Liberty Maven

By now we all know the story. Mel Watt introduced an amendment on the big financial regulatory reform bill that “gutted” Ron Paul’s HR.1207 Fed audit bill. Today, Ron Paul introduced a substitute amendment to that amendment that puts the “guts” back in to the audit. Effectively, Paul’s amendment is HR.1207 with a bit more detailed language regarding monetary policy oversight.

Paul’s amendment passed, first by voice vote, and then by roll call vote later in the day. The final tally was 43 for Paul’s bill and 26 against.

Earlier I posted Grayson and Watt debating Watt’s amendment and Ron Paul introducing his substitute amendment. Below are four new videos from the markup hearing. This includes the voice vote and the final roll call vote so you can hear which of the committee members need to be voted out of office in their next election cycle.

First up is Ron Paul arguing (yet again) why Fed transparency is not a call for injecting Congress into Fed policy decisions.

Next we have Barney Frank patting himself on the back again for bringing Ron Paul’s Fed audit legislation up in the committee. There’s a bit of humorous back and forth then Congressman Hensarling rips Frank for his comments a bit by calling them “irrelevant”.

Here are the leadup comments from Alan Grayson and co., then the voice vote on adopting Ron Paul’s substitute amendment.

And finally, the official roll call vote of Ron Paul’s substitute amendment. Ron Paul wins!

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Please send Congress a letter using an anti-bribery argument to oppose the cancerous healthcare bill.

You can copy or borrow from my letter to Congress to write your own . . .

Please oppose the so-called healthcare reform bill. I especially object to the fact that my tax dollars are being used to bribe members of Congress to secure their votes, or to reward powerful Senators. For instance . . .

The Baucus bill has the federal government paying the entire cost for the mandated Medicaid expansion in the following states: Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island and Michigan. This is an attempt to bribe or reward the Senators and Representatives from those states using my tax money.

Other states aren’t getting this sweet deal. Citizens in the other 46 states will have to pay higher taxes to fund this scheme.

I’m sure the so-called heathcare bill is stuffed with other sweetheart deals, designed to win key votes. You guys call this logrolling. I call it bribery. The only reason Congressional leaders get away with it is because they’re using my tax money to do the bribing, but that makes it worse, not better.

Frankly, I think any Congressional leader who offers a tax-funded benefit for a state or district in order to secure a vote, and any member of Congress who negotiates to gain such a benefit, should be brought up on charges and go to jail for violating the anti-bribery law.

Read More »

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

We hear stories so often about how secret back-room deals are struck in order “secure” votes for a particular piece of legislation that the following is hardly news.  But if you’re even slightly masochistic, read on.  It certainly made me sick:

Rep. Dennis Cardoza just couldn’t take yes for an answer.

Democratic leaders thought they knew how to lock in his vote. They’d add a last-minute provision authorizing up to $500 million to create medical centers that could benefit a college in Cardoza’s California district.

He’d vote for the health reform bill.

Usually that’s enough: Give a lawmaker his “ask,” and get his vote. But according to several sources familiar with the situation, Cardoza wanted more — a guarantee that the program would actually be funded — before he would agree to cast a “yes.”

He spent much of Friday and Saturday on the phone with Rob Nabors, the No. 2 man in the White House budget office, and a good portion of Saturday holed up in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office.

Nabors, Pelosi and countless other administration and congressional officials worked to seal the deal. Cardoza voted for the bill and issued a Saturday press release proclaiming his victory for the local community.

The article continues on politico.com.

Each time a new member of the U.S. House Representatives is sworn into office, he or she is administered the following oath:

I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Similarly, each new Senator must submit the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Despite this, almost none of the 535 members of Congress take this oath seriously.  Either they are atheists who do not care about the religious and humanistic consequences of violating these oaths, or they have subscribed to the faulty notion that the Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of the Constitution somehow trumps the words of the Constitution itself — which of course is impossible because it’s the Constitution that gives the various parts of government, including the Supreme Court, its powers, not to mention the fact that this governing document declares itself the Supreme Law of the Land.  Indeed, Article VI of the Constitution explicitly states:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

So given the clear fact that the Constitution, as written, is the ultimate rulebook, and members of Congress swear to “support and defend” the Constitution, it certainly gives a rational person pause when the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives not only pushes a blatantly unconstitutional bill (in the form of health care “reform”) but virtually laughs in the face of a reporter who asks “Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” Without blinking, Pelosi’s immediate reply was an incredulous, “Are you serious?”

