If you don’t know what Freedom Watch is then please check out http://freedomwatchonfox.com/. It’s an online only show hosted by the Judge catering to freedom-loving people everywhere.

Check out the excellent discussions from the show today below.

The bill is an unprecedented attack on personal liberty.

Please send a letter to Congress demanding they oppose Pelosi’s bill.

Here’s what I wrote:

HR 3962 will hamstring our finances. But it’s also full of blatant attacks on individual liberty.

For instance, chain restaurants and vending machine owners will be forced to publish calorie information on their menus. That’s not interstate commerce… unless the state line cuts through a McDonald’s counter. Congress can’t order private property owners around this way, and the Free Press clause of the First Amendment also clearly forbids this mandate. Calorie reports may be nice, but that’s outside of the government’s lawful scope.

HR 3962 also violates the broad 9th Amendment protection of individual liberty, and the 10th Amendment’s requirement that federal power be limited to only those functions listed in the Constitution.

Even though the Supreme Court has blown a gaping hole through many Constitutional protections of economic freedom — and blamed their lawlessness on the Commerce Clause power to regulate interstate commerce — it’s apparent that even this wide hole is too small for Congressional ambitions. Does anyone on Capitol Hill even know what interstate commerce is?

An example of this is the unprecedented, totalitarian attempt to force people to acquire government-approved insurance or face tax penalties. If Congress can force us to buy a particular grade of insurance, can it also force us to subscribe to “approved” newspapers?

The Supreme Court has ruled in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture (1922) that Congress can’t use the tax code to regulate behavior it doesn’t otherwise have power to regulate.

In United States v. Lopez (1995), United States v. Morrison (2000) and even Gonzales v. Raich (2005) the Court decreed that Congress cannot use the Commerce Clause to regulate activity that is NOT economic — such as NOT buying, NOT producing, or NOT making something. NOT buying insurance can’t be buying or making something.

That means, if you want to pay for this fancy plan, you’ll have to steal the money the old-fashioned way — a tax increase. You might want to review the matter in this Washington Post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082103033.html

You swore an oath to obey and protect the Constitution. Please honor that oath. I insist that you stand up on behalf of liberty and oppose this bill.

END LETTER

You can send your message here.

And then share this message with friends:

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/pelosi-s-healthcare-bill-an-unprecedented-attack-on-personal-freedom

You can also keep up with DownsizeDC.org on Twitter and Facebook, where we provide links to news and commentary relevant to our campaigns plus additional interesting odds and ends.

You can follow us on Twitter here: http://twitter.com/DDCDispatch

And on Facebook here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/DownsizeDCorg/92777977517

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

The reason Bob McDonnell beat out Creigh Deeds in Virginia was not because McDonnell represents some new style small government Republican. McDonnell won because Deeds made campaign mistakes. McDonnell made none. Deeds lost the race more than McDonnell won it.

The same is true for the New Jersey race. Corzine, a former chairman at Goldman Sachs, easily became a scapegoat for a failing economy and political corruption. So, he lost.

What Tuesday’s election results really demonstrated was a lack of conviction for either Democrats or Republicans. When the political spectrum shines red, then blue, then red, then blue, over and over again something tangible comes to light:

America is not rooting for either party to win. America is rooting for the underdog.

After 8 years of Clinton, George W. Bush was the underdog. In 2004, Bush was still the underdog largely due to his perceived strength (however false it was) in fighting “those who attacked us on 9/11″. That quickly soured so much that by 2006 the Democratic Party was the underdog so they won control of Congress. If Bush was up for re-election himself in 2006, he’d have lost.

The 2008 election cemented the underdog theory with America getting the chance to elect the first African American President. McCain, largely a Bush twin, had no chance.

Tuesday’s election results demonstrated that the Republicans are now, once again, the underdogs. This bodes well for them in the 2010 election and it could carry over to the 2012 Presidential contest. Of course, that depends on who has the perceived power at that time.

The point of this “underdog theory” is that we are not happy with the blue nor the red team. When the time comes we just want to take away power from whichever team has it.

