-Thunderclap Newman “Something in the Air“

“A neo-con is a former Marxist turned conservative who is in reality now a Fabian socialist.”

-Kelleigh Nelson

I confess I am puzzled by the folks who say “I like Ron Paul’s domestic agenda, but I do not like his foreign policy stance.”  Well isn’t that special.  They like Dr. Paul’s positions regarding liberty, the economy, and the US Constitution, but…but they oppose his positions on waging unconstitutional wars, giving away billions of our hard-earned tax dollars to foreign governments (many of them reprehensible, and some who hate us), and throwing our military men and women into unwinnable meat-grinder wars.  I suppose that they must just love big government.

Hmm, perhaps someday they will explain their nonsensical flip-flopping to me.  In any event, I am sure that the Power Elites and “merchants of death” welcome their myopic tunnel-visioned “patriotism,” their feeble grasp of the US Constitution, and their total failure to understand what liberty is all about.  Go get ‘em tigers and tigerettes!

Me — I smell freedom in the air.  I sense that even though the GOP elites, Democratic elites, MSM elites, entertainment elites, the Military/industrial complex elites, and all of The Powers That Be — that is, the establishment — are arrayed against the Ron Paul revolution, they are on the losing side of history.  ”An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government.”

Voting for Obama, who has shown himself to be in the pocket of the banksters and military/industrial complex is no longer an option for anyone who values freedom — nor is voting for any of the GOP-approved “Obama Lite” candidates.  ”We the people” must see through the web of lies, disinformation, and slander — whether they come from simple ignorance of the truth, or from Power Elite shills.  This is our last shot at saving America as a free republic, and if Ron Paul loses it all goes down the drain, on our watch.

The tired schtick of “meet the new boss; same as the old boss” is no longer playing in Peoria these days.  ”We the people” are increasing hip to how we have been played and gamed by the Power Elites — under whatever label they hide behind.  Time for a revolution, a real revolution, the Ron Paul Revolution.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address to the Nation, 1961                                    

“Ron Paul and I would disagree on many issues. …However, these are policy differences. They can be negotiated or legislated into a compromise.  But on liberty, on human rights, and on the Constitution, Ron Paul is the only candidate who gets it.  …Liberty is where we begin and end the conversation in America.  For far too long, government has chipped away at the rights of Americans.  Ron Paul would reverse that trend.  Whatever else he does is secondary to that prime directive.”

John Thorpe “Forbes“                                                                                                                                  

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Thorpe (a liberal) in the above paragraph.  I also agree with those expressed by conservative Steve Deace: “as much as I disagree with Paul, I’d choose him over the Republicrat ruling class any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.” 

The fact that individuals from both the left and right of the political spectrum find Ron Paul increasingly attractive is of no little concern to The Powers That Be (TPTB) and their long-knives are already out.  Should Ron Paul become the lead, or one of the lead Republican candidates they will attempt to slice and dice him like a Cuisinart — count on it.  The MSM, who cannot seem to find Obama’s past history with a bloodhound and a road map will suddenly become super-sleuths able to sniff out every nook and cranny of Ron Paul’s past — and where the truth does not suit their purposes they will twist it until it does.

It is understandable that the Far Left would oppose Ron Paul, because of his stance on state’s rights, limited government, and his staunch defense of the US Constitution.  What perplexes me is the animosity shown toward Paul by the purportedly conservative Republican establishment — and there can be no doubt that the GOP elites despise Paul’s positions.  Rush Limbaugh has dumped on him; the “conservative” press treats him as a joke, and “conservative” talking heads routinely dismiss him.  Recently Neil Cavuto took his fellow pundits at Fox News to task for their blatantly dismissive attitudes toward Ron Paul.                                                                                                                                  

All of which only makes Ron Paul all the more attractive to me as a candidate, and I suspect that a growing number of conservatives feel similarly — we know how lame “conservative” media can be. 

“We the people” are more than a little tired of the condescending arrogance thrown our way by Republican elites and their duplicitous mouthpieces.  The truth is that for all of their talk of being conservative, they find Ron Paul’s ideas about limited government anathema.  They want big government — they only differ from the liberal elites in their choice of what type of big government we should have.  It is of no importance to them that freedom decreases as government increases. 

I only recently became aware of just how much negative information TPTB have already put out about Ron Paul, so one of my first tasks has been to bring myself up to speed on what is true about Ron Paul, and what is false.  I found that I needed to brush aside much of the “common wisdom” surrounding him.