Walter E. Williams explores this exchange in his latest commentary entitled, “A Minority View: Constitutional Contempt”:

…Later on, Pelosi’s press spokesman Nadeam Elshami told CNSNews.com about its question regarding constitutional authority mandating that individual Americans buy health insurance. “You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

Suppose Congress was debating a mandate outlawing tea-party-type protests and other large gatherings criticizing Congress. A news reporter asks Nancy Pelosi where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to outlaw peaceable assembly. How would you feel if she answered, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” and ignored the question. And what if, later on, someone from her office sent you a press release, as was sent to CNS News, saying that Congress has “broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce,” pointing out that demonstrations cause traffic jams and therefore interferes with interstate commerce?

Continue reading Walter E. Williams’ article here.

With the USA Patriot Act set to expire at the end of this year, and Congress mulling around even more nefarious replacements for it, it’s time to keep in mind the major items in it that make it evil (as compiled by the ACLU):

1. Search your home and not even tell you… by conducting secret “sneak and peek” searches of your home or office, without informing you that a warrant was issued.  (SECTION 213)
2. Collect information about what books you read, what you study, your purchases, your medical history and your personal finances … without probable cause.  (SECTION 215)
3. Label you a “terrorist” if you belong to an activist group … and the USA PATRIOT Act broadly expands the official definition of terrorism, so many domestic groups that engage in certain types of civil disobedience could very well find themselves labeled as terrorists.  (SECTIONS 411, 802)
4. Monitor your e-mails and watch what internet sites you visit … by monitoring Internet traffic and e-mail communications
   on any Internet service provider — *without* probable cause. (SECTION 216)
5. Take away your properly without even a notice or a hearing if the government merely says a person or organization has engaged in or is planning an act of “domestic terrorism.” The government could thus effectively bankrupt an organization with which it disagrees.  (SECTION 806)
6. Spy on innocent Americans by allowing a vast array of information on U.S. citizens to be collected and shared with the CIA (and other non-law enforcement officials) without proper judicial oversight or other safeguards.   (SECTIONS 203 AND 901)
7. Put immigrants in jail indefinitely.  The USA PATRIOT Act permits indefinite incarceration of immigrants and other non-citizens without the government having to show that they are, in fact, terrorists.  (SECTION 412)
8. Wiretap you under a warrant that doesn’t even have your name on it. Judges are required to approve a wiretap without even knowing who is to be wiretapped or where the wiretap is to be placed.  (SECTION 216)

Read more here and here.

As noted in a story by James W. Harris at The Advocates for Self-Government, a group that wants to provide free medical care to out nation’s poor is being blocked by government bureaucrats:

An organization of volunteer doctors and other health care professionals wants to provide free medical care to tens of thousands of poor people across America.

But — incredibly — government bureaucrats won’t let them.

That’s the extraordinary story told by journalist David Freddoso in the Washington Examiner newspaper.

The article begins this way:

“Stan Brock just wants to help. The former co-star of ‘Wild Kingdom’ wants to deliver free medical, dental and vision care to the poor. … Brock simply wants to provide care free of charge, at the hands of unpaid volunteer doctors and dentists using donated equipment.

“Brock’s group, Remote Area Medical, wants to bring its services to Washington [D.C.], and soon. He wants his volunteer eye doctors to grind new glasses on the spot for those having trouble seeing.

“He wants his dentists to pull rotten teeth and perform root canals in badly neglected mouths. He wants to give checkups and HIV tests to the uninsured and the underinsured. No questions asked.

“The only question is whether the bureaucrats will let him do it.”

Continue the story…

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

We’re pleased to welcome BJ Lawson to the pages of the Downsizer-Dispatch as a Commentator.

