Ron Paul: Corporatism not Free Market

Ron Paul, today on the House floor

Price Fixing

(I can't believe I'm embedding a Fox video clip. That said, Congressman Ron Paul was interviewed on Fox... given no other media options, what can I do?)

Ron Paul: My Answer to the President

By Congressman Ron Paul:

The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.

We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.

Still, at least a few observations are necessary.

The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?

We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).

Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."

Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?

Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:

Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.

The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.

The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?

Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.

The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.

I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.

H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.

I like this man. He cares.

I have discovered that one of the advantages to being an Independent is that I am free to see people without that 'red' or 'blue' blinder getting in the way. Either the man or woman speaks the truth... or they don't. They either defend and uphold the Constitution, and fight for it every single day... or they are in the pockets of lobbyists and lie through the sides of their mouth.

Being an Independent allows me to accept that Congressman Ron Paul (R,) Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D,) Bruce Fein (R,) Lou Dobbs (I,) and Russ Feingold (D,) are really all fighting for the same ideals that our forefathers put forward in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They approach the fight from different party platforms. But each one has managed to transcend party politics - and has often gone against his own party (Lou Dobbs defies the tag-along corporate media) on behalf of our nation, our founding principles, and the people as a whole.

It will take all of us working together to shake off the tyranny bearing down on us.

We no longer have the luxury of rejecting good, solid reasoning from anyone based on political party affiliation (or lack thereof.) The only mindset that matters now is the desire to save our democracy.

Besides... if you haven't noticed, both Democrat and Republican platforms have morphed together into corporatism. Two sides of the same coin. And somehow, when we weren't looking, we were left behind.

Ron Paul: Time is Running Out

This statement was just released from Congressman Ron Paul:

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Dear Friends,

Whenever a Great Bipartisan Consensus is announced, and a compliant media assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is about to strike.

The events of the past week are no exception.

The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress' throat is not just economically foolish. It is downright sinister. It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect. It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder. Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China! "This is welfare for the rich," he said. "This is socialism for the rich. It's bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters."

That describes the current bailout package to a T. And we're being told it's unavoidable.

The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it. But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences - predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics - are being let off the hook. The Federal Reserve System is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess!

• The Treasury Secretary is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time. That means $700 billion is only the very beginning of what will hit us.

• Financial institutions are "designated as financial agents of the Government." This is the New Deal to end all New Deals.

• Then there's this: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process.

There goes your country.

Even some so-called free-market economists are calling all this "sadly necessary." Sad, yes. Necessary? Don't make me laugh.

Our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people. The two major party candidates for president themselves initially indicated their strong support for bailouts of this kind - another example of the big choice we're supposedly presented with this November: yes or yes. Now, with a backlash brewing, they're not quite sure what their views are. A sad display, really.

Although the present bailout package is almost certainly not the end of the political atrocities we'll witness in connection with the crisis, time is short. Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow. With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at an anemic seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it. Call them! Let them hear from you! Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this atrocity.

The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom? Do we care about responsibility and accountability? Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for? Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government? Do we care?

When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media?

Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are, and what kind of country we shall be.

In liberty,

Ron Paul

Ron Paul: You can't build on a weak foundation

Despite the interruptions, Ron Paul is actually allowed to speak on Fox.

Ron Paul: The Invisible Prophet

Found it - Ron Paul discussing the economy, in his own words. Great words of wisdom for today.

Oh wait... no, really? This was written in 2006!

Here is Ron Paul writing on Lew Rockwell.com... in March of 2006:

Last week in this column I wrote of a perfect economic storm facing America, caused by a federal government that spends, borrows, and prints so much money that our dollars are eroding in value at an alarming rate. Year after year our federal government spends beyond its revenues, prints new money to pay its debts, and borrows hundreds of billions abroad in the form of Treasury obligations that someday must be paid. With too many dollars and debt instruments in circulation, and no political will in Washington to cut spending, we've created a monster. Our perceived prosperity depends on keeping the great debt and credit engine pumping, but the only way to attract new lenders to fuel the engine is higher interest rates. At some point one of two things must happen: either the party in Washington ends, or the supremacy of the dollar as the world's reserve currency ends. It's a sobering thought, but a choice must be made.

How did this happen? How did we get to such a state? The answer is found in the nature of politics itself. The truth is that many politicians and voters essentially believe in a free lunch. They believe in a free lunch because they don't understand basic economics, and therefore assume government can spend us into prosperity. This is the fallacy that pervades American politics today.

