One book near the top of my must-read list is Thomas DiLorenzo’s Hamilton’s Curse. Having previously read The Real Lincoln and listened to DiLorenzo speak in person and on talk shows like Baltimore’s Ron Smith Show, I am already a fan. Today at the Future of Freedom Foundation, George C. Leef references DiLorenzo’s book as he gives his own scathing rundown of how Hamilton and his legacy has greatly ruined this country. Here’s a small piece:
…Hamilton looks pleasant enough in his portrait on our $10 bill, but he was an arrogant egomaniac.
Hamilton was a determined opponent of Jefferson’s laissez-faire philosophy at every turn. When it came to trade, he demanded high protective tariffs because he thought, in the mercantilistic tradition, that if a nation produced “its own” goods rather than purchasing them from “other countries” it would become stronger. Mercantilism was inseparable from economic nationalism — the foolish and destructive idea that political boundaries have great economic significance. (We still suffer grievously from this idiocy, of course.) Individual American consumers would be harmed by artificially high prices for items they might have bought less expensively from producers in other countries, but Hamilton was not concerned about the problems of individuals. His obsession was with “strengthening” the nation.
In the early years of the United States, Hamilton battled against Jefferson’s reading of the Constitution as placing severe limits on federal authority. To Hamilton and his Federalist allies, the wording of the Constitution, especially the enumerated powers of Congress, meant nothing more than an intellectual game of trying to invent interpretations that gave the government “inherent” powers that it was not specifically given. Contrary to the sensible, restrictive reading of the Constitution defended by Jefferson, Hamilton insisted that the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses were meant to give the federal government almost limitless powers.
Leef then goes on to discuss the traitorous presidencies of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and disasters in the form of the 17th Amendment, the income tax, and the Federal Reserve Act. I highly recommend reading the entire article.
As part of the platform that got him elected almost a year ago, Barack Obama promised not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 annually. But now he’s seriously pushing the idea that all citizens be forced to carry health insurance or else the IRS will impose a penalty. And he claims this isn’t a tax.
In an interview on Sunday, George Stephanopoulos grilled President Obama by asking the rather obvious question, “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money [to buy insurance], fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?”
Jeff Jacoby’s op-ed on Boston.com discusses the president’s response:
Obama replied that the individual mandate “is absolutely not a tax increase,’’ since, in his view, there is good reason to impose it. He stuck to that position even when confronted with Merriam-Webster’s definition of “tax’’ – “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.’’
But the only one “stretching’’ was the president, whose position was at odds with the legislation itself. “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax,’’ notes the committee staff report on the Baucus bill. “The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed.’’
“George,’’ chided Obama, “the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary . . . indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now.’’
Jacoby’s excellent piece goes on to explain how mandatory insurance is indeed nothing more than a tax. Read it here.
As part of the New Deal, Franklin D. Roosevelt confiscated all privately-owned gold and made it illegal to own the shiny metal, and fixed its price. Jim Powell of the Future of Freedom Foundation goes through the history of the disastrous actions taken by FDR and the aftermath.
Roosevelt understood that he must apply the full force of federal power to suppress the natural desire for gold in troubled times. The Emergency Banking Act, signed into law March 9, amended the Federal Reserve Act by adding a new subsection (n), which empowered the secretary of the Treasury to demand that all Americans surrender their gold and receive paper money. The following day, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6073, which made it illegal for Americans to take gold out of the country.
In his first “fireside chat,” delivered on March 12, Roosevelt didn’t say a word about his backstage maneuvering to seize gold. He remarked that “hoarding during the past week has become an exceedingly unfashionable pastime.”
Less than a month later, on April 5, 1933, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6012, which expropriated privately owned gold. He ordered Americans to surrender their gold to the government by May 1, 1933. Violators would be subject to a $10,000 fine or as many as 10 years in prison.
A man who had the gall to exercise his Constitutional right to bear arms has come under fire, so to speak. The man, William Kostric, chose to open carry his handgun in a leg holster while holding up a sign prior to an Obama Town Hall meeting in New Hampshire the other day. What the hell was this guy thinking? Let’s find out…
See the following video from MSNBC reporting the story while it was happening:
The sign he happens to be holding doesn’t help calm fears about this man’s intentions, but think about it. If he were intending to do harm to anyone why would he be advertising that he has a weapon? He attempts to clear things up a bit when he was a guest on Hardball later in the day.