I have found that many of the “problems” with Ron Paul are not problems at all, and that most of his troublesome positions are in fact either outright fabrications invented by those who oppose him, or statements taken out of context.  Granted, there are still a few things that as a conservative make me cringe, but I am sure that liberals can say the same.  The thing is, as John Thorpe points out, liberty trumps all.  Next to freedom, most all of the other issues that we concern ourselves with become peripheral sideshows — and the one thing that Ron Paul definitely stands for, almost uniquely, is freedom.

For those of you who may not be aware of Ron Paul’s positions regarding several controversial issues, let me give some examples of what I have found out.

Ron Paul’s position on illegal immigration includes physically securing our borders, no amnesty, no welfare for illegal aliens, and ending birthright citizenship.  That does not sound like Paul is an open borders La Raza aficionado to me.                              

Ron Paul is not a proponent of abortion.  Doctor Paul has delivered over 4,000 babies, and no doubt understands more about the complexities involved in the debate than most of us.  As is the case with a number of issues, he has been made out to be a proponent of things that he does not endorse, but simply believes should be left up to the individual states to decide, as per the US Constitution. 

Ron Paul’s fiscal policies seem to me to be much more sane than anything I have seen come out of Washington since…well, actually I cannot think of any sane fiscal policy that has come out of Washington.  That is to say, Ron Paul’s ideas for responsible fiscal behavior are the sanest things to have come out of Washington in a loong time — end the Fed, end taxes, stop the government’s insane spending spree, and clean up rampant corruption.  You had better believe TPTB do not like the sound of any of that.                                                  

Claims that Ron Paul is racist are absurd.  Read the quote of his below and judge for yourself:  

“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals.  Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups.  By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.  …The true antidote to racism is liberty.  Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims.  …Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.” That bears rereading.                                            

John Nichols, writing for NPR on the Ron Paul candidacy notes that “what frightens Republican party leaders [is] the notion that the Grand Old Party might actually base its politics on values, as opposed to pay-to-play deal-making, [which] unsettles the Republican leaders who back only contenders who have been pre-approved by the Wall Street speculators, banksters and corporate CEOs who pay the party’s tab—and kindly pick up some of the bills for the Democrats, as well.  And if [Ron Paul] wins Iowa, he could begin a process of transforming the Republican Party into a conservative party.  That scares the Republican bosses who currently maintain the party concession on behalf of the Wall Streeters.  But it…quite intrigues the folks on Main Street who may be waking up to the fact that the “conservatism” of a Newt Gingrich or a Mitt Romney is a sham argument designed to make the rich richer and to make the rest of us pay for wars of whim and crony-capitalist corruption.”  (Italics added)    

I basically agree with Mr. Nichols, pausing only to mention in passing that the shoe is on the other foot, and that it is mainly the Democrats, not the Republicans, who are in bed with Wall Street.  The numbers paint a different story than liberals would have us believe: “These Democrats may claim to be on the side of the Occupy Wall Street Protesters, but the numbers don’t lie. They are clearly capitalizing on the populism of the day while continuing to line their campaign coffers with money from the very people they are now demonizing.”  In the spirit of détente I will drop that particular subject for the time being, and move onto Ron Paul’s “anti-war/non-intervention” stance of which much has been written.  

Not many people alive today remember the time when America was not the world’s “policeman,” but the current state of affairs is a rather recent development that did not start coming into being until shortly after WW II.  For most of America’s history the idea of policing the world would have been considered ludicrous.

Todd S. Purdum writing for “Vanity Fair” lays the blame for the rapid expansion of the military/industrial complex at the feet of George Kennan and an article he wrote in 1947 for the Council on Foreign Relations.  In his article Keenan outlined the need for America to fight communism in one hot-spot after another.  Keenan meant to fight it diplomatically and politically rather than militarily, but no matter, the military/industrial complex was born.  (John Bolton in a recent article gives Keenan much less credit, writing that Keenan “was simply a verbalizer for ideas swirling at the State Department” at the time). 