I believe one of the greatest threats facing this nation is the willful economic ignorance of the political class. Many of our elected officials at every level have no understanding of economics whatsoever, yet they wield tremendous power over our economy through taxes, regulations, and countless other costs associated with government. They spend your money with little or no thought given to the economic consequences of their actions. It is indeed a tribute to the American entrepreneurial spirit that we have enjoyed such prosperity over the decades; clearly it is in spite of government policies rather than because of them.

I certainly have seen firsthand a great deal of economic ignorance in Congress over the years. Few members pay any attention whatsoever to the Federal Reserve Bank, despite the tremendous impact Fed policy has on their constituents. Even many members of the banking and finance committees have little or no knowledge of monetary policy. Perhaps this is why so many in Congress seem to believe we can all become rich by printing new dollars, or that we can make 2 + 2 = 5 by taking money from some people and giving it to others.

We cannot suspend the laws of economics or the principles of human action any more than we can suspend the laws of physics. Yet this is precisely what Congress attempts to do time and time again, no matter how many times history proves them wrong or economists easily demonstrate the harms caused by a certain policy.

I strongly recommend that every American acquire some basic knowledge of economics, monetary policy, and the intersection of politics with the economy. No formal classroom is required; a desire to read and learn will suffice. There are countless important books to consider, but the following are an excellent starting point: The Law by Frédéric Bastiat; Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt; What has Government Done to our Money? by Murray Rothbard; The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek; and Economics for Real People by Gene Callahan.

If you simply read and comprehend these relatively short texts, you will know far more than most educated people about economics and government. You certainly will develop a far greater understanding of how supposedly benevolent government policies destroy prosperity. If you care about the future of this country, arm yourself with knowledge and fight back against economic ignorance. We disregard economics and history at our own peril.

Ron Paul, March 27, 2006

And now for something even more amazing: Ron Paul warned of the impending collapse of Fannie May and Freddie Mac... in 2003!

Ron Paul in the House Financial Services Committee, September 10, 2003

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on the Treasury Department's views regarding government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). I would also like to thank Secretaries Snow and Martinez for taking time out of their busy schedules to appear before the committee.

I hope this committee spends some time examining the special privileges provided to GSEs by the federal government. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received $13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone. Today, I will introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act, which removes government subsidies from the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the National Home Loan Bank Board.

One of the major government privileges granted to GSEs is a line of credit with the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a huge unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.

The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase GSE debt. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.

The connection between the GSEs and the government helps isolate the GSE management from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the recent reports of mismanagement occurring at Fannie and Freddie. After all, if Fannie and Freddie were not underwritten by the federal government, investors would demand Fannie and Freddie provide assurance that they follow accepted management and accounting practices.

Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.

Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government's interference in the housing market, the government's policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.

Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary, but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.

No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that government subsidies provided to GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to once again thank the Financial Services Committee for holding this hearing. I would also like to thank Secretaries Snow and Martinez for their presence here today. I hope today's hearing sheds light on how special privileges granted to GSEs distort the housing market and endanger American taxpayers. Congress should act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors who were misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope this committee will soon stand up for American taxpayers and investors by acting on my Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Bravo!

If only Congressman Paul wasn't so terribly invisible. He and Congressman Kucinich should meet for an invisible lunch. I wonder if they could even get a table?

Yesterday upon the stair
I meet a congressman who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today -
But boy he had a lot to say!

Turn back the clock

Ron Paul was the only GOP candidate who worried about the economy before the housing market crashed and burned. Perhaps he is the only one who really understands how it works...? Or simply 'the honest one?'

This from The Nation, which is generally leans to the left (although they appreciate common sense from any party candidate when they see it - rarely - in American politics.)

The Nation talks about The Ron Paul Economy:

He is the only candidate who brings up what is happening to our money, which is another way of saying that he is worried about why the cost of buying groceries is going through the roof. While the other presidential contenders are silent on the topic, Paul reminds us that "government officials consistently claimed that inflation is in check at barely 2 percent, but middle-class Americans know that their purchasing power--especially when it comes to housing, energy, medical care, and school tuition--is shrinking much faster than 2 percent each year."

