Not in Liberty Born (Jerome Wright)

Jerome Wright says the Founders talked a good game and wrote some nice things about liberty, but in reality, they simply grabbed power without the consent of the "governed." He adds that the assertion that Americans gained their freedom through the War for Independence is a myth, and the assertion that Americans have remained free is one of the bigger frauds in history:

Liberty was in the thoughts of many American colonials, probably often combined with an assumption that liberty was somehow compatible with the presence of a political government. But there were also many who wanted real liberty, with no national government to compromise it. Things did not turn out that way.

Certainly by the standards of classical liberals, the actions that led to the formation of the American governments were done without the consent of the governed.

Liberty was an ideal with many people, but with few among those who gained office. Liberty was not their objective. They were creating a government that would encompass the colonies as a national government. Their discussions typically revolved about the extent of that government's authority, not its existence. But they had in fact not been given a mandate by all of the colonials, not even by all of the land-owning white males of the colonies.

The First Continental Congress convened in September 1774. Its members came from often informal appointments made without ratification or colony-wide voting. Some representatives were appointed by colonial state legislatures, while others were by informal groups that came together on their own cognizance without legal authority, selected representatives from their group, and sent them off to the congress. This amounts to usurpation of office and political power.

This congress did little in the way of action, but just its existence set a precedent that was to have a major effect on the development of America.

Read the rest

Three In Four Americans Support Federal Reserve Audit

National Poll Shows Vast Majority of Americans Want Transparency for the Fed, Underscores Campaign for Liberty’s Efforts to Pass Audit Bill

ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA - A recent poll conducted by highly respected Rasmussen Reports found that 75 percent of Americans support an audit of the Federal Reserve, our Nation’s secretive, quasi-governmental central bank. Only 9 percent of respondents opposed an audit, a further indication of overwhelming support for Fed transparency.

View the survey here.

Congressman Ron Paul’s bill H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Bill of 2009, and S. 604, its Senate companion bill, are experiencing tremendous momentum on Capitol Hill.

H.R. 1207 currently has 279 bi-partisan cosponsors, including every Republican and 101 Democrats. S. 604 enjoys 20 cosponsors including Independent Bernie Sanders (I-VT), progressive Russ Feingold (D-WI), and conservative stalwart Jim DeMint (R-SC).

Campaign for Liberty has been the leader in a push for a Federal Reserve audit, using its nationwide grassroots network to educate millions of Americans about sound monetary policy and the need for transparency in our banking system. The groups has generated hundreds of thousands of petitions and phone calls to lawmakers, distributed massive amounts of educational material and canvassed countless neighborhoods across the country.

“Campaign for Liberty is proud to be the leader in the nationwide push for Federal Reserve transparency, and this Rasmussen poll is a strong indication that efforts are working,” said Campaign for Liberty President John Tate. “The Fed is at the heart of so many of our Nation’s financial problems and Americans deserve to know what is going on behind the shroud of secrecy. Through innovative mobilization efforts, both online and on the ground, we are bringing this critical issue to the American people with overwhelming success.”

“Politicians everywhere should take note: Americans are demanding transparency at the Fed. Campaign for Liberty will continue our fight to pass legislation to produce a full audit of the Federal Reserve,” continued Tate.

Campaign for Liberty was founded in July of 2008 to continue the grassroots momentum generated by Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential campaign. The group has over 180,000 activist members and enjoys leadership and support in all 50 states.

(Source: BusinessWire)

Ron Paul Introduces Health Freedom Legislation

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 2009
Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce two pieces of legislation restoring the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements. The first bill, the Health Freedom Act, codifies the First Amendment by ending the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s efforts to censor truthful health claims. The second bill, the Freedom of Health Speech Act, codifies the First and Fifth Amendment by requiring the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prove that health claims are false before it takes action to stop manufacturers and marketers from making the claims.

The American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. The FDA continues to frustrate consumers' efforts to learn how they can improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number of constituents' comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate consumers' access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to comply with four federal court decisions vindicating consumers' First Amendment rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.

FDA bureaucrats have even refused to abide by the DSHEA section allowing the Public to have access to scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in treating diseases by claiming that every article concerning this topic is evidence of intent to sell an unapproved and unlawful drug.