In any event, Keenan lived to rue his article and when US troops were sent to Somalia in 1992 he wrote “The dispatch of American armed forces to a seat of operations in a place far from our own shores, and this for what is actually a major police action in another country and in a situation where no defensible American interest is involved—this, obviously, is something that the Founding Fathers of this country never envisaged or would ever have approved. If this is in the American tradition, then it is a very recent tradition.”                                                                                                  

Exactly Ron Paul’s point — that all of this international military involvement is against the grain of America’s history, and at odds with our founding principles — if not flat out unconstitutional.  While our military is engaged in numerous operations overseas, the country that they are “defending” is going to hell in a hand-basket — economically, morally, and culturally.

I recently saw an article headlined “Draft Hillary.”  I thought to myself “”great idea!”  Issue her an M-16 and let her have at it in Afghanistan.  Send some of the more objectionable members of Congress along with her.  Let them get blown up, let them deal with suicide bombers, let them deal with insane ROEs in a tar-baby backwater surrounded on all sides by hostiles.  We would no doubt see a rapid “attitude-adjustment” on their part                                                                        

And if we were to successfully colonize Afghanistan — then what?  Colonize the surrounding countries of Iran, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Yajikistan, and Pakistan?  We have to go after those terrorists you know.  Shall we colonize Yemen — we know they hide out there.  Somalia?  What about Sudan?  Where does it end?  What brainiac thought up this grand strategy?  I support our troops, and I want them out of Afghanistanbecause I support them.

I am not the non-interventionist that Ron Paul is, but I am for bringing most of our troops back home to regroup and reevaluate things.  We should concentrate on getting our own house in order, before we go waltzing around the world telling other folks how to run their business.  The United States has the world’s highest divorce rate, we lead the world in rapes, car thefts, and drug use.  We are by far the world’s main supplier of pornography, and we possess the planet’s most complicated tax system.  We have the most people behind bars, and we have far more foreign military bases that any other country.  Oh, and we spend over seven times more on our military than any other country.  What’s not to love?  Plenty.                                                                                       

It is no secret that war is big business and that many powerful people have a vested interest in seeing to it that wars continue unabated.  The “defense” industry beats out illegal drugs for profitability — only the oil industry brings in more money.  The “death merchants” make out like bandits while our young men and women lose lives, limbs, and heart.           

Speaking of drugs, now might be a good time to point out that Ron Paul is not for drug use, again he simply feels that it is something that should be left up to the individual states to decide.  (An interesting aside: did you know that Afghanistan’s multi-billion dollar opium trade rapidly expanded under US occupation?  Somehow I doubt that all that money goes to the Taliban).       

If you are under the delusion that our men and women in uniform are rabidly opposed to Ron Paul’s anti-war/isolationist stance, then you might be surprised to learn that Ron Paul receives more donations from active duty military personnel than any other politician — in either political party.  Paul Joseph Watson writes “judging by how their donations have flooded into Ron Paul’s campaign coffers, efforts to characterize Paul’s non-interventionist policy as a fringe viewpoint are clearly without any foundation whatsoever.”        

The meme that Ron Paul is unelectable is rubbish — scare tactics courtesy of TPTB.  I “guesstimate” that apart from a small percentage of voters who will find some of Paul’s positions to be beyond the pale (which is of course their right), there is a large majority that may very well end up voting for him.  

The Ron Paul revolution is a real across-the-board revolution, and not some dialectical sophistry designed to hoodwink one ideological side or the other. The establishment, no matter what political banner they carry, will fight tooth and nail anyone who threatens their grip on the status quo.   They like things just the way they are — with them in charge.  

At least in regard to Ron Paul a truce should be called between “we the people” on the left and on the right.  Let us agree to disagree, and “keep our eyes on the prize” — our freedom.  It is not impossible that “we the people” can win this thing.          

In truth this is not about left vs. right; it is about up vs. down.  Up to freedom, truth, light and hope, or down to darkness, lies, despair and ruin.

As “we the people” move forward toward restoring liberty in our land it would be wise to keep in mind that Ron Paul is only one man, and a revolution should not be about just one person.  Using Ron Paul as a figurehead, a touchstone, and a rallying point is fine, but fundamentaly this revolution is about “we the people, and restoring hope and freedom to our children and future generations. 

That being said, I wholeheartedly and without reservation endorse Ron Paul for President of the United States.  Now let’s go kick some butt – lovingly of course.  Power to the people – right on.             