Paul is the contender who seems to understand that the Federal Reserve Board is not the Vatican and that its chairman, Ben Bernanke, is not the pope. It's a fixed practice by our politicians to treat whoever is the chairman of the Fed as though he were endowed with infallible powers.

On Wall Street, the sharper ones know better. They understand that lowering interest rates every time the stock market swoons will eventually, or even a lot sooner, bring a world of pain down on us. As it is, thanks to the Fed, interest rates are lower than the rate of inflation. This anomalous condition is called "negative interest," and for savers it means that their money is disappearing even as it rests safely tucked away in certificates of deposit.

For people who understand that their money is evaporating in front of their eyes there is a mighty incentive to rush out to the mall while that money is still worth something. For the moment a stampede to the stores by inflation-spooked people may please the economic pooh-bahs because current theory has it that people will buy lots of stuff, which in turn will create lots of jobs. But after they've spent their retirement money, then what?

Yes - believe it or not, this was written in January. Be nice if mainstream media would broadcast what Ron Paul is saying today.

Bruce Fein on fire

If you experience sound problems with either video, click here.

Bruce Fein Speaks at the Rally for the Republic: Pt. I



Bruce Fein Speaks at the Rally for the Republic: Pt. II

Jesse Ventura asks a question

Jesse Venture speaks at Ron Paul's "Rally for the Republic." If you have any trouble with this video - sound or otherwise - please click here.



The angry middle is very, very large... and includes people formerly of both parties; all interested in a return to democracy and the American Republic. And every one of us has questions... oh do we have questions. Questions that no one will answer.

We need a third party. Ron Paul is the only Independent still standing. He's also the only candidate talking about REALLY ending war - all war - and returning this nation to a Republic.

Remember the Pledge of Allegiance? "... and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..." There is also a line about 'with liberty and justice for all.' I'm not seeing that here anymore.

Many of our ancestors went through hell to get here, so that their descendants could live free. We owe them better than to cower every time George Bush tells us to be afraid of our own shadows. We used to call ourselves the land of the free and the home of the brave. Currently we are neither. We have become a nation of cowards. Our ancestors are spinning in their graves.

I applaud Ron Paul. The longer I watch the Democrats seemingly hell bent on losing; and after listening to Obama's 'tough talk' about foreign policy, I am reserving my vote for the last minute.

I'll probably vote for Obama; because he isn't a Neocon fascist, and he has the best chance to win. But if he doesn't put up a real fight - for our Constitution, for justice, for peace, and for a return to real freedom and democracy - I'm glad to have Ron Paul as an option.

Democracy and Constitution before anything else.

Union sounds alarm over background checks for new ID

OK, this is scary and very big-brotherish.

I have heard about this 'National Id,' and the huge fight that has been going on to escape it, but I didn't realize they were already implementing it. Orwell is squirming:

• Fifteen States Have Passed Anti-REAL ID Legislation. As the deadline for compliance draws closer, more states are opting out of the controversial REAL ID national identification system. The states that have passed anti-REAL ID legislation are: Arkansas (pdf), Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Washington. The resistance to REAL ID is growing. In May, more than 60 organizations and 215 blogs joined a campaign to submit comments against REAL ID. There are bills in both the U.S. House and Senate that would repeal the national identification scheme. EPIC and 24 experts in privacy and technology submitted detailed comments (pdf) explaining the many privacy and security threats raised by the REAL ID Act. For more information, see EPIC's Spotlight on Surveillance for March. (June 5)
• Congress Debates Bills That Broaden Uses of REAL ID. The House (pdf) and Senate (pdf) are debating immigration bills that include provisions broadening the uses of REAL ID cards and licenses, which do not exist. Both bills create a national employment eligibility verification system, which would use REAL ID cards for identification and eligibility verification. The Senate bill forbids the use of non-REAL ID cards in the verfication system after 2013. Both bills permit the DHS Secretary to prohibit the use of certain documents for employment verification. This would give the DHS Secretary the power to mandate the use of a national ID card, such as the REAL ID card, as the sole acceptable document for employment eligibility verification in the United States. EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg is expected to testify at a Congressional hearing on the House bill next week. For more on the bills, see EPIC's Spotlight on Surveillance for May. (May 31)
• Georgia and Nevada Join Revolt Against REAL ID. Georgia and Nevada have become the ninth and tenth states to pass legislation against REAL ID. The Georgia bill allows the governor to delay implementation "until the Department of Homeland Security has issued regulations that the Governor finds will adequately protect the interests of the citizens of Georgia." Nevada passed a joint resolution urging Congress to repeal the fundamentally flawed national identification scheme. Eight other states have passed anti-REAL ID legislation. Washington (pdf) and Montana (pdf) chose to opt-out completely. Colorado (pdf) and Idaho refuse to spend any money on REAL ID implementation. Arkansas (pdf), Hawaii, Maine, and North Dakota are calling for its repeal. There are bills in both the U.S. House and Senate that would repeal REAL ID. (May 16)
• DHS Receives More Than 12,000 Comments on REAL ID Draft Regulations. The Department of Homeland Security announced that it has received more than 12,000 comments on its draft implementation regulations for the REAL ID Act. The public comment process was marked with problems. Many people complained that they were unable file comments through the Web site and fax number that DHS provided in its federal rulemaking. One day before the comments were due, DHS finally set up an e-mail address to which people could send comments. REAL ID faces considerable opposition by the public, the States and in Congress. More than 60 organizations and 215 blogs joined a campaign to submit comments against REAL ID. Washington (pdf) and Montana (pdf) passed legislation to opt-out completely. Colorado (pdf) and Idaho will not spend any money on REAL ID implementation. Arkansas (pdf), Hawaii, Maine, and North Dakota are calling for its repeal. Both houses of Congress are debating legislation that would repeal the ill-conceived law. At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday about REAL ID, Chairman Patrick Leahy said, "The days of Congress rubber-stamping any and every idea cooked up by this administration are over." Sen. Leahy has co-sponsored a bill to repeal REAL ID. (May 9)

