Liberty Maven

“All Warfare is Deception… There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited.” – Sun Tzu, circa 250 BC

Originally published on November 14, 2009, at http://towneforcongress.com/platform-issues/afghanistan-war

While Republican Bush II once famously claimed he was “the decider,” the ‘Change We Can Believe In’ promised by his replacement, the Democrat Obama, is hardly any different in regards to the Afghanistan and Pakistan wars.  The media and American people breathlessly await the President’s decision on how many troops to send into the war zone.  With spines made of jelly, Congress is as toothless as a bunch of newborns as they delegate their responsibilities to represent the American people to a single man.  What could they ‘Change’ instead?

Congress could refuse to approve spending to extend this unconstitutional war of aggression against Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Congress should instead pass a resolution for a rapid, immediate, and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan and redeployment to protect America’s sieve-like borders.  Congress could increase the reward for the capture of Osama Bin Laden forty times from $27 million to over $1 billion.  Congress should also issue constitutional letters of marque to bring indicted terrorists to justice in a court of law.

To support this stance, I offer the following four key points: First, elected officials must begin behaving like the United States is a nation of laws, not a collection of rogues who delegate their gravest responsibility and immaturely fail to follow the supreme law of the land and declare war. Second, America’s historical foreign policy actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan must be understood, which contain the true reasons why terrorists attacked the United States in 2001. Third, a sober look at the eco-politics of the area, such as opiates and oil pipelines, must be taken. Lastly, we should contain the problem by securing our borders, and with all of the economic unrest, now is no time to be nation-building and quartering troops in foreign lands.    Read More »

When all the high-fives, handshakes, and hip-hip hoorays finish dying down a bit of reality overcomes the Ron Paul, anti-Fed faithful. In order for Ron Paul’s full Federal Reserve audit to become law it requires Paul to swim in uncomfortable waters. He must compromise his principles. So the celebrations must be tempered with the hard truth that is DC politics. It is indeed a bittersweet symphony.

Ron Paul’s efforts at having HR.1207 voted on as a standalone bill never really had a chance. Instead, it will arrive to the House floor attached to Barney Frank’s little boy, his comprehensive financial regulatory reform bill. The draft legislation grants new powers to the Federal Reserve and creates more regulatory controls over the market. If the free market is god, this bill is the devil. However, the bill will now have something good attached to it now that HR.1207 was added to it as an amendment.

Ron Paul makes a name for himself by always considering the Constitution while weighing his votes. Should Paul supporters expect him to don his Dr. No mask when his 30+ year fight against the central bank finally comes to a vote on the House floor? Will Paul vote against auditing the Fed because it is attached to an obviously unconstitutional bill? The libertarian purists among us may expect him to do so, but I expect him to vote for the evil to get the good. In fact, I would expect most if not all Paul supporters will give him a pass on this one. Tell us what you think in the comments section to this article.

He has already indicated what he will do in his press release covering yesterday’s committee vote:

“While HR 3996, if passed, will grant sweeping new powers to the Federal Reserve, at least with this amendment attached, it won’t be acting in secret anymore. This is a major victory for Federal Reserve transparency and government accountability. I am very grateful to Congressman Bachus and all the other Members who were so supportive and helpful in this effort,” stated Congressman Paul.

An argument could be made (and Paul seems to be implying it by his quote) that the financial regulatory reform bill is going to pass anyway and with Paul’s audit included in it, the bill’s attack on the free market will be softened. If they gut Paul’s amendment (like Mel Watt and Barney Frank tried to do in committee) as it moves closer to a floor vote it wouldn’t be shocking to see Dr. Paul morph into Dr. No once again.

So it is certainly bittersweet, but at least it’s not all bitter and no sweet.

——————————————-

UPDATE: It looks like Paul will still push for a separate vote on HR.1207 as a standalone bill. I don’t think those in power will let it happen, but I never thought his bill would get as far as it has already, so we’ll see.