Reality is immune to human fantasy

This truism is no more prevalent than now as we witness Ron Paul’s rise in the polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire to front runner status. All of the usual pundits in the usual media outlets are attempting to discredit a potential Paul victory in Iowa by calling it meaningless. This is irritating and predictable; however, it gets worse. The governor of Iowa has now joined in on this fantasy. From Politico:

Leading Republicans, looking to put the best possible frame on a Paul victory, are already testing out a message for what they’ll say if the 76-year-old Texas congressman is triumphant.

The short version: Ignore him.

“People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third,” said Gov. Terry Branstad. “If [Mitt] Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and the other states.”

What country do we live in again? This ain’t America…. not even the America I was taught about in public school. Discrediting an election (caucus) merely because you disagree with the results is something Hugo Chavez does. It is not something we do in America. At least I thought we didn’t. Do these Ron Paul detractors really believe this behavior is acceptable? If the majority (or plurality) of people in your state vote for someone you don’t like how can you say it doesn’t count?

This effort at undermining their own process by making these comments has more danger of discrediting the election than Ron Paul winning. Hopefully Iowans and others see through this poppycock and vote without its influence.

The reality of Ron Paul should be no match for those naysayers living in fantasy land calling him an anti-semite, racist, and worse. It seems to me that once your foes start calling you names rather than debate you on your positions then you’ve already won.

During Paul’s 2008 campaign I wrote that I didn’t think America was quite ready for Ron Paul. Here in 2012, America just might be ready for him and the harsh reality he brings. We are going broke. We need to cut spending. We need to cut taxes. We need to bring our troops home from overseas to defend this country. We need to end all foreign aid. Yes, including Israel. Give them back their sovereignty.

If you fear a Ron Paul presidency just take a deep breath, calm down, and read the Constitution. That’s his platform. If you still think he’s too extreme then realize that there are 2 other branches of government that will be operating to limit his extremism. That’s a major reason we have the judiciary and legislature, checks and balances. If any other candidate wins, nothing will change. We’ll keep going down the spending death-spiral to our own demise. I’m not a big fan of demise. I’m voting for Ron Paul. Are you?

RIP Ron Smith.

This was not just an appearance on a late night talk show. This was a Ron Paul campaign rally.

During the final interview segment with Paul, Leno asked him his thoughts on the other candidates and went down the list by name. When he got to Bachmann, Ron Paul replied, “She doesn’t like Muslims. She hates Muslims. She wants to go get them.” This probably didn’t win him any neo-conservative supporters. Then he doubled down on this when he replied similarly about Santorum saying he doesn’t like “gay people and Muslims.”  Wow. I can’t imagine that Santorum and Bachmann won’t issue a counter-attack soon.

This just further cements my point in previous articles. Ron Paul can and would beat Obama in the general election. His more difficult win is in the GOP primary.

During the appearance Twitter was about 99% positive about Ron Paul, including many tweets saying things like, “I wasn’t sure before, but now I’m definitely voting for Ron Paul.”

Now we can sit back and monitor how the pundits and other candidates react, if they react at all.

See the entire appearance below in 4 parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj0r0lRyiKY

Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

MICHELE BACHMANN: “We have an IAEA report that just recently came out that said literally Iran is within just months of being able to obtain that (a nuclear) weapon.”
RON PAUL: “There is no U.N. report that said that. It’s totally wrong, what you just said.”
Bachmann: “It’s the IAEA report.”
THE FACTS: As Paul said, the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency does not state that Iran is within months of having nuclear arms. The U.N. agency report does suggest that Iran conducted secret experiments whose sole purpose is the development of nuclear weapons but did not put a time frame on when Iran might succeed in building a bomb, and it made no final conclusion on Tehran’s intent.
Bachmann also erred by arguing that Iran has “stated they will use it (a nuclear weapon) against the United States.”
Iran vehemently rejects that it is developing a nuclear bomb, let alone that it plans to drop one on the U.S.

Yes, unsurprisingly it was Michelle Bachmann who lied or I guess if you are a supporter of hers, “stretched the truth”. Bachmann also appears to have lied about what is in the Iranian Constitution, claiming it “states unequivocally” to stretch “jihad across the world”. Well, unless the Wikipedia interpretation of the Iranian Constitution is wrong I see no mention of “jihad” or “caliphate”. In fact, it directly mentions foreign policy in section X, saying in part:

Article 152 The foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is based upon the rejection of all forms of domination, both the exertion of it and submission to it, the preservation of the independence of the country in all respects and its territorial integrity, the defence of the rights of all Muslims, non-alignment with respect to the hegemonic superpowers, and the maintenance of mutually peaceful relations with all non-belligerent States.

