Liberty Maven

Ron Paul is a hypocrite on health care along with 54 other Republicans, according to House Democrat Anthony Weiner (NY).

WASHINGTON, DC—A new study by Representative Anthony Weiner (D – Queens & Brooklyn), member of the Health Subcommittee and Co-Chair of the Caucus on the Middle Class, revealed that 151 members of the House and Senate currently receive government-funded; government-administered single-payer health care – Medicare.

On the list of recipients are 55 Republicans who have steadfastly opposed other Americans getting the public option, like the one they have chosen.

Weiner said, “Even in a town known for hypocrisy, this list of 55 Members of Congress deserve some sort of prize. They apparently think the public option is ok for them, but not anyone else.”

And Ron Paul is on his list. Why?

It is extremely difficult for me to believe that Ron Paul’s name appears on this list legitimately. According to many sources he refused to accept Medicare while practicing medicine. He’s known as a man with integrity who practices what he preaches. I could find no other sources refuting and explaining why Paul’s name appears on the list, but admittedly, I didn’t look very hard.

I’m curious if there is a reasonable explanation from Paul such as the argument he uses for putting in earmarks for his constituents and then voting against them. Or maybe Weiner’s “study” is the equivalent of quoting people out of context and Paul doesn’t accept Medicare at all. In any case, I think an explanation is warranted.

What is hiding in plain site about Weiner’s argument though, is that he is making the assumption that the health care public option is equivalent to Medicare, which is broke. Yet they also argue that the public option will lower health care costs. Hypocrisy is an epidemic in the halls of Congress.

Well, it was only a matter of time before this happened. Actions such as these are the reason the word “cynic” was created. Ron Paul’s HR.1207 (S.604 in the Senate) which would require a complete audit of the Federal Reserve has 303 cosponsors in the House and 30 in the Senate. Yesterday, a new bill was introduced by obviously bought and paid for lawmakers that is a “waterboarded” version of Ron Paul’s bill.

“The Federal Reserve Accountability Act” was introduced by Democrat Jeff Merkley and Republican Bob Corker yesterday. The bill takes the cake out of Paul’s bill and leaves nothing but the frosting.

The bill avoids review of the Fed’s regular lending programs, such as the longstanding discount window, and its interest-rate decisions.

So, it excludes the fundamentals, the very actions 75% of the American people say they want to know about. The attitude of these so-called representatives is reprehensible.

I’m willing to bet that Merkley and Corker have some large donors in the banking industry.

This may be expected, but it doesn’t mean those of us that support a full audit as outlined in Ron Paul’s bill should just lay down. If anything, the fight has just begun. Please call your representatives and make sure they understand the difference between the full audit and the waterboarded audit introduced yesterday. Tell them that you will not accept anything other than a full audit. It is time to take off the gloves and fight. It’s going to get dirty in DC. Well, more dirty than it already is.

Here is a PDF of the new bill.

Here is a Press Release from the Campaign For Liberty about the bill.

By now you’ve seen Ron Paul’s response to Lindsay Graham’s flippant response at a town hall meeting when Graham blurted out that he wouldn’t let Ron Paul “hijack the Republican Party”. Graham also said the GOP will not be “the party of angry white guys”.

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.

Read More »

Ron Paul published a video answering the question, “What do you think about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Price?”

Ron covers many of the same points critics have made already, but he interestingly points out that the anti-war Left is AWOL now that Obama is in office. Projecting a bit into the future I’m curious what will become of these “Tea Partiers”  if another big-government neo-conservative Republican wins the White House in 2012. Will they go AWOL too? I fear they will. Can we please, for the love of liberty, break this vicious cycle?

Partisanship is an evil drug and too many Republicans and Democrats are addicted. The Constitution was not created for convenience or whim. It was once the “supreme law of the land”, but now it really has become “just a god-damned piece of paper” for far too many people.

I expect there are many people out in the world today, some of them even Obama’s most staunch supporters, wondering why Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Saying that I’m incredulous is an understatement. He just bombed the moon. He has continually bombed and killed civilian innocents in Pakistan. We are not out of Iraq. We are not out of Afghanistan.

Louis Armstrong’s famous song “What A Wonderful World” is now officially satire.

Maybe the Nobel Prize Committee was afraid of being called racist?

Or maybe it was just another giant middle finger to former President George W. Bush. Apparently, he is now being blamed for Obama winning the prize by at least one source.

The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.

Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.

Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.

Perhaps Obama winning this award is not surprising after all. The only other two sitting U.S. Presidents to win the award were Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. Hmmm, do I detect a pattern here? Perhaps it should be renamed, “The Nobel Progressive Prize”. It certainly has nothing to do with peace.