Because of the FDA's censorship of truthful health claims, millions of Americans may suffer with diseases and other health care problems they may have avoided by using dietary supplements. For example, the FDA prohibited consumers from learning how folic acid reduces the risk of neural tube defects for four years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended every woman of childbearing age take folic acid supplements to reduce neural tube defects. This FDA action contributed to an estimated 10,000 cases of preventable neutral tube defects.

The FDA also continues to prohibit consumers from learning about the scientific evidence that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis; that omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of sudden death heart attack; that calcium may reduce the risk of bone fractures; and that vitamin D may reduce the risk of osteoporosis, hypertension, and cancer.

The Health Freedom Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, numerous federal courts, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment prohibition on prior restraint. Specifically, the Health Freedom Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements. The Health Freedom Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease. The FDA has proven that it cannot be trusted to protect consumers' rights to make informed choices. It is time for Congress to stop the FDA from censoring truthful health information.

The Freedom of Health Speech Act addresses the FTC's violations of the First Amendment. Under traditional constitutional standards, the federal government bears the burden of proving an advertising statement false before censoring that statement. However, the FTC shifted the burden of proof to industry. The FTC presumes health advertising is false and compels private parties to prove the ads (and everything the regulators say the ads imply) to be true to a near conclusive degree. This violation of the First and Fifth Amendments is harming consumers' by blocking innovation in the health foods and dietary supplement marketplace.

The Freedom of Health Speech Act requires that the government actually prove that speech is false before the FTC acts against the speaker. This is how it should be in a free society where information flows freely in order to foster the continuous improvement that benefits us all. The bill also requires that the FTC warn parties that their advertising is false and give them a chance to correct their mistakes before the FTC censors the claim and imposes other punishments.

Madam Speaker, if we are serious about putting people in charge of their health care, then shouldn't we stop federal bureaucrats from preventing Americans from learning about simple ways to improve their health. I therefore call on my colleagues to stand up for good health and the Constitution by cosponsoring the Health Freedom Act and the Freedom of Health Speech Act.

Ron Paul Introduces the Congressional Responsibility and Accountability Act

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 2009
Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Congressional Responsibility and Accountability Act. This bill requires Congress to specifically authorize via legislation any proposed federal regulation that will impose costs on any individual of at least $5,000, impose costs on a business or other private organization of at least $10,000, or impose aggregate costs on the American people of at least $25,000, or cause any American to lose his or her job.

According to some legal experts, at least three-quarters of all federal laws consist of regulations promulgated by federal agencies without the consent, or even the review of, Congress. Allowing unelected, and thus unaccountable, executive agencies to make law undermines democracy and violates the intent of the drafters of the Constitution to separate legislative and executive powers. The drafters of the Constitution correctly viewed separation of powers as a cornerstone of republican government and a key to protecting individual liberty from excessive and arbitrary government power.

Congress's delegation of law-making authority to unelected bureaucrats has created a system that seems to owe more to the writings of Franz Kafka than to the writings of James Madison. The volume of regulations promulgated by federal agencies and the constant introduction of new rules makes it impossible for most Americans to know with any certainty the federal laws, regulations, and rules they are required to obey. Thus, almost all Americans live with the danger that they may be hauled before a federal agency for an infraction they have no reasonable way of knowing is against the law.

While it is easy for members of Congress to complain about out of control federal bureaucrats, it was Congress that gave these agencies the ability to create laws. Since Congress created the problem of lawmaking by regulatory agencies, it is up to Congress to fix the problem and make certain that all federal laws are passed by the people's elected representatives. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Congressional Responsibility and Accountability Act.

Ron Paul: What Are They So Afraid Of?

Dr. Paul took to the House floor today to ask why the Fed and its backers are so afraid of an audit:

YouTube - Ron Paul: What Are They So Afraid Of?

Text:

Mr. Speaker, the big guns have lined up against H.R. 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve. What is it that they are so concerned about? What information are they hiding from the American people? The screed is: ``Transparency is okay--except for those things they don't want to be transparent.''

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke argues that H.R. 1207, the legislation to audit the Federal Reserve, would politicize monetary policy. He claims that monetary policy must remain ``independent,'' that is, secret. He ignores history, because chairmen of the Federal Reserve in the past, especially when up for reappointment, do their best to accommodate the President with politically driven low interest rates and a bubble economy.

Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Arthur Burns, when asked about all the inflation he brought about in 1971, before Nixon's re-election, said that the Fed has to do what the President wants it to do, or it would ``lose its independence.'' That about tells you everything. Not by accident, Chairman Burns strongly supported Nixon's program of wage and price controls, the same year; but I guess that's not political. Is not making secret deals with the likes of Goldman Sachs, international financial institutions, foreign governments and foreign central banks, politicizing monetary policy? Bernanke argues that the knowledge that their discussions and decisions will one day be scrutinized will compromise the freedom of the Open Market Committee to pursue sound policy. If it is sound and honest, and serves no special interest, what's the problem?

He claims that H.R. 1207 would give power to Congress to affect monetary policy. He dreamt this up to instill fear, an old statist trick to justify government power. H.R. 1207 does nothing of the sort. He suggested that the day after an FOMC meeting, Congress could send in the GAO to demand an audit of everything said and done. This is hardly the case. The FOMC function, under 1207, would not change. The detailed transcripts of the FOMC meetings are released every 5 years, so why would this be so different, and what is it that they don't want the American people to know? Is there something about the transcripts that need to be kept secret, or are the transcripts actually not verbatim?

Fed sychophants argue that an audit would destroy the financial market's faith in the Fed. They say this in the midst of the greatest financial crisis in history, brought on by none other than the Federal Reserve. In fact, Chairman Bernanke stated on November 14, 2007, that ``a considerable amount of evidence indicates that central bank transparency increases the effectiveness of monetary policy and enhances economic and financial performance.''

They also argue that an audit would hurt the value of the U.S. dollar. In fact, the Fed, in less than 100 years of its existence, has reduced the value of the 1914 dollar by 96 percent. They claim H.R. 1207 would raise interest rates. How could it? The Fed sets interest rates and the bill doesn't interfere with monetary policy. Congress would have no say in the matter; and besides, Congress likes low interest rates. It is argued that the Fed wouldn't be free to raise interest rates if they thought it necessary. But Bernanke has already assured the Congress that rates are going to stay low for the foreseeable future, and, again, this bill does nothing to allow Congress to interfere with interest rate setting.

Fed supporters claim that they want to protect the public's interest with their secrecy. But the banks and Wall Street are the opponents of 1207, and the people are for it. Just who best represents the ``public's'' interest? The real question is, why are Wall Street and the Feds so hysterically opposed to 1207? Just what information are they so anxious to keep secret? Only an audit of the Federal Reserve will answer these questions.

Demotivational Posters

See other great "demotivational" posters at Despair, Inc. (hat tip to Wendy McElroy)

Ron Paul: The Immorality of Taxpayer Funded Abortion

Dr. Paul's latest Texas Straight Talk:

(Listen on YouTube)

Healthcare continues to dominate the agenda on Capitol Hill as House leadership and the administration try to ram through their big government healthcare plan. Fortunately, they have been unsuccessful so far, as there are many horrifying provisions tucked into this massive piece of legislation. One major issue is the public funding of elective abortions. The administration has already removed many longstanding restrictions on abortion, and is unwilling to provide straight answers to questions regarding the public funding of abortion in their plan. This is deeply troubling for those of us who do not want taxpayer dollars funding abortions.

Forcing pro-life taxpayers to subsidize abortion is evil and tyrannical. I have introduced the Taxpayer’s Freedom of Conscience Act (HR 1233) which forbids the use of any taxpayer funds for abortion, both here and overseas.

The most basic function of government is to protect life. It is unconscionable that government would enable the taking of it. However this is to be expected when government oversteps its constitutional bounds instead of protecting rights. When government supercedes this very limited role, it cannot help but advance the moral agenda of whoever is in power at the time, at the expense of the rights of others.

Free people should be left alone to follow their conscience and determine their own lifestyle as long as they do not interfere with other people doing the same. If morality is dictated by government, morality will change with every election. Even if you agree with the morality of the current politicians and think their ideas should be advanced, someday different people will inherit that power and use it for their own agendas. The wisdom of the constitution is that it keeps government out of these issues altogether.

Many say we must reform healthcare and treat it as a right, because that is the moral thing to do. Poor people should not go without healthcare in a just society. But too many forget the immorality of stealing from others in order to make this so. They also forget the morality and compassion that naturally exists in communities when government is not fomenting class warfare with wealth redistribution programs.