Here’s BJ’s first call to action . . .

Your success promoting the Audit the Fed bills has scared the banking cartel into offering a fake alternative, the so-called Federal Reserve Accountability Act (S 1803).

Please send Congress a letter opposing S 1803, and favoring the real Audit the Fed bill, S 604.

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.

END OF SAMPLE LETTER

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

Read More »

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Subject: Our first press release to the national media

Your work has made “reading the bills” a national issue. You accomplished this with zero help from the media. Now Congress and other groups are piggy-backing on your work, attempting to steal both your steam and your thunder, pushing non-reforms like H. Res. 554. Do you . . .

* Want to stake a claim to the results of your work and the need for the real “Read the Bills Act?”
* Let the media know what the “real deal” is

If so, here’s what we want to send to the national media early next week . . .

“It will pave the way for our Read the Bills Act,” declared Jim Babka, President of DownsizeDC.org.

DownsizeDC.org created its “Read the Bills Act” (RTBA) in 2005. Constituents have bombarded their representatives in Congress with a quarter-million letters supporting RTBA. Babka has also presented it to beltway groups.

“Public pressure and my presentations are what led the Republicans to pick-up ‘reading the bills’ as a talking point. But when the people witness how worthless their approach is, demands to pass our RTBA will increase.”

The 72-hour rule makes cosmetic changes to House rules.

House members are supposed to receive readable copies of bills three days before a vote. The rule is rarely followed.

The rule changes that time requirement from 3 days to… 72 hours.

It also requires that the public gets the bill at the same time. Babka likes this real change, however…

“It’s only a rule; not a law. So it can be waived in many instances, and doesn’t apply in others. There’s no enforcement mechanism to penalize Congress when they violate their rules. And three days isn’t nearly enough time to read the monster-sized bills Congress routinely passes.”

DownsizeDC.org’s ‘Read the Bills Act’ can’t be waived and requires Congress to…

* Read the entire bill out-loud before a quorum
* Post all bills on the Internet for seven days before voting

If ignorance of the law is no defense for citizens, such ignorance must not be permitted to Congress. That’s why RTBA also provides citizens with a solid legal defense against laws passed in violation of these requirements. Babka concluded:
Read More »

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Quote of the Day: “While few would argue that criminals ought to be able to keep the proceeds of their crimes, civil forfeiture allows the government to seize and keep property without actually having to prove a crime was committed in the first place. . . . Proceeds from civil forfeiture at the state and local level usually go back to the police departments and prosecutors’ offices, giving them a clear and unmistakable incentive to seize as much property as often as possible.” – Radley Balko

Such outrages are nothing new in the War on Drugs, but we’re seeing more abuses as criminal law becomes increasingly federalized. For instance, federal agents are now exploiting the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act to seize bank accounts and computers.

The leader of a new Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering task force admits that unlike criminal cases where the suspect is presumed innocent until proved guilty, in civil asset forfeiture cases . . .

* if you lose property to an asset forfeiture seizure you must prove your innocence in order to get it back
* you have no 5th amendment protections — even your silence can be used against you

Civil asset forfeiture is also alive and well at the local level, where police steal money from citizens in order to pay for new equipment.

Under Illinois law, the state can withhold cash, cars, or other property for six months without even a preliminary hearing! Under the law, three innocent people had to wait over a year to get their cars back. They, along with three innocent people who had money stolen from them, have argued the Constitutionality of the Illinois law.

The “good” news is that this law will be argued in the Supreme Court this month in Alvarez v. Smith.

The bad news is that the most positive outcome is likely to be only a reduction of the time you must wait before a preliminary hearing. The Court isn’t expected to strike down the law, even though civil asset forfeiture proceedings clearly violate the 14th Amendment provision that no state “can deprive any person of . . . property, without due process of law.”

Congress can do what the Court will not. Tell your representatives to abolish Civil Asset Forfeiture using our Educate the Powerful System.

Use your personal comments to mention the example of the widow who may lose her home because her now dead husband grew marijuana that he used to ease his pain from cancer.

You can send your message here.

Read More »