What if this obvious political move has the unintended consequence of spreading more resentment for America overseas than less? In effect this would be using the prize as a strategic chess piece for wishes that will never come true.

Here is a quite appropriate reaction from a student in Kabul:

“I don’t think Obama deserves this. I don’t know who’s making all these decisions. The prize should go to someone who has done something for peace and humanity,” said Ahmad Shabir, 18-year-old student in Kabul. “Since he is the president, I don’t see any change in U.S. strategy in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Exactly Ahmad, Exactly.

If America was one big classroom the teacher should be admonishing students, making them stay after school and repeatedly write “Ron Paul is right” on the blackboard until their fingers cramp up. Of course, that would never happen. We’d never allow political indoctrination into our schools, right? America’s decreasing influence in the world and ultimately its downfall can be attributed to our “failure is not an option” culture which fools you into believing you are winning when in reality you have already lost.

This culture is being thrust upon our nation’s young people at an early age. Young children are constantly being reassured that they are doing a “good job” for the most mundane accomplishments. Those who play sports are presented participation trophies. No, we wouldn’t want any of them to actually excel beyond just “showing up”, do we? While playing games it’s always important to make sure each child gets a turn at winning or at least the game ends in a tie where “everyone wins!” We are beginning to see the effects of this mentality.

At some point these children grow up and the realities of life smack them square in their glass jaws. Everyone can never be equal. Life is not fair. Hate will always exist. Yet they were always taught the opposite so they get “active” and try to fulfill the promise of their youth. Their activity naturally progresses toward the one entity they believe has de facto power to fulfill this promise: government.

Yes, everyone wants to take the government drug to be pain free, but everyone remains ignorant of that particular drug’s evil side effects and addictive nature.

Everyone has become “too big to fail”.

I was once asked in a job interview, “Do you think you learn more from your successes or your failures?” I answered “failures, of course.” Failure forces you to reexamine your premises, think outside the box, and try again. In order for failure to “work” it must not be rewarded. Yet this is precisely what our government is doing and has done for quite some time.

In our increasingly more overt politically-correct society, is it perhaps time to reexamine our premises? If someone is born without limbs it doesn’t mean we should go out and round up all of the “limb-full” and amputate their arms and legs in the interests of equality. Sure it’s an extreme metaphor but this is precisely what we are trying to do when we support plans that attempt to make life “more fair” for the underprivileged at the expense of those who worked to make their own lives better. It is class warfare and all classes lose in the end.

The opposite is true too. We should not be funneling taxpayer money to private banks and auto companies. A bad business is a bad business and we’d know it was bad if it were left alone to fail or thrive. Executives and employees will learn from the failure and move on to try again. Once the crying stops, innovation is a by-product of failure.

Rewarding failure makes it a goal rather than a consequence of poor decisions. Failure should not be shunned. It should not be embraced. It should be accepted as a lesson learned. Trying and failing is what makes trying again and succeeding so satisfying.

We need to channel the Founder’s cavalier spirit, end government mollycoddling, and realize if we fall down we can pick ourselves back up again. Sure we may make a mess of things at times but the most important thing is persistence.

FDR famously said, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself!” If he had instead said, “the only thing we have to fear is fear of failure”, we might be in a much better place today.

Sever the strings-turned-chains between the free market puppet and it’s government master and this heartwarming yet bittersweet story could happen many times over. It could become the norm rather than the exception.

Because of caring people and a caring company, a terminally ill little Green Forest girl was flown home Friday by air ambulance from M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, so she can spend her last days surrounded by the people who love her most.

Jada Harper, who turned seven on Sept. 1, has an inoperable malignant tumor in her brain and is in a coma with a ventilator doing her breathing for her. She has been at the famous cancer center in Houston since July, but her situation is now at the point not much else can be done to help her.

I emphasized the first phrase above to emphasize what is absent: government. It doesn’t say because of some government program. No company was forced to help this poor child and her family. A company made up of individuals with the ability to make a decision to do what is right was responsible for this “random act of kindness”. Perhaps what makes this story more interesting is the company that helped is a direct competitor to a government entity.

Friday afternoon, Jada was flown home to the Ozarks — on a gurney, attached to the machine that breathes for her. FedEx Freight paid the $11,000 bill for the special medical flight her family was unable to afford.

FedEx who competes with the government sponsored United States Postal Service (USPS) acted when others failed. Sure, they may have been acting in their own self-interest to garner “free” advertising and customer goodwill, but how can they be criticized for performing this mutually beneficial act?

$11,000 is chump change for a company like FedEx, but apparently this isn’t an isolated occurrence.

“One thing that impresses me about this company is that the company has a heart,” Reeves said. “Our company does a lot of things like this. It’s been recognized as one of the most admired companies in the world, and this is why.”