Many doctors willingly volunteer, accept barter or reduced payment from patients who can’t pay, or give away services for free. Many charities help the poor with food, housing and healthcare. These charities are much more responsive and accountable for helping people in need than government ever could be. This is the moral way that private individuals voluntarily deal with access to healthcare, but government intervention threatens to pull the rug out from this sort of volunteerism and replace it with mandates, taxes, red tape, wealth redistribution, and force.

The fact that the national healthcare overhaul could force taxpayers to subsidize abortions and may even force private insurers to cover abortions is more reason that this bill and the ideas behind it, are neither constitutional, moral, nor in the American people’s best interest.

No Exit for Ben (Peter Schiff)

Peter Schiff says that Bernanke has no idea what to do, regardless of his rhetoric:

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Monday, and in congressional testimony later in the week, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke reassured all that thanks to his accurate foresight and deft use of the Fed’s policy toolkit, he could maintain near zero percent interest rates for an extended period without creating inflation. With supernatural powers such as these, one wonders if Ben would be better employed by the Justice League rather than the Federal Reserve.

Ben’s game plan is apparently simple: once he determines that the economy is on solid ground, he will use the monetary equivalent of Superman’s laser vision to strategically evaporate all the excess liquidity that he has recently created without endangering the recovery. Don’t try this at home, kids.

In other words, as he did just a few years ago when the subprime fiasco began to emerge, Bernanke is assuring us that inflation is contained. He is just as wrong now as he was then.

Read the rest, and also see Gary North's excellent analysis of Bernanke's testimony.

Calvin, Lola Beltran, and Mahalia Jackson: We Didn't Really Need Calvin (Fred Reed)

Fred Reed isn't impressed with the WASP culture in America:

I have concocted a theory that does wonders to explain American politics: We are ruled by history’s most boring people. This is a seminal political idea, up there with Plato’s invention of Stalinism in The Republic.

I refer of course to those thunderously bland people, the white middle-class Protestants, or Hagvacas (House and garden variety Caucasians). Just typing the words makes my fingers want to sleep. In all things that distinguish mankind from a loaf of store-bought bread, Hagvaca score zero. Unless it involves transistors or regulations. These they can do.

Consider music, the soul of a society. Caucaso-prots of the middle class barely have any. From early on blacks have been the main force driving American music, starting with whatever Ledbelly and his contemporaries did, through blues, first in those silent, hot, humid fields in Mississippi where time dripped slow as Karo syrup on cracked china, and later in a thousand hopping gin mills in places in Chicago where whites didn’t go. Gospel, which Elvis understood but Yankees can’t, and then jazz, and rock, to today’s hiphop and rap—all have more black roots than an inattentive bottle blonde.

Read the rest

The Second Coming of Keynes (Lilburne)

Lilburne on the dangerous and ridiculous ideology of Keynesians like Paul Krugman:

Paul Krugman wants to be our savior. Moreover, he wants to be a specific kind of savior: a magus of the scientific age, a blackboard prophet.

The roots of this curious ambition can be seen in his recent profile in Newsweek:

Krugman says he found himself in the science fiction of Isaac Asimov, especially the "Foundation" series "It was nerds saving civilization, quants who had a theory of society, people writing equations on a blackboard, saying, 'See, unless you follow this formula, the empire will fail and be followed by a thousand years of barbarism.'"

Now here we are at an economic zero hour for the American empire, and perhaps for modern civilization itself, and many in the global urban elite think this establishment triathlete with his Princeton professorship, his New York Times column, and his Nobel Prize, has the equation for salvation. So what is Krugman's formula? What commandments does the magus have scrawled on his blackboard for us, his plebian flock?

To understand that, one must understand Krugman's intellectual heritage, such as it is.

Paul Krugman is a devotee of John Maynard Keynes. He's such a hard core disciple that he was Keyensian when Keynesianism wasn't cool: the period between the 1970s stagflation, which seemed to disprove Keynesian doctrine, and now, when it is groundlessly renascent due to our society's stunted memory span. He himself proudly admits his devotion to Keynes. He has written such headlines as "The Greatness of Keynes" and "Why Aren't We All Keynesians Yet?" But what does it mean to be keen on Keynes? What diagnosis does Krugman's Keynesian economics have for the economic crisis, and what remedies does he prescribe?

Read the rest