The Real Id Act faced a great deal of opposition, including a direct warning from Rep. Ron Paul, but apparently slipped through via a Presidential Directive.

President Bush issued a directive in 2004 requiring a new ID card to help deter terrorists, criminals and computer hackers.

The cards, which resemble credit cards, are embedded with a computer chip that permits an exchange of data with another system.

In addition to building access, smart cards can be used to supplement passwords for logging on to computers, with users inserting the card into readers on their desktops.

Pre-Katrina, so I (at least) wasn't paying much attention, must have missed this.

Anyway, the unions are now facing the implementation of these cards, and apparently they come with sweeping background checks that include collection of financial and medical information (isn't this protected by HIPAA?)

Some federal employees are smarting over their smart-card treatment.

Background investigations of federal and contract workers being conducted for a new government-wide identification card, which carries a computer chip, have drawn objections at two agencies and rumblings of concern at others.
The National Federation of Federal Employees has raised questions about the background checks on behalf of its unionized members at the General Services Administration. Four research scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California have written to members of Congress and contacted NASA officials to make clear their opposition to the background checks.

The Bush administration's goal is to replace the multiple ID cards used in the government with a single "smart" card that will verify a person's identity and give him or her access to federal buildings and permission to log on to government computer networks. The cards are being issued in phases, with agencies facing a deadline of late 2008.

Before cards are issued, federal employees and contractors must provide fingerprints and disclose financial, medical and other personal data. The forms filled out by employees and contractors are matched against databases to verify the information. For some employees holding sensitive jobs, agents are sent to interview neighbors.

Some employees are nervous that they could lose their jobs if their agencies take a dim view of excessive credit card debt, unpaid parking tickets or restraining orders issued in divorce proceedings. Some employees also are concerned about the potential for identity theft if their personal information is stolen or lost from a database.

Those who voted no

Just say no.

Ron Paul was one of only two Republicans in the House to vote against the war. Yes, officially this was a vote to provide the 'war funding' without deadlines or consequences attached.

Senator Hillary was smart enough to know she should vote against the funding bill, and from what I have heard, Obama voted against it at the very last moment (once he knew it would pass? That is what I have heard, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.)

Congressman Dennis Kucinich - of course - voted against the blank check, and a few other Democratic Senators voted against: Leahy, Feingold (of course,) Kerry and Kennedy. Representatives Barbara Boxer and Jerry McNerney also voted nay - I know without looking, because they sent out emails expressing their dismay at the outcome.

Tough (GOP) guys don't cry

Meanwhile, House Minority Leader John Boehner wept openly on the House floor, asking when America was going to 'make the killers of the 3000 9/11 victims accountable for their crimes.'