For liberty champions this eternal game is growing extremely tiresome.

When everyone buys into the two team league yet no one wants either team to finish in first place, isn’t it time to expand the league?

It just so happens that there is a liberty-loving team already in place ready to be added to the league. Here are their names:

• Rand Paul
• David Hedrick
• Adam Kokesh
• Peter Schiff
• Ray McBerry
• Chris Simcox
• Debbie Medina
• Bill Hunt
• RJ Harris
• John Dennis
• David Ratowitz
• Jake Towne
• Randy Brogdon
• Robert Broadus
• Collins Bailey
• Jaynee Germond
• Bob Parker
• Bill Connor
• Peg Luksik

These are the candidates being celebrated today on the anniversary of Ron Paul’s 5th of November money bomb. To learn more about these candidates please check out ThisNovember5th.com. If you find a candidate you like, then please don’t hesitate to support that candidate with a generous donation.

These are the real underdogs and outcasts. Let’s help make them winners and keep them winning.

Check it out below.

“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.”

Originally published October 26, 2009 at http://towneforcongress.com/economy/to-nancy-pelosi-on-health-care-are-you-serious-1

Last week, the U.S. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, responding to a reporter’s question of 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 as Politico’s Erwin Chemerinsky and 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 is essentially 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 from my 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.

Regulation, in today’s dictionaries, means “a governmental order having the force of law.” However, this is not the historical definition.  The founders believed “regulate” to literally mean ‘to make more regular’ or, per Black’s Law Dictionary at the time, “a rule or order prescribed for management or government; a regulating principle; a precept.” In other words, regulate meant that Congress should in principle assist with Commerce disputes between the States, but did not grant Congress the power of law to inflict criminal penalties. This is most clearly seen in Article 2 of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 written by Thomas Jefferson.

Next, although the Federalist Papers are not legal documents, they do serve as public demonstrations of the founders’ intentions as they were part of a series of essays published to explain the Constitution to the public before its’ ratification. James Madison in Federalist #42 wrote:

“The defect[s] of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several members… [has] been clearly pointed out by experience… It may be added that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquillity… it would stimulate the injured party, by resentment as well as interest, to resort to less convenient channels for their foreign trade… The necessity of a superintending authority over the reciprocal trade of confederated States, has been illustrated by other examples as well as our own. In Switzerland, where the Union is so very slight, each canton is obliged to allow to merchandises a passage through its jurisdiction into other cantons, without an augmentation of the tolls.”

A modern example of “unregulated” Commerce by the founder’s meaning would be manufacturing companies in the interior of India, which has 28 states. As goods move by rail or truck from interior states to a seaport in a coastal state, each state assesses its own tariff at its border which rightly leads to “animosities” and a “less convenient channel” for foreign trade. But what did the founders mean by ‘Commerce’?

Within the last century, several American lawyers have claimed the founder’s definition of commerce was “all gainful activities” or “all human interactions.” This has been taken by the leviathan federal Government as authority to control not just health care, but the minimum wage, manufacturing, agriculture, the mining, oil and lumber industries, possession of firearms, land use, criminal law such as federal drug laws, and environmental protection, in most cases usurping states’ rights per the 10th Amendment and in some cases even inventing jurisdictions.

Fortunately, Dr. Robert Natelson wrote a well-documented paper “The Legal Meaning of ‘Commerce’ in the Commerce Clause” in 1996. After examining thousands of instances of ‘Commerce’ used in contemporary legal documents, Natelson concluded that commerce simply and exclusively meant “exchange” or “traffic” and its associated activities, such as navigation, to the founders. In simple English, commerce benefits agriculture or manufacturing, but does not include either agriculture or manufacturing. Furthermore, Natelson notes:

“If we read “Commerce among the several States” to mean “all gainful economic activity among the several States,” then the clauses by which Congress is empowered to regulate commerce with “foreign Nations” and the “Indian Tribes” become either largely redundant or nonsensical. Even more seriously, if the Commerce Clause grants Congress power to regulate all economic activities, then some of Congress’ other economic powers become surplus.“