The good news is that some of the most egregious trial balloons from earlier bills such as H.R. 875 have gone by the wayside . . .
* There will be no new Food Safety Administration bureaucracy
* The bill seems to define “farm” in such a way that backyard gardens won’t be included in the regulations
* Direct farm-to-consumer, farm-to-restaurant, and farm-to-grocery store transactions will be exempt
* There is no implementation or incorporation of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS)
YOU are to be thanked for this. DC Downsizers were part of a large army of concerned citizens that killed earlier bills.
But the bad news is very bad. This bill . . .
* authorizes warrantless searches of farms
* imposes a $500 tax (or “registration fee”) of all operators in all steps of the food production chain
* imposes civil penalties up to $20,000 per individual for each violation
* creates a food trace-back system, burdening farms and small businesses with reams of new paperwork
* empowers the Dept. of Health and Human Services to micro-manage the raising and harvesting of crops (you might have assumed that Congress would’ve handed the U.S. Dept of Agriculture this terrible power).
In essence, Congress wants to punish the innocent and protect the guilty. It is not small farms and businesses that were the source of contaminated food scares, but rather the processing facilities of large corporations. Yet this bill will only drive small farms out of business, which means reduced competition and higher prices in an already-bad economy.
Please use DownsizeDC.org’s proprietary Educate the Powerful System to send a letter to Congress telling them to defeat H.R. 2749. Tell them the bill will only hurt competition and put undue burdens on small farmers. Let’s send enough messages to frighten Congress and kill this bill.
Quote of the Day: “I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.)” — Friedrich Nietzsche
This is why Congressional leaders are in such a rush to pass the bill. They know things will only get worse for their dreams of government controlled health care. We have to keep pushing to stop a rushed vote, and the latest news indicates we may be succeeding.
If we can win this victory now the prospects for true health care reform in a free market direction will become much better.
Today, we can continue to say no to government controlled health care by saying yes to two bills introduced by Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX). . .
When he ran for office President Obama promised us he would oppose any legal requirement that Americans would have to buy health insurance. He’s broken his promise (along with so many others). Such a mandate would represent a huge tax increase on the American people, especially since government regulations make health insurance more expensive than it would be in a free market.
You can say “No” to President Obama’s health insurance mandate/tax by saying yes to HR 2629.
You can also say “No” to plans for the federal government to control your health care decisions through electronic medial records, by saying yes to HR 2630, the “Protect Patients and Physicians Privacy Act.” This bill would . . .
* Allow you to opt out of any federal scheme for electronic medical records.
* Repeal the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ authority to create a unique health identifier number.
* Prohibit the use of federal funds to support, encourage, or otherwise promote the use of a standard unique health identifier for any federal, state or private health care plan.
* Require informed consent for the sharing of any personal medical information created pursuant to any federal scheme for electronic medical records.
* Prohibit your health information from being included in any federal database without your consent.
* Prohibit the federal government from requiring health care providers to participate in any federal scheme for electronic medical records
* Prohibit sanctions against health care providers who refuse to participate in the federal scheme for electronic medical records.
This time use your personal comments to say the following (you can cut and paste if you want) . . .
Please protect my health care by supporting HR 2629, the “Coercion Is Not Health Care Act,” and HR 2630, the “Protect Patients and Physicians Privacy Act.”
Quote of the Day: “Yesterday Democrats in the House introduced a 1,000-page national health-care plan. To make sure at least some people read it, they named it ‘Harry Potter and the Half-Pound Proposal.’” – Conan O’Brien During the Presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised he’d do something Congress wouldn’t, post bills on the Internet for five days after passage before signing them into law. Yet he has failed to do this for any bill, and now has formally changed abandoned his promise.
It’s easy to see why. Consider the AIG bonus provision in the stimulus bill. Had Obama waited five days to sign the bill the bonus provision would likely have been exposed sooner, and Obama would have been pressured to send the bill back to Congress. But it was the Obama Administration that wanted the provision in the first place!
Some may say that Obama didn’t personally know about the AIG bonus provision, but that’s not the point. The point is, Obama’s a party leader and political parties exist in order to raise money for themselves and grant favors to those who help elect them to power. Obama may not have known about the AIG swindle, but he appointed the people who pressured the Democratic Congress to pass it.