Well, sir that is a good question. Because you see, the actual terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq - and are all dead. The man who took credit for the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Osama Bin Laden, is apparently in Pakistan - not Iraq.

So you have a valid point... sort of. Whither Bin Laden? Are we even looking for him? Of course, he is much more useful to Bush alive than dead; he makes a terrific and very convenient boogyman with which to scare the American populace.

Mr. Boehner, sir: everyone knows that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The only people who don't understand this after years of bungled warfare, are the people who persist in watching Fox News. Perhaps you are one of them, and you really don't have any idea what you are talking (or crying) about. This honestly wouldn't surprise me.

If your tears are in earnest, and you really do want justice... try looking for Bin Laden. Try talking to the Pakistani government. Of course, you can't take their oil, so why would you bother? If you aren't seriously looking for Bin Laden - don't talk to us about 9/11 victims. That is Giuliani's shameless territory.

Don't need no more lies.

Read it and weep

Full tally of yesterday's vote:

House vote

Senate vote

Representative Julia Carson was the lone hero from Indiana - in either the House or the Senate. We're not terribly surprised. I called her office and thanked her.

Truth or consequences

I wonder if we as Americans can ever break free of media influence and elect a president that will really represent us.

Oh we have plenty of leaders: candidates with integrity, honesty, new and creative solutions to serious national issues - even a little 'fire in the belly' from time to time. We also have legislators with strong records of defending our interests in congress, instead of toeing the lobbyist line.

Yet for some mysterious reason, we we allow our television media - and powerful corporate donors - to pick our candidates for us, and the best people seem to fall right off the radar. If a candidate doesn't have that desired 'look' or 'slick packaging', they are marginalized - ignored - summarily dismissed as irrelevant. We are letting corporations and the media dictate our democracy to us, based on... appearances and sound bites.

Why is that? Can't we think for ourselves anymore?

I often find myself comparing our current, broken electoral system with the one that was in place just before the Civil War, when the fledgling Republican party had recently formed out of a coalition of former Whigs, Northern Democrats, and Free-Soilers who opposed the expansion of slavery (hint to angry Democrats and Republicans - we've formed new parties before, and quite successfully.)

Abraham Lincoln made made a national name for himself as an outspoken critic of slavery, and as a brilliant orator during a series of debates with popular and charismatic Democrat Stephen A. Douglas in 1858 (both were running for the US Senate seat from Illinois.) In spite of his gawky, tall frame, ill-fitting suits and high, reedy voice, Lincoln had a rare gift: he could inspire an audience by connecting with them on a human level, and by telling them the truth.

Lincoln lost the Senate race in 1858, but beat Douglas two years later in the 1860 presidential campaign, to become President of the United States. By this time, everyone knew who he was and remembered his fiery and persuasive arguments from the Illinois debates.

The two differed in more than background and education (Douglas received a classical education, and Lincoln was from a humble background and self-taught.) Douglas had chaired the Senate Committee on Territories, and helped enact the Compromise of 1850, which included the highly controversial Fugitive Slave Act. Passage of the Fugitive Slave Act outraged many abolitionists, and heightened their resolve to put an end to slavery once and for all. This act also served to bring the the subject of slavery squarely into the public eye, and many people who had previously been ambivalent began to question the morality of the institution.

Douglas was a proponent of 'Popular Sovereignty,' and was responsible for the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which led to the outbreaks of unprecedented violence in Kansas. In contrast, Lincoln represented the growing anti-slavery movement that was taking hold across the nation, and believed that the country could not survive as one nation, half slave and half free. The country was being torn apart by the divisive issue of slavery, and people were paying close attention to the opinions held by each candidate - as demonstrated in both their words, and their actions.

The media of the time - which consisted solely of newspapers - was undoubtedly every bit as slanted as it is today, with the exception that there was no television: the people actually read, and thus were able to see actual transcripts of the candidates' speeches and debates, rather than relying on sound bites picked out by the television media. By reading the actual words of the candidates, citizens could discern where each one stood on important issues. And if a candidate was a talented writer/speaker, he could often sway many readers solely by his choice of words, the intensity of his argument, and his intellectual prowess as he made his case.

People have a pretty good sense for when they are being told the truth. In recent years, our contact with our candidates has been carefully screened by 'handlers' and edited by the powerful, corporately-owned media. But surely, people really do want the truth. They crave the truth. They have simply lost track of how to connect with the authenticity of the person for whom they plan to vote.

