Archive for August 2011
The North American Free Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) continues to ravage the US economy and threatens our national sovereignty. Here is a video outlining some of the major events currently unfolding in the north. The Texas efforts, aided by Gov. Rick Perry, ran into some snags as Texas farmers objected to the outright theft of their farming lands for use in building the NAFTA super highway. Little resistance to similar moves exists in Michigan, however, as the economy has been decimated and there are few left with the economic wherewithal to stand up and fight. It seems that the focus has shifted from Texas to Michigan. I am sure the Texas project will be revisited at a later time when resistance has weakened. In the meantime, take a look at the role Canada is playing and the Michigan efforts.
In the 2008 campaign, we were bombarded with the “Yes We Can” message of Barack Obama. Now in the 2012 campaign we hear “Ron Paul Can’t Win”. Where have I heard that before. Oh, I know. It was 60 years ago, the last time a main-line, grass-roots, well-organized Republican Candidate with a bona fide chance to win the white house ran on a NON-INTERVENTIONIST platform. I am speaking of Robert Taft.
You see, if wall street is threatened by a candidate they simply ignore them in the press or outright attack the candidate. The democratic party under Woodrow Wilson really exacerbated the Interventionist foreign policy. After WWI the people elected three consecutive Republican presidents as there