Below is a link to the list of House Financial Committee members and how they voted on the Paul-Grayson amendment which passed committee earlier today. The amendment was a substitute for the evil Watt amendment. Paul’s amendment will now move forward along with the financial regulatory reform bill instead of Watt’s bill.

Of course, there is still ample opportunity for Paul’s bill to be gutted once again, but for now liberty-lovers should be quite happy that a big hurdle has been cleared.

Vote totals and details:

• 43 yeas / 26 nays

• 15 Democrats and 28 Republicans voted YES.

• All 26 nay votes were from Democrats. No Republicans voted NO.

The full list of names and the way they voted can be found here (PDF).

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!

This nifty short play is a reaction to the pending health care reform efforts being pushed by our lawmakers. Sometimes you reach a point when laughing is all you can do because it “hurts” less.

This was submitted to us by author, Clyde James Aragon. He writes:

THE HEALTH REFORM PLAN TOWN HALL MEETING – THE NON-MUSICAL is a ten-minute comedy play about the health care ‘reform’ bill and is a humorous way of looking at a very scary situation. Curious, but informed citizens, meet at a town hall meeting to ask questions of their representatives on Health Care Reform.

This play is being distributed free of charge and the author, Clyde James Aragon, only asks that should it be performed, no admission be charged and that the author be given credit as having written it.

The author is an Albuquerque, New Mexico humor writer and can be reached at bookhumor@yahoo.com

You may also download the PDF here for printing out and potentially performing it at your next Tea Party event.

————————————————————-
THE HEALTH REFORM PLAN TOWN HALL MEETING
- THE NON-MUSICAL -

a one-act play by © Clyde James Aragon

CAST OF CHARACTERS:

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN
REPRESENTATIVE FLOWMASTER
CITIZEN #1
CITIZEN #2
CITIZEN #3
CITIZEN #4

COMEDY: 10 pages. 6 characters to be played by: 3 men; 3 woman.

SYNOPSIS: Curious, but informed citizens, meet at a town hall meeting to ask questions of their representatives on Health Care Reform. This is a ten-minute comedy play about the health care ‘reform’ bill and is a humorous way of looking at a very scary situation.

PROPS: 6 folding chairs

* * * This play is being distributed free of charge and the author, Clyde James Aragon, only asks that should it be performed, no admission be charged and that the author be given credit as having written it. * * *

**************

THE HEALTH REFORM PLAN TOWN HALL MEETING
- THE NON-MUSICAL -

a one-act play by Clyde James Aragon

(on a bare stage, two politicians, seated in folding chairs, face four citizens intent on asking the politicians questions on their health reform plan)

CITIZEN #4 (addressing the audience and then sitting down): The other day there was a town hall meeting in Montana over the new health reform bill which was presented by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and passed by the House of Representatives. The public was invited and allowed to ask questions of the two members of the House of Representatives, Representative Bullhorn and Flowmaster, who showed up. Many things were said and, after adjourning quietly after three hours of questioning, these excerpts were extracted from the minutes of that meeting:

CITIZEN #1 (raising hand and then speaking): Representative Bullhorn, the new House health care plan is almost 2,000-pages long. How do you expect anyone to read it, let alone understand it?

Read More »

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 »

by John Browne – Senior Market Strategist, Euro Pacific Capital

Last week, the Fed extended its emergency economic powers, which include lending to the money center banks at zero interest. A few days later, the Fed’s plan was reinforced by similar announcements from the rest of the G-20. The road map the authorities are providing for the near-term global economy can’t be much clearer. There will be no cessation of the seemingly endless supply of cheap dollars being pumped into the financial system. With the world apparently in complete accord on the need for ever more liquidity, stock markets are staging an easy-money rally. The main line media is almost euphoric. But what should investors make of this seemingly good news?

This time last year, the world faced a meltdown of its financial systems and a potential depression. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, a renowned expert on the Great Depression, coordinated an international rescue of the toxic financial system. Although the bill for these operations has yet to come due, almost all agree it will prove costly to present and future generations. For now at least, the most significant impact of these policies has been the creation of a liquidity bubble in stocks and a surge in commodities.