In the old days of 'stumping,' the people gathered around and actually listened to live speeches and debates. There was no hiding for these politicians - no lights, no make-up, no leading questions. They duked it out in a clever and intelligent war of words, and to the victor went both popular support... and the nod of his party. In those days, intelligence and grasp of issues easily trumped looks, lighting or corporate sponsors. The candidate sank or swam on his own merit.

Candidates were picked by their own party leaders - who had known them for years, and could vouch for their character. The chosen candidate's intelligence and ability was well established, and generally anyone who was picked to represent his party in a general election had the education, stability and leadership skills to eventually run the nation. It is believed that members of Lincoln's new party underestimated his independent nature, and expected him to take direction from more powerful leaders behind the scenes and basically toe the party line.

However once elected, Lincoln showed creativity and an unusual willingness to embrace non-partisanship, by picking for his cabinet political opponents and politicians who frankly and openly disliked him - all on the basis of their credentials. Lincoln demonstrated a remarkable ability to pick the most effective and competent person for each of his cabinet positions, and placed his loyalty to party - and personal comfort - behind the best interests of the nation as a whole.

We don't have to go back to Lincoln's time to find examples of political courage and devotion to 'nation over partisanship.' Lately we have been treated to some rather remarkable acts of political courage and devotion to truth, in presidential debates and on the House floor.

Last Wednesday, Dennis Kucinich claimed an hour of time on the House floor, and delivered a powerful and truthful expose on the inner workings of the oil industry and their designs on Iraqi oil. Kucinich explained how this lust for Iraqi oil led us directly into this current and disastrous war, and implied that we will never extricate ourselves while the Iraqi people manage to hold out against the interests of Exxon, Chevron and BP.

This was amazing, truthful and critically relevant testimony. Yet it received no mainstream, corporate media coverage, was largely ignored by other members of the House - even members of the Democratic party. I find it hard to imagine that something so critical and so fundamental to our current situation could have been swept under the rug, but there it is: it happened.

Kucinich is often laughed at or simply ignored by the national media. Whereas Lincoln was 'too tall,' Kucinich is apparently 'too short'; he speaks his mind, and sometimes comes across as a bit folksy or 'off the cuff,' (similar in many ways to Lincoln and his famous yarns.) The media pundits will also tell you something else - something that would have spelled disaster for Lincoln if he were to run for the presidency today. According to television media 'experts,' Kucinich doesn't look presidential.

I have often wondered if 'doesn't look presidential' really translates to 'we can't bully, influence or control you.'

The media would have us believe that issues are of far less importance... than how the candidate looks, and how well he or she 'spins.' Since most Americans claim that they do not want a president that lies or 'spins' every word, but rather gives it to us straight: it would appear that the television media and our best interests are at cross purposes.

In his own time, Lincoln suffered many of the same, lame media abuses. Cartoonists mocked him, portrayed him as an ape, a hillbilly and made fun of his home-spun humor, while describing him as an ignorant farmer. Of course as we know today, the truth was vastly different. Lincoln was one of the sharpest minds and wits in our presidential history, with a firm grasp of law, government, and even military strategy.

Somehow, the people saw through all of the media slander and connected with the character of the man. And they were rewarded with 'presidential courage,' and dedicated, bipartisan leadership during a time of national crisis.

If not for Lincoln's leadership, America would be two separate nations today... or perhaps it would have ceased entirely to exist. Perhaps we would now be a region of Canada, a 'state' in Mexico, or worse... the Nazis or Japanese would have eventually invaded and enslaved us during WWII. It is impossible to know where we would be today, had there been no President Abraham Lincoln to bring us through the bloody Civil War as one nation, intact.

I often wonder if we have lost our way as people, and as a nation. We seem to have forgotten to use our minds, but instead sit dumbly and passively in front of the television set, feeding on whatever garbage the media has served up for our consumption. Perhaps this is the result of several generations of Americans growing up with televisions as glorified babysitters; or perhaps there is some other brain deadening effect built into the medium that allows us to abandon our natural skepticism and reason when we flip on the set.

Do we really want the truth? Because candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul would be happy to tell us everything we say we want to hear, and more. Or are we instead willing to settle for a political 'American Idol;' with blow-dried, clean-cut and good-looking actor/politicians, posing for the cameras while carefully avoiding the issues - or heaven forbid - letting slip with any comments that might be construed as an actual opinion?