It is this phenomenon that represents the best argument for a true free market. If companies weren’t over-regulated and over-taxed perhaps these random acts of kindness would multiply until they become the general rule rather than the exception. Imagine a world where companies all realize that helping people also helps the bottom line. Anyone can make a buck, but not everyone can make a devoted customer.

In a free market the customer acts as regulator. Companies would be trampling over themselves and each other to find the next person (potential customer) to help. When a third party, in this case the government, forces companies (and individuals) to fork over 40-50% of their profit (or income) and then uses it on projects that rarely achieve their intended purpose the result is widespread resentment. In this case companies and individuals become less charitable. The tax and regulatory burden hinders their ability to participate in benevolent actions like FedEx.

Imagine companies that have 50% more profit competing to be number one on the list of most charitable companies. There is no doubt that the result would be a monumental increase in assistance for people and organizations who need it.

We don’t need government to lead, nor follow. We just need government to get out of the way. It’s time to break the government chains of taxes and regulation. This would not only foster economic prosperity but it would also spawn a renaissance of benevolence. This benevolence would come voluntarily and resentment-free from private companies and individuals. It’s good for business, good for the poor, and good for America.

It is certainly true that Glenn Beck has been a rather vocal “warmonger” when it comes to America’s interventionism overseas. I made a comment during Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign that Beck and Paul are in 100% agreement when it comes to economics, but Beck had some work to do in order to “come around” to Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy views.

While Beck may not be there yet, there is a noticeable difference in his rhetoric when it comes to foreign policy and war. This could certainly be attributed to the fact that Obama is now in the White House instead of George W. Bush who used to get endless praise from Beck on foreign policy. Or is this evidence of a core transformation in Beck toward a more non-interventionist approach?

I shamefully admit that I once supported an interventionist foreign policy but that has changed over time as I investigated and became more informed on the issue. It took months, not days. Could Beck be going through a similar transformation? Only time, and maybe another Republican President will tell.

Does it really matter what Glenn Beck thinks? I argue that it does. He has some of the highest ratings of all the political talk shows. Like it or not many people care what he says and thinks. If Beck can make the transition to non-intervention then any formerly devout neo-conservative can too. Don’t shun them with charges of distrust. Welcome them and help them along their path.

For evidence of the Beck transformation-in-process I submit the video below.

This is very good news for gun rights fighters. The Supreme Court has accepted the case to answer the question on whether the 2nd Amendment applies, or is “incorporated”, to the states.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether strict local and state gun control laws violate the Second Amendment, ensuring another high-profile battle over the rights of gun owners.

The court said it will review a lower court ruling that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. Gun rights supporters challenged gun laws in Chicago and some suburbs immediately following the high court’s decision in June 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave.

The new case tests whether last year’s ruling applies as well to local and state laws.

While this is good news for hopeful gun rights activists it raises questions for die hard Constitutionalists. The dirty details of “incorporation” reveals some divisions among us. I’ve previously discussed my own thoughts on “incorporation”, but I can certainly understand the opposing viewpoint. The question came up earlier this year when the states rights argument was utilized by the anti-gun rights Senators in reference to the Thune amendment that would have permitted concealed carry reciprocity between the states.

The conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court has a very good chance of voting in favor of 2nd Amendment incorporation. Perhaps, the more interesting thing, similar to Heller, will be what the majority opinion says at the conclusion of the case.

Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve, HR.1207, was the topic of a hearing of the full House Financial Services Committee chaired by Barney Frank today on capitol hill. The hearing was quite revealing.

Glancing at the cosponsor list one would get the impression that this is truly a bipartisan bill. No congress person wants to let anyone get the idea that he/she doesn’t support transparency. However, the devil is in the details.

It was quite obvious that Chairman Frank and Congressman Watt are not in total agreement with HR.1207 as it is written. Also, both attacked Tom Woods quite ferociously during the hearing. You can watch Frank’s attack in clip #4 in the embedded playlist below (it is right after Ron Paul questions Woods). Their attacks didn’t have much to do with the actual scope of auditing the Fed, but rather some disagreement with Woods rhetoric.

It is pretty clear that the leading Democrats on the committee would like an audit, but want it to be part of a larger regulatory reform bill. No one, except for perhaps Tom Woods argued that the bill not be part of a larger bill, not even Dr. Paul. It is fairly clear to me from this hearing that HR1207 will not be passed as a stand alone bill. The big question is whether or not the bill will be modified so much so that it fails in its original intent. We’ll find out fairly soon I suppose.

I selected a few highlights from todays hearing and made them available on Youtube. I’ve included all of the times Dr. Paul spoke and added a few others. You can watch these clips below. Also, not included below, but posted earlier, don’t miss Alan Grayson grilling the Fed lawyer like an overdone salmon.