There is certainly no “unequivocal” mention of jihad against the world. Hopefully voters will see through Bachmann’s and Santorum’s melodramatic horse-hockey.

Here are all of Ron Paul’s moments in the debate, totaling over 18 minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhbGL3F8r4c

DONATE TODAY! It’s Tea Party ’11 Money Bomb Time.

That elephant might as well be a lion right now. Ron Paul is in the top tier of candidates for the GOP nomination. This is not wishful thinking or libertarian fantasy. Following his strong debate showing over the weekend he has the pundits wondering out loud, “Can Ron Paul win?”

If you fancy yourself a Republican, conservative, or independent and you want nothing more than Barack Obama to lose in 2012 then your only choice can be Ron Paul, even if you vehemently disagree with him on foreign policy or think he’s a nut job. I’ve said this before, but if any other GOP candidate gets the nomination, we’ll see a second term for Obama. And this won’t be due to Ron Paul running as a non-Republican as many in the GOP fear. It will be because the rest of the Republican candidates are weak where it matters to most Americans these days: honesty, integrity, and consistency.

Obama isn’t exactly stellar on those attributes either; however, he’s already in the White House. He’s the incumbent with charisma and those are kryptonite to the likes of Newt Romney. If you want to make him uncomfortable force him to attack from the Right. Imagine Obama debating Ron Paul on foreign policy. Who will his anti-war supporters support? The ones that don’t end up thoroughly confused will logically vote for Paul and his strong and consistent anti-war position. Paul will already have the support of the Republican base, some of which, may hold their noses and vote for him. He’s already proven in the polls how popular he is with independents. Those same independents went largely in favor of Obama in 2008.

This all adds up to a victory for Paul over Obama, if only he could secure the nomination. In fact, getting the GOP nomination is a tougher road for Paul than winning in the general. Another reason why the general election would be easier is that his experience in the GOP primary will prepare him for nearly everything he’s likely to face during the general.

A recent interview had Paul answering the “will you run 3rd party” question yet again. Then the ever-present followup question asking him if he’d support the GOP nominee assuming it wasn’t himself. Just once I’d like to see one of his opponents get asked those questions. It would probably go something like this:

BLITZER(CNN): Speaker Gingrich, if Ron Paul gets the nomination will you get angry, pick up all your toys and go run as a 3rd party candidate to give those in the GOP that do not agree with Dr. Paul’s foreign policy an alternative?

GINGRICH: I may not agree with Ron Paul’s foreign policy but he’s better than Obama and I would not hesitate to support our party’s nominee, yes, even if that nominee is Ron Paul.

BLITZER(CNN): Governor Romney, same question to you.

ROMNEY: Ron Paul and I have our differences for sure, but I have greater differences with Obama, and I would support the Republican nominee, no matter which one of us is selected for that great honor.

So let me repeat and make it clear:

If you don’t want Obama for 4 more years, Ron Paul is your only hope.

If you consider his positions too extreme then you still must support him. He has two other branches of government to temper his “extremism”. Every other candidate is tinkering around the edges and would have a zero net effect on American prosperity. A libertarian-leaning president coupled with a more moderate judiciary and legislature is exactly the shot in the arm America needs right now.

If you are worried Paul would ignore his oath of office and the Constitution and use his presidency as an extreme libertarian power-grab, well then, you don’t really know Ron Paul and you need to study up on libertarianism.

Republicans rejoice! You have a candidate in the race who can beat Obama. It’s time you embraced your inner elephant and make Ron Paul your nominee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3QJL6IiNYo

There has been a flurry of activity in the Supreme Court as the U.S. Department of Justice and other litigants have filed petitions seeking review by the nation’s highest court of the constitutionality of Obamacare. There is no doubt that the Court will agree to hear most of these cases. But one case might not make the cut.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has challenged the Obamacare provision that mandates individual Virginians must purchase a health insurance policy approved by the federal government.

The Virginia suit was decided on the merits, in favor of Virginia, in the district court, but was then reversed on appeal by the 4th Circuit Appeals Court. The appeals ruling was NOT on the merits (or Obamacare probably would’ve lost), but on the ground that Virginia had no legal “standing” to sue. This panel, all of whom were appointed by a Democratic President, ruled that . . .

