greater peril than if the photographic evidence of prisoner abuse was revealed. America’s enemies will say that . . .
The good news is that President Obama isn’t going to Copenhagen to sign a treaty, but he may sign a proposal that could lead to a treaty at a later date. The Copenhagen proposal is designed to create an international scheme to control carbon emissions (and the entire world economy in the bargain).
President Obama wants to have the “cap and trade” (cap and tax) bill passed before he goes to Copenhagen.
Our goal should be to send him to Denmark empty-handed.
It probably isn’t the best way to control carbon emissions, assuming you believe that’s important
The climate models that supposedly justify cap and trade have been consistently wrong
Cap and trade needs 60 votes to come to the floor in the Senate. If we can stop that from happening now then there’s no way that 67 Senators will come together later to ratify a treaty for the same purpose, especially if that treaty cedes American sovereignty to international organizations.
We must defeat cap and trade. We must send Obama to Denmark empty-handed.
Ron Paul was interviewed by Tavis Smiley on his PBS show last night. I remember really enjoying Smiley’s questioning and demeanor throughout his questioning during one of the GOP primary debates during the campaign of 2008. A debate that some of us here at Liberty Maven attended.
In this interview they discuss the U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan, Ron Paul’s new book “End the Fed“, and how the Fed can be audited and eventually abolished.
Liberty Maven
We’re pleased to welcome 
Now, let’s give Speaker Pelosi the benefit of the doubt and attribute her impolite reply to simple disbelief. In fact, from her point of view her authority is unchallenged per a September press release, and many others such as
by Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of 
“, and how the Fed can be audited and eventually abolished.
Loading ...