More than lobbyists, the most corrupting influence on Congress is the President of the United States. This is the dirty little secret of American politics. Most provisions of bills that increase the size, scope, and power of government aren’t written by a lobbyist, or an ideologue in Congress, but rather by the Administration. This is how it works regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat is in the White House.
Congress is now considering whether the federal government should take total control of your health care. Most of the legislation they’re considering wasn’t written by them, but by the Obama Administration.
Is it so unreasonable to tell Congress to at least know what it is they’re passing?
The 1,017-page health care bill (H.R. 3200) was introduced on July 14 and already two committees have approved it. It’s hard to believe that any staff member of these committees read the bill in full, let alone any member of the committee. It will be harder to believe that any other member of Congress will have time to read it before it comes to a vote.
Ron Paul has HR1207 and over 267 cosponsors. The Senate has S604 and 8 cosponsors. Demanding Federal Reserve transparency is coming from all sides. Vern McKinley, who ran unsuccessfully against Frank Wolf in the 2008 10th district of Virginia’s GOP primary, has been fighting for transparency over the last several months using the law.
Such shenanigans are not new, but they’re increasingly commonplace. The American people are growing disgusted that Congress doesn’t read the bills they pass. They’re tired of Congress’s lack of transparency and failure of representation.
This solution scares the Establishment. That’s why other organizations are stepping in with watered-down proposals.
One foundation seeks to “foster public trust in government,” not to downsize it. They want bills posted on-line for 72 hours before they’re considered on the House floor. But most people with jobs and families can’t read a 1,400 bill in three days. Think tanks, journalists, and activist groups won’t have enough time to analyze it either. Moreover, this proposed rule can be overturned in case of “emergency,” which means everything would become an emergency.
Another organization threatens to turn “reading the bills” into a sickening partisan issue. It actually boasts of its efforts on behalf of George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004. It wants members of Congress to sign a pledge that they will not vote for the health care reform bill if they haven’t read it and if it hasn’t been posted on the Internet for, yes, 72 hours.
Why don’t they have this pledge for other bills?
The drawback of such a proposal is that . . .
Republicans who won’t vote for the bill anyway can easily sign this pledge
Democratic leaders will view reading the bills as a partisan grandstanding issue rather than a substantive reform
They could rightfully ask why Republicans weren’t so keen on reading bills when they were in power.
In contrast, DownsizeDC.org first proposed the Read the Bills Act in 2005, when Republicans were in power, in reaction to Bush bills like the Patriot Act, Intelligence Reorganization, and the Medicare Drug Benefit.
The Read the Bills Act is the “real deal” . . .
It requires bills to be read by a quorum in Congress. They won’t sit for 1,000 page readings, so bills will be much shorter.
Those who were not present for the reading must sign an affidavit stating that they have read and understand the bill before voting for it.
Bills in their final, amended form must be posted on the Internet for a full week before the final vote is taken, giving more people more time to read them and give their representatives informed feedback.
No exceptions can be made.
Tell Congress to introduce and pass DownsizeDC.org’s Read the Bills Act. Also tell them . . .
this isn’t a partisan issue; the first version of the RTBA was written in 2005 in reaction to the GOP Congress
while regulatory agencies often allow a month or more for comments, the RTBA requires only a week for finalized bills to be posted on the Internet
watered-down reforms like the 72-hour rule are cosmetic changes that won’t stop scandalous 1,400 page bills from being passed
Directly inspired by DownsizeDC.org, California businessman Jerrol LeBaron has the idea that his state legislators should also be required to read the bills. One advantage in California is he doesn’t have to pressure the State Assembly and Senate — he can go directly to the people. Through California’s initiative-and-referendum process, LeBaron intends to put California’s own version of a Read the Bills Act on the ballot for voters to pass. LeBaron has created Honor in Office to accomplish this.
It is gratifying to see DC Downsizer ideas spread through the country. Success in California will inspire movements in other states and hasten success at the federal level. As the name of the California group suggests, reading the bills really is a matter of honor. An elected legislator really has no other job but to understand what he or she is doing to the people. Otherwise, why have elected representatives at all?
Yet, over the past three weeks, the House and Senate combined to pass 50 bills totaling 2,904 pages. These bills were not read on the floor. They weren’t read by members in their personal time. Most weren’t even read in committee.
Liberty Maven
Follow LM on Twitter