So, if the Commerce Clause gave Congress economic central planning authority, many of the powers listed in the Constitution would be redundant. The powers of Congress over postal roads and offices, dockyards, intellectual property, and more would be repetitive if the power was already enumerated in the Commerce Clause. During the Federalist Papers debate, one would have expected the Commerce Clause to have been hotly debated by the anti-Federalists if it had been truly intended to give unlimited power over all gainful economic activities to the federal government. Federalist #42 would not have been able to dodge such a huge stripping of power from the States. What do we hear from the historical record? Silence, which indicates that this was a non-issue.

Natelson goes into a lot more detail than I have, and it is much easier to shred the other constitutional references given to support government infringement into health care.  Please read my Health Care plank which also links to the Constitution of the USSR (which DOES authorize government involvement in health care) and this great discussion on the “General Welfare” clause.  The “Necessary and Proper” clause is briefly dismissed by the referenced Natelson paper, but more strongly in his other papers. In short, Pelosi and the rest of Congress simply MUST have a constitutional amendment passed before legislating on health care. Their actions in Congress are highly illegal, and is one of many unconstitutional and illegal acts committed against the American people by Congress.  Since no help can be expected from the appointed-for-life Supreme Court, the last defense, really the only defense, is that of We the People ourselves.

So in formal reply to Speaker Pelosi, even the notion of federal government authority over the health care of the American people is completely absurd. My reply is: “Madame Speaker, are YOU serious?”

I suppose I should thank Speaker Pelosi since it is oligarchs like herself and my current representative who put me into a state of cold rage and motivated me to return home from China and run for public office.  It is the brash arrogance of Pelosi and the rest of the Establishment that remind me why America is sick inside. As the lyrics to this Shinedown song continue, I suppose I should thank Pelosi for the venom, but does she really think it would paralyze the American people?  While I prepare my congressional run to replace a Republican incumbent, Nancy Pelosi should be preparing to be replaced by her challenger, John Dennis.

Voters in Pennsylvania’s 15th district face a critical decision in the congressional election of 2010. They can vote for a 20-year career politician and incumbent Republican, whom, per the local Lehigh Valley Tea Party group, has voted with Nancy Pelosi on 65% of all House floor votes and only 17% with the Republicans in 2009 so far.  Or, they can vote for an 11-year Democrat politician directly backed by Joe Biden and the White House and funded by $4,000 straight from Nancy Pelosi’s congressional campaign fund.

Or they can vote for myself (Jake Towne), a private citizen running as a true independent who will guard the Constitution against all enemies, deliver accountability through the novel Open Office plan, and act to restore our constitutional Republic from the deep grave dug by the Democrats and Republicans career politicians both.

My plank on health care can be read here, and I have twice written open letters to the incumbent on the constitutionality of health care in June and also in August.  All of my open letters remain unanswered. In town halls, I have watched the Congressman simply brush off questions from the public about not only the constitutionality of the Democratic plan but also his very own unconstitutional health care reform package.

In a year’s time, it will be time to wipe the grins off my opponents’ faces.  For now, remember, remember, the fifth of November…

Originally published October 20, 2009 at http://towneforcongress.com/economy/abolish-the-federal-department-of-education-1

Last night with the Liberty Bell Center of Constitutional Studies, I was part of a panel answering questions on public education with the Concerned Citizens of Bethlehem Area School District. The BASD has been plagued with financial troubles stemming from OTC derivatives purchases, and previously I gave an educational presentation to this group on financial derivatives.

After the lecture from LBCCS founder Paul Fiske who related how our founding fathers viewed education, Ryan Burgett, chairman of LBCCS and I (as a member of LBCCS) took questions and there was one question I was unable to answer without a projector, which was the breakdown of spending by the federal Department of Education, which is below or can be viewed online here. I also gave a short synopsis of the history and issues I have with this Department.