What about the pathetic state of our health care system, our disappearing jobs, the poisoning of our food, pollution, climate change, inflation, loss of our constitutional protections, and this horrific, bloody, illegal and budget-breaking war? These are issues that affect us all, every single day. Who on earth really cares or is affected by how much John Edwards paid for a haircut? How on earth can that possibly be relevant in a presidential campaign? When will we tire of this media circus, and demand some real honesty, authenticity and straight answers?

Dennis Kucinich gave us issues and answers, and he sounded a very loud trumpet of alarm. So did Ron Paul, when he lectured Rudy Giuliani on the finer points of U.S. history - and our years of intervention in Middle Eastern politics - during the second GOP debate. It is time for us to pay attention... even if this means occasionally watching C-Span, to find out what is really happening in our government (yes, it is boring to watch the House and Senate plod around.) It is time for us to break free of media influence, especially that of television, and instead turn on our active brains and doggedly pursue the truth.

Why are we in Iraq? What is the best plan of action to get our troops out? Every voting American should be asking these questions and actively seeking out the candidate that will best accomplish this end. John Edward's haircut has nothing to do with our nation's role in this bloody 'War on Terror.' Mitt Romney's declaration that he would like to 'double the size of Guantanamo,' and Rudy Giuliani's shameless promotion of torture are frighteningly relevant to our future as a nation.

What do we the people of this nation think it means to be 'American,' and what is our system of values? What do we believe in - what do we consider moral? Is torture moral? Are cluster bombs that kill hundreds of innocent civilians... moral? And are we truly willing to give up our democracy for a little 'temporary safety?' If not, we had better get off the couch and take charge of our government: it is ours, and we have been entrusted with its protection so that it will survive for future generations.

The Internet provides many new opportunities to hear our candidates as they wish to be heard, speaking in their authentic voices - whether via personal blogs, their own video and YouTube presentations (free of media influence,) or their own written dispatches. There is no longer any reason to settle for sugar-coated drivel dished out by mainstream television pundits. We don't need a cynical middle man editing our democratic dialog... we need truth.

I believe it was Mulder of 'X-Files' fame who said "the truth is out there." The opportunity to wake up, pay attention, and meet our candidates is available to us. The choice is in our hands.

Something honest out of Texas

And no, I'm not referring to Molly Ivins!

Boy, this is refreshing. Ron Paul is really shaking up the establishment. Imagine, a politician who can tell the truth....

Ron Paul responds to Giuliani debate outburst

Ron Paul discusses at length the full meaning behind the odd interchange between Paul and Giuliani in the second GOP presidential debate.

Refreshing stuff... this truthiness. Imagine, a Ron Paul/Mike Gravel ticket.

Now... imagine them trying to get any television coverage!

Thank god for the internet, eh?

Big Brother at the door

As always, the stealth cut is the deepest. Orwell was right, just off by a few years.

Did any of us hear about this 'National ID' that was apparently slipped into a House spending bill last week?

In the words of Representative Ron Paul, who was there when it passed:

Absent a political miracle in the Senate, within two years every American will need a conforming national ID card to participate in ordinary activities. This REAL ID Act establishes a massive, centrally coordinated database of highly personal information about American citizens: at a minimum their name, date of birth, place of residence, Social Security number, and physical characteristics. The legislation also grants open-ended authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to require biometric information on IDs in the future. This means your harmless looking driver's license could contain a retina scan, fingerprints, DNA information, or radio frequency technology.

Think this sounds farfetched? Read the REAL ID Act, HR 418, for yourself. Its text is available on the Library of Congress Web site. A careful reading also reveals that states will be required to participate in the "Driver's License Agreement," which was crafted by DMV lobbyists years ago. This agreement creates a massive database of sensitive information on American citizens that can be shared with Canada and Mexico!

The first I heard of the existence of the 'National ID card' was a throw-away comment by Senator Schumer while he was being interviewed about a book on the Daily Show, and I immediately recoiled in horror. I don't think I heard a word he said afterwards, I was in a state of shock.

As I recall, the Nazis expected all of their conquered citizens to carry 'papers' around, everywhere they went, so their every actions could be tracked and monitored. The Nazis could only have dreamed of the 'tracking' technology available today.