However, any efforts to reduce these stimuli will result in an immediate correction toward our previous depressionary trajectory. Acceptance of this uncomfortable truth is a political third rail. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that any major government will change course. Rather, the change will be thrust upon them.

It could have been argued that some of the actions taken last year were worth the cost if they had corrected the dangerous deficiencies in the financial system. But after a year, what has changed? The same behemoth banks remain, but even larger and yet more demanding of federal salvation. That particular risk has been increased rather than reduced.

Read More »

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.

“Soldiers’ supreme wish is to avoid war, for the costs are inevitably paid with their blood and brains.“ – Jake Towne

November 11, 2009 11:11 AM

Today, many Americans take a moment to remember the veterans that have fulfilled their oaths to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies foreign and domestic.”  All too many have paid the ultimate price, many defending their fellow soldiers, and many believing they were defending their countrymen.  I am sure that this year the all-too-fresh Fort Hood tragedy will be on the minds of all veterans.  As I stated in the campaign’s veterans plank:

“Service members shoulder a heavy burden when they volunteer to risk their lives in defense of our country. They perform a necessary function in our society and for their service veterans receive deserved benefits and gratitude. However, the greatest way to honor them is to keep them out of unnecessary conflict. The only just war is one carried out in self-defense, as a non-aggressor, and as a last resort.

“It’s important that we have a strong military to deter attacks against the our country and protect it when attacked. However, asking our young men and women to participate in unjust war is a moral abyss that we as a country should never leap into. If we aspire to be a just nation ruled by laws we must resolve to never ask our military men and women to engage in unconstitutional warfare and nation-building missions.”

Honor our soldiers abroad by bringing them home to protect our borders.  Never EVER accept the shipping their bodies and brains to a war zone without a constitutional declaration of war.  Read More »

Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve (HR.1207) has over 300 cosponsors, well above 2/3rds of the House, including every single House Republican. A few days ago an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal arguing that the Federal Reserve is already transparent enough and that a full audit would be overkill and dangerous. They write:

Economic theory and massive amounts of empirical evidence make a strong case for maintaining the Fed’s independence. When central banks are subjected to political pressure, authorities often pursue excessively expansionary monetary policy in order to lower unemployment in the short run. This produces higher inflation and higher interest rates without lowering unemployment in the long term. This has happened over and over again in the past, not only in the United States but in many other countries throughout the world.

The Fed’s independence is critical to its credibility. During the financial crisis, this credibility allowed the Fed to take extraordinary action to prevent a possible depression without triggering inflation. But eventually the Fed will have to scale back its unprecedented monetary accommodation. When it does move to tighten monetary conditions, it must be allowed to do so without political interference.

This is a tired argument at this point. The bottom line, once again, is that the Fed cannot “maintain its independence” when it is not independent to begin with. It is politicized already and it is plainly obvious to most observers without an axe to grind. The fact that this opinion piece appears in the WSJ at all is evidence in itself of this. It’s always important to consider the sources. The authors of the piece are both “in bed with the Fed”, so to speak.

Anil Kashyup was “an economist for the Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve System. He currently works as a consultant for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and serves as a member of the Economic Advisory Panel of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and as a Research Associate for the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).” His faculty bio page is here.

Frederic Mishkin is a former member of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve (2006-2008). Perhaps more telling is the following juicy bit:

In 2006, Mishkin co-authored a report called “Financial Stability in Iceland”. The report maintained that Iceland’s economic fundamentals were strong. The report was commissioned by the Icelandic Chamber of Commerce in response to critical coverage of the Icelandic economy and certain Icelandic companies in the international business media.

Iceland subsequently experienced a spectacular collapse within a year of Mishkin’s good report.

So, considering the sources, this WSJ opinion piece should be ignored and ostracized as the comments on the article are already showing.