For the first 177 years in American history, there was no federal Department of Education, which was reserved to the states and localities to handle as they saw fit. This was also in agreement with the Constitution of the United States, which does not provide any justification whatsoever for federal power over education; in fact, the 9th and 10th Amendments make such action both unconstitutional and illegal.

This changed in 1953 when Republican President Dwight Eisenhower created the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Prior attempts by Presidents Harding and Roosevelt had failed. This department has another black mark as it is the only one created solely by presidential authority without the permission of Congress.

The powers of this department continued to grow until Democrat President Jimmy Carter, envisioning a “compassionate” federal government, spun off the Department of Education (known as ‘ED’) in 1979. For close to the next 20 years, one of the major distinctions between the Republican and Democratic parties was concerned this department. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan was in favor of abolishing the department, he was not able to do so. As recently as 1996, the Republican Platform read:

“Because we trust our fellow Americans, rather than centralized government, we believe the people, acting through their State and local elected officials, should have control over programs like education and welfare - thereby pushing power away from official Washington and returning it to the people in their communities and states… We support elimination of the Departments of Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Education, and Energy, and the elimination, defunding or privatization of agencies which are obsolete, redundant, of limited value, or too regional in focus.”

Under Democrat President Bill Clinton, ED continued growing from spending of $32 billion in 1992 to $38 billion in 2000. However, ED received its fastest growth under Republican President George Bush II. From 2000 until 2008, Bush II more than doubled the budget, from $38 billion to a maximum of $100 billion spent in 2006 with spending plans like “No Child Left Behind.”

ED lowlights in 2008 included:

• $68.5 billion spent by the Department of Education in total
• $24 billion spent on post-secondary education, including many loans to college students
• $38 billion spent on elementary and secondary education
• $5.6 billion spent in what can best be described as ‘R&B’ – research and bureaucracy

Now, spending lots of money on education may seem like a good thing to the uninformed, but there have been no tanglible results over the past couple decades, if anything the exact opposite. Why is this so? Well, besides the wasteful spending on bureaucracy, a few points:

1. Similar to health care best being dealt between doctors and patients, education is best handled on the local level between parents and teachers. Both health care and the education of children are very important. Remember that when a Washington bureaucrat’s authority over the spending of funds is required, it is the child who suffers.

2. Federal mandates on education has the effect of stifling local diversity and choking off competition. What we want is a healthy competition of “50 laboratories” from state-to-state and between local areas, not a universal “one-size-fits-all” education. The more self-rule and autonomy by local communities provides local diversity and overall greater satisfaction for individual families.

3. The redistribution and control of federal funds (and certainly also on the state level) to localities makes local areas subservient to bureaucrats, even though, in most cases these are the exact same funds the taxpayer paid in to the federal and state governments. More local autonomy over funds increases both the efficiency and self-ownership over the spending of these funds.

4. It is also far easier for a parent to hold a local school board official accountable if this official is entrusted with all of the necessary responsibilities. Local communities that wanted to spend more on education could do still so, through either local taxation or – if one thinks outside the box for just a moment – fundraisers, fairs, and PTAs.

5. While Perkins Loans and Pell Grants for the purpose of college education seem like the greatest invention since sliced bread, their overall effect is to put bureaucrats in charge of the decisions in who receives which loans. Ever hear a parent complain about the cost of their kid’s college tuition? By flooding the market with credit, these government programs lead to colleges to both charge more and also become less efficient on fund allocation. [Note: The money-printing of the FED (inflation) is another root cause of rising tuition costs, to learn more read here.]

The Department of Education is one of many federal departments that, if they were to be abolished and disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow, almost no one would notice. The bureaucrats all would have to seek healthy new jobs providing goods or services in the private economy. The grant and loan programs could all be halted and existing accounts closed out.

A final point in closing: one should keep in mind that ED’s budget of $68 billion dollars is sufficient to pay for the entire core federal government. We could pay for all of these federal government departments: the US House, US Senate, the White House’s staff, the Supreme Court, FBI, and the federal court system. Hmmm…   just another reason why we don’t need a federal income tax.