As usual, my government doesn't plan to use this technology to track known offenders, criminals or true terrorists. They plan to turn it on us: the American people. And of course, once this technology is in place, we will no longer be free citizens in a free society, we will in effect be wearing 'ankle bracelets:' be cowed and monitored residents in a national prison.

No - terrorists are definitely not the biggest threat to our democracy. They never have been. It was always those who strive to subvert real freedom in our country.

As Lincoln once said: "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves". Or perhaps Thomas Jefferson's words will be more to the point: "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."

By the way, I thought Republicans didn't believe in big government. What happened?

This is outrageous.

I keep thinking, each day, that I've somehow reached my 'max' for outrage, but this truly takes the cake. This provision passed the House?

Slipped into another bill of course, so as to escape detection, like all of the other unconstitutional 'laws' that have been passed since the Bush presidency began. If not for Senator Specter, I doubt anyone would have known that habeas corpus was even under attack.

Oh yes, I know, its all about tracking 'terrorists.' Sure thing - we were all warned in advance that despotic rulers would say this, by our forefathers themselves. I'll take the bridge too - and an order of fries with that.

I read all about the rise of the Nazis when I was growing up, desperate to understand how this could have happened. I have German ancestry and really wanted to understand how the German people failed to see and stop the rise of fascism. Now I understand. It was a gradual creep. It was all done via stealth, propaganda and nationalism, with much flag-waving and of course loud patriotism, against some foreign and of course domestic (the Jewish people then, illegal aliens and Muslims today) - enemies.

There are always enemies. And while we are focused on these other enemies, our freedom is snatched out from under us.

It never occurred to me that it could happen in America. But because I read history so closely, and have done so for so many years, I cannot help but notice all the signs that we are headed right down that dark road. Its astounding and horrifying.

Its not like great leaders from our past didn't warn us either. Even before the rise of Nazis, our forefathers and even more recent Presidents saw that this could happen one day. Maybe it always happens.

James Madison was ahead of this:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. - James Madison

Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power. - James Madison

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison

Or the words of a few other founding fathers:

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide. - John Adams

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty. - John Adams

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. - Thomas Jefferson

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. - Thomas Jefferson

Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence. - Thomas Jefferson

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. - Thomas Jefferson

Or perhaps Eisenhower:

How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without? - Dwight D. Eisenhower

If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

Only Americans can hurt America. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

There is a theme here: the theme being that the biggest threat to our freedom will never, ever be from the outside, but from subversion on the inside.

Any legislation that is slipped into another bill, behind our backs, so as to not arouse our suspicions, is likely against our best interests.

This National ID is an abomination. It is a major step in some sort of concerted attempt to monitor everything we do: and in the wrong hands (think Gonzales, Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al) this can easily lead to controlling everything we do. I can only assume that there would be no need to 'monitor' us at all if this was not to be followed by a concerted attempt to take away our freedom. Why track us, spy on us - obviously most of us are law abiding citizens - if not out of fear of us?

And why fear us? Clinton obviously didn't fear us. Bush Sr. didn't even fear us.

If our current Federal government - now so very secretive and off limits to the very people for whom it was created - is this afraid of us - it is obviously no longer working on our behalf. Perhaps it is preparing for the inevitability that we will find out what is really going on... and rightfully be angry.

One has only to take a close look at Alberto Gonzales - in charge of our 'Justice Department' - to realize that we are on shaky ground. If you listen to Comey's testimony and realize that John Ashcroft was so appalled by what these people were doing that he was going to actually resign... things are grim indeed.

Why should I trust my government when it is now being run by sociopaths? I'd be a fool... and I am not a fool.

I am not some radical lunatic. I was a computer programmer for 18 years. I am one of the most logical people I know. Also, the most skeptical when it comes to politics.

I hate politics - never followed it, or wanted to really know what was going on until I saw the damage and lack of response after Katrina. At that point, I realized I could no longer shirk my duties as an American citizen.

And so, whenever I see some horrible new idea like this one rear its ugly head, I have to once again write to my Senators, write to my Congressmen, sign petitions... its tiring. I'm sick of having to read this stuff every day. I keep hoping, one day, that I can finally stop... that we will have a responsible president, a responsible Congress, and that once again the will of the people will trump the will of corporate and money interests (or worse.)

Or is it now too late? Is the fat lady warming up at last?

Freedom. Its all about freedom from tyranny. Remember that, please, because protecting our freedom is everyone's job.



read more | digg story