• Virginia wasn’t harmed because the individual mandate doesn’t require the Commonwealth to do anything. 
• Virginia had no right to defend its citizens against unconstitutional federal laws.

Had these appeals court judges NEVER heard of the Tenth Amendment?

Can the various states move to protect, that is interpose or even nullify, those laws which . . .

• impeded on the individual liberties of their citizens, AND
• are beyond the enumerated powers of the Constitution?

Enter Bond v. United States. This recent June, 2011 decision has potentially monumental OPPORTUNITY written all over it. 

In a 9-0 decision the Court held that not only states, but also individuals have standing to challenge federal laws as violations of state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment. This decision could be a dramatic leap forward for liberty, reversing decades of decisions tracing back to the 1930′s.

Back then, Franklin Delano Roosevelt threatened to pack the court with more Justices who’d rule in favor of unconstitutional New Deal programs. In 1936, in order to protect the integrity of the high court, Justice Owen Roberts, the swing vote, started ruling in favor of FDR’s programs. It is called “The stitch in time that saved nine.”

While these rulings may have prevented Roosevelt’s judicial manipulation scheme, they eviscerated the limits of the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution. They quickly brought us to the point that a man growing food in his own garden could be regulated by the FEDERAL government, because even though he wasn’t selling anything, his actions affected interstate commerce.

Talk about tortured logic! 

Since then, the logic has been tormented and stretched further, so that now the Obamacare forces are arguing that a FEDERAL mandate on individuals, requiring them to buy a private good or service (a health insurance policy), is constitutionally permitted under the interstate commerce clause.

Shouldn’t the various states intercede on behalf of their citizens? Can’t they see to it that their rights are protected from federal overreach? Can the states block an unconstitutional mandate?

The 4th Circuit said NO.

And the Bond decision just might be the reversal tool we’ve been waiting for. Bond is a green light from this Supreme Court for INDIVIDUALS, as well as states, to bring more cases under the Tenth Amendment.

In Bond, individuals are essentially being given standing. Old precedent held that Tenth Amendment arguments could only be raised by states. But here’s how the Court ruled in Bond . . .

“Federalism secures the freedom of the individual. It allows States to respond, through the enactment of positive law, to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely upon the political processes that control a remote central power.”

In other words, individuals have a right to use their state government, to stand up to federal usurpations of power.

Indeed, Virginia interposed on behalf of its citizens. The state passed the Virginia Health Freedom Act, which prohibits any act by any person, even the federal government, to compel any Virginia citizen to purchase a health insurance policy.

We believe the Commonwealth’s petition to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on the subject of Obamacare should be approved, over the 4th appeals court’s objections. Do you?

Providentially, our attorneys wrote a friend of the court brief in the Bond case. 

They are quite familiar with the controversy and the decision. They stand VERY ready to prepare an excellent brief.

Right now, we believe that . . . 

• Virginia needs all the help they can get in order to get the Supreme Court to take up their case with the other anti-Obamacare lawsuits
• The Commonwealth’s arguments are unique and important as to the constitutionality of Obamacare

But, we ALSO believe there’s something MORE at stake here . . .

. . . the future of state nullification as a tool to protect our rights.

A friend of the court brief could be very helpful to Virginia’s odds, if only we had the resources to file it.

Usually, when the Downsize DC Foundation presents an amicus brief project, we have partners already LEADING the project. Thanks to your generous support, we come in a supporting role, and pitch in.

But not this time! Sure, we will still have partners. But in this case, this project will NOT happen, unless WE take a LEADING role — which means we must contribute nearly three times the amount we normally do to the production and printing of this brief.

And to compound matters, we have to know what we’re doing by Friday, close of business.

Urgently, we need at least two people willing to invest $1,000 or more. We also need at least 100 responses of varying size.

• EVERY donor to this brief, who includes their email address in the contribution, will receive a pdf of the brief we submit to Supreme Court.
• Every donor of $200 or more will get the same printed and bound version we send to the Supreme Court.

And your contribution to this effort by the Downsize DC Foundation is TAX-DEDUCTIBLE. 

But if response seems weak, I’ll have to let our attorneys know we failed… that we can’t take the lead. And in that case . . .

We won’t trap your money. In order to slash your risk . . .

IF we fail to fund the brief, we will return your donation, AUTOMATICALLY, IF and ONLY IF you leave a comment in the comment box on the donor form or bottom of your check that reads, “Return if Virginia amicus brief is not filed.”

So there’s no reason to wait and see if we make it.

Of course, Downsize DC Foundation relies on your support, so if you choose to give unconditionally, in support of our other educational efforts, it will be appreciated. 

And if you’re sending a check (the mailing address is on the online contribution form), please hit Reply to this message and let us know the amount that’s on the way, so that we can add it to the count by Friday.

Will you help us fight Obamacare, and advance the cause of state nullification?

Thank you for your love of the Constitution.

Jim Babka
President
Downsize DC Foundation

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

There are Republicans that will only vote Republican and stand behind the nominee no matter who it is.

There are Democrats that believe in unicorns, double rainbows, and “Yes we can!” that will vote for Obama no matter how much his actions suggest “Oh no we didn’t!”.

Then there are the the rest of us who will vote for the guy (Sorry Michele and Sarah but you gals don’t have a chance… how’s that feel coming from a Ron Paul supporter?) that actually agrees with us on approximately 80 to 100% of what we believe in.

If Ron Paul were the GOP nominee Obama would be forced to attack from the right on foreign policy, alienating those liberal voters who are ignorantly sympathetic to the drone-bombing fetishist, Nobel Peace Prize winner. Obama would be compelled to “let-me-be-clear” his way out of not being very clear on why there are still troops in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and maybe Syria and “Pock-ih-stohn”.

Now where would those voters turn after being stabbed in the back by their warmonger-in-chief? That’s right, the only other candidate in the race with years of truth and integrity spilling out of him: Ron Paul.

Nearly every question Paul received during the debate last week on MSNBC was obviously aimed at scaring people who have become dependent on the federal government. Even the CNN “Tea Party” debate earlier this week had some of this as well. Don’t fall for their magic markers. Paint your own picture of who Ron Paul is and what he believes (this video is a great start).

Newsflash: Hey MSNBC viewers, everything you despise about FOX News is exactly what MSNBC does except the paint dries blue, not red.

You have to take the crazy out of yourself before you will notice that Ron Paul is just not crazy. He is the candidate with the most common sense. I’m sure that one of Paul’s trusted advisers said to him prior to the debate, “Ron, if you look at the rest of the candidates on that stage, and you can’t find the sane one, then YOU are the sane one.”

It is said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. We keep electing the same clowns over and over again and expect different results. But here is Ron Paul, once again, offering America new solutions to ancient problems.

He’s the only one that can truly beat Obama. Do you want four more years of recession, desperation, broken promises, and apologies? Vote Perry, Romney, Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman, or Obama.

But if you want four years of prosperity, integrity, honesty, liberty, and peace. Vote Paul. He’s just the kind of crazy America needs.

Isn’t this just more evidence that the TSA should be ABOLISHED, instead of reformed?

I wrote a letter telling Congress to do just that, and I invite you to do the same.

You may borrow from or copy this letter…

The TSA is under fire. So, it is trying to make some improvements, such as…

Transitioning away from “naked” body scanners. Their “reforms” even include a trusted flier program to enjoy a more streamlined screening experience. Sounds good, right?

But this proposal requires you to give up even MORE of your privacy.

It is fundamentally wrong that the people must request permission, from the federal government, to board an airliner.

The Supreme Court said in United States v. Guest (http://tinyurl.com/3dh25r8) that “The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.”

The very existence of the TSA, however, spits in the face of the Constitution…

• In violation of the Fourth Amendment, it conducts unreasonable searches against EVERY flier, almost all of whom provide no cause for reasonable suspicion
• In violation of the Fifth Amendment, it denies the right to fly to those who refuse to cooperate — depriving them of liberty without due process of law

It is not surprising that an unconstitutional agency will abuse its power. Here’s just ONE list of ten TSA outrages: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/274033/ten-tsa-outrages-charlie-cooke

No wonder people don’t want to fly. According to the U.S. Travel Association (http://tinyurl.com/3canjfy)...

• On average, each person avoids two to three trips a year because of the hassles of airport-security screening
• Which amounts to an estimated $85 billion in lost business for hotels, restaurants, airlines, and other travel suppliers
• And there’s a huge loss of productivity from those who DO fly. Think of the time wasted at airports because travelers have to arrive early, uncertain about how long it will take to get through security

YOU know as well as I that if private screeners treated passengers the way the TSA does…

• They’d face lawsuits from the public and likely investigation by the Department of Justice
• And probable criminal prosecution under state laws

Heck, you or your colleagues would probably want to haul them up before a committee to demand answers!