_______________________________________________________________________

Jake Towne is running for U.S. Congress in Pennsylvania’s 15th District in the 2010 election as a citizen unaffiliated with any political parties. Jake also writes at www.LibertyMaven.com, www.NolanChart.comand www.CampaignForLiberty.com. A novel campaign website where you can comment on articles and start discussions is available at TowneForCongress.com.  [Reach the Author Here!]

_______________________________________________________________________

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As always, unlike the NFL, the author grants full permission to allow any accounts of, rebroadcasts, retransmissions, repostings of this article to your blog or anywhere else in order to promote the Restoration of our Republic.

Veritas numquam perit. Veritas odit moras. Veritas vincit. Truth never perishes. Truth hates delay. Truth conquers.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito. Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.

Even so, we must keep asking such questions. The more we ask, the more nervous Congress will become. Eventually, they will be forced to either answer our questions or admit publicly that they don’t care what the Constitution says.

We believe Congress’s refusal to answer our questions underscores the need for the Enumerated Powers Act (EPA). We urge you to demand that Congress pass this bill.

Since we last resported on the EPA in September, the House has increased the number of co-sponsors from 48 to 52, and the Senate increased its co-sponsor list from 21 to 22.

You can find House co-sponsors of the EPA here.

And co-sponsors of the Senate version are here.

If any of your House or Senate representatives has co-sponsored the bill, send them your congratulations and urge those who haven’t to do so.

In my personal comments, I also asked more questions . . .

“Two weeks ago I asked you about the Constitutionality of the War on Drugs, and you haven’t answered my questions. But the issue is larger than drugs. Congress is considering legislation that affects what food people can grow on their own land. Congress is also considering legislation that can force people to purchase health insurance against their will.

Do people not have a natural right to control their own person and property?

Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress to regulate commerce between the states and with other nations, but I see no provision that empowers Congress to control my life and property directly. Do you think I’m incorrect? Maybe I am. But if so, how?

If Congress presumes to tell us what to do with our own lives, shouldn’t it at least cite where it gets the authority to do so?

The Enumerated Powers Act is not a complicated proposal. If you believe the bills you support and sponsor are Constitutional, EPA won’t be a problem. That’s because all it requires is for Congress to specify the constitutional authority for the laws they pass.

But the longer you dodge these Constitutional questions, and the longer you avoid sponsoring the Enumerated Powers Act, the more I’ll be forced to conclude that you believe most bills you support are unconstitutional.”

You can send your message here.

And we encourage you to share this message with friends: http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/more-questions-for-congress

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

He said he was going to “grow the party” yet he finished his comments with “if you don’t like it you can leave!” Yeah, that seems like a good way to grow the party Lindsey.

Paul is going about his business defending the Constitution and bringing the GOP to young American patriots through the Campaign For Liberty. Paul educates with his books like his most recent “End the Fed” and last year’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto“. Meanwhile neo-conservatives and strangers to logic like Graham attempt to grow the party by shouting down those that would support them if they had any principles at all.

It is this lack of integrity and principle on display right now. Graham is the worst of the lot. Integrity, honesty, and principle are the ideological fuel to grow the Republican Party. That is the fuel of Ron Paul. Utilizing the Lindsey Graham infested fuel has already been attempted and failed.

Last time I checked John McCain wasn’t the President of the U.S. Although he could certainly be described as an angry white guy. Hmmm… maybe that’s who Graham was talking about after all.

In case you haven’t seen it already, here is the full video of the Graham town hall:

And here is the response from Ron Paul on CNN and MSNBC yesterday:

Citizens fed up with constitutional violations causing devastation to the economy and the Nation, are stepping up to join constitutional activist Robert L. Schulz, Chairman of We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, to prepare for a modern-day Continental Congress to take place November 8-22, 2009 at the Pheasant Run Conference Center in St. Charles, Illinois.  Continental Congress 2009 is not political or partisan and seeks to defend, not amend, the current Constitution.

Billed as the “next appropriate step for the free people of America,” planners hope the historic national assembly will inspire the critical mass necessary to restore constitutional governance. 153 citizen-nominated-and-elected Delegates – three from each state and Washington, D.C. — will convene for two weeks to methodically and factually document constitutional abuses which have taken place over many years, across many administrations, every branch of government and both parties.   Delegates will consider specific non-violent, legal civic actions to stop the wrongs.

To help finance the historic event a .999 pure silver CC2009 commemorative round will be given for each donation of $100.00 or more. Planners are also seeking bigger donors they are calling the “patriotic, brave and wealthy” who “understand what Continental Congress can do for America.” Furthermore, a money bomb is also in the works.

The decision to convene CC2009 comes after fourteen years of filing Petitions for Redress with the federal government for repeated violations of the Constitution by We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, a national 501 c3 non-profit with headquarters in New York. Schulz says The Right to petition was put in the First Amendment by the Founding Fathers, “who did not want Americans to ever again experience a situation where their individual rights or civil liberties were threatened.”  To date, this Right has never been recognized by the government nor defined in any court of law.  Schulz says it must now be used to hold elected officials accountable to the rest of the Constitution “which will shift the power from the government back to The People where it belongs.”

“Americans are waking up to the urgent need to stand strong for the Founding Principles and our Constitution, as every violation further devastates our economy and our way of life,” says Schulz.  “We all desire the same outcome: restoration of our Nation.  Continental Congress 2009 is the only strategy we see that is not political or partisan, does not rely on the electoral process, and can bring peaceful and legal solutions to our current situation.  We hope this effort can be the catalyst that brings the freedom-loving people of America together at this critical time,” he concludes.

Readers can learn more about CC2009,by going to www.cc2009.us

Also check out this video promoting the event:

But what about the department of energy? A little snippet from Doug Casey’s Daily Dispatch answer this one quite succinctly:

Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the Department of Energy…. during the Carter Administration? Anybody? No?

Didn’t think so! Ready??It was very simple… and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.
The  Department of Energy was instituted on 8-04-1977… to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

Hey, pretty efficient, huh???

And now it’s 2009 – 32 years later – and the budget for this “necessary” department is at $24.2 billion a year. They have 16,000 federal employees and approximately 100,000 contract employees. And look at the job they have done!

Good ole bureaucracy.

And now we are going to turn the banking system, healthcare, and the auto industry over to the same government? Hellooo! Anybody home?

You should ask Congress to give you the same option for your own transactions. Otherwise, you risk losing everything you’ve worked for.

Send another letter to Congress asking them to repeal the legal tender law that forces you to do business ONLY in Federal Reserve Notes. In your personal comments use the latest news about countries dropping the dollar for oil transactions.

Here’s what I wrote in my letter to Congress . . .

Several countries are making plans to stop using Federal Reserve Notes for oil purchases. I want the same freedom for my personal transactions.

The Fed has nearly doubled the money supply since last Fall. This will cut the future value of my savings in half and send my cost of living through the roof. Add to that . . .

* The $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare
* Your big bailout schemes,
* Your so-called stimulus package,
* Your cap and trade boondoggle,
* Your disastrous healthcare plans, and the result is . . .

I see no hope for the dollar. You guys have ruined our currency, and I WANT OUT.

If foreigners can stop using Federal Reserve Notes, I should have the same freedom. Why should foreigners have more right to control their own economic destiny than I do?

Many in Washington claim they want to protect the Fed’s independence. What about my independence? I just want you to repeal the legal tender law so I can use forms of money other than Federal Reserve Notes (like gold and silver for instance). Doing this would also moderate the Fed’s behavior. If they want me to keep using Federal Reserve Notes then they’ll have to stop their legalized counterfeiting activities.

Please represent me. Break the Federal Reserve’s money monopoly. Give me the same right that foreigners have.

You can send your own letter to Congress using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

Jim Babka, President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Resources:

* A news report on plans to stop using the dollar for oil purchases
* The Federal Reserve’s report on the expanding size of the money supply
* Brother Can You Spare a FRAUD? (Federal Reserve Accounting Unit, the Dollar)

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

& Downsize DC Foundation