Ironically, private screeners would NOT DARE treat their customers this way…

• Airlines have an interest in keeping their passengers safe
• Airlines also have an interest in making the passenger experience as enjoyable as possible

Under a private airline security system, airports, airlines, and their insurance companies would develop innovative, un-intrusive methods to keep passengers safe. The most effective methods would be adopted by more airlines, who unlike the TSA must satisfy customers.

Airline security may have been “private” before 9/11. But it was still tightly regulated. Congress should abolish the TSA, AS WELL AS federal regulations. Airlines and their insurance companies would be held liable for hijackings, terrorist attacks, or other mishaps.

I would feel safer on an airliner with PRIVATE security and DEREGULATED procedures.

END LETTER

You may send your letter using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

CHALLENGE: Make Bill Haynes of CMI Gold & Silver http://www.cmi-gold-silver.com/ pay out $5,000!

YOUR BENEFIT: Every NEW dollar you give will be worth $2, thanks to Bill. Start a pledge, or make a donation. If you give $10, then it’s value is $20 — $100, then it’s worth $200. 

THE GOAL: Existing pledges and PayPal support + Bill’s challenge + matched funds from generous donors like you = Budget Achieved!

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer,

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

This evening President Obama presented his latest plan to “stimulate” the United States economy;  this time, to the tune of $447 billion.  This stimulus is to be completely paid for by undefined savings at a future, undetermined date.  By now, as a nation, we’re all probably quite numb to this and a proposal of this nature doesn’t elicit the same level of anxiety and fear that it once may have.  However, what should really frighten each of us is the outrageous question posed by Mr. Obama in defense of his proposal:

The Supreme Court must now rule on this question, but we shouldn’t have to wait for that.I sent a letter to Congress telling them to repeal Obamacare now.

The hard-wired message says simply, “Please repeal Obamacare.”

I added these comments…

Uncertainty over what Obamacare will really cost companies is probably the major reason they’re reluctant to hire new people. Repeal Obamacare quickly, and this uncertainty will disappear. Unemployment would probably fall instantly, and dramatically.

Repealing Obamacare is probably the best thing you could do to create jobs.

But that’s not the only reason to repeal it.

Obamacare never had public support. It still doesn’t. The American people hate it. Plus…

The “individual mandate” is an affront to a free society. It violates the Constitution. The 11th Circuit agrees, and the Supreme Court will probably agree too.

And if the individual mandate goes, so must the rest of Obamacare. The individual mandate was essential to the scheme, because Obamacare also requires insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions. The only way companies could afford that is through the requirement that everyone has to buy their product. But that won’t work if the court rejects the individual mandate.

This is a dangerous situation. If the Supreme Court kills the individual mandate, but not the whole of Obamacare, then the uncertainty companies face will grow. Job creation will remain stagnant.

America can’t afford to wait for a Supreme Court ruling, and then for further Congressional action to clarify things after the ruling. Instead, Congress should “fix” the problems of Obamacare by repealing ALL of it now.

You should also take IMMEDIATE steps to make health care more affordable, which is the key to expanding access. You can do this by allowing INDIVIDUALS to choose for themselves, with their own money. Here are some ideas…

* Introduce legislation allowing Americans to buy health insurance from any provider in the country, not just those licensed in their own state. This will reduce premiums for nearly every American.
* Remove all tax and regulatory incentives that tie health insurance to employment. This will give individuals full ownership over their own health insurance policies. This would also reduce the risk that people will end up uninsured because they change jobs, which is especially important to those Americans who have a family member with a pre-existing condition.
* Transition Medicare to a true voucher program with Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). People are always more prudent with their own money than they are when spending other people’s money. Therefore, HSA’s would reduce healthcare prices across the board.

Repealing Obamacare care now will help the economy immediately. It could also pave the way for more individual choice in healthcare. Choice would bring lowered costs, improved quality, and expanded access.

You can do better than Obamacare. Repeal it now. Then start over, using better ideas.

END LETTER

I urge you to send your own letter, or borrow from or copy the above. You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

And we invite you to share Downsize DC with your friends. “Like” us on Facebook and share us with your friends: http://www.facebook.com/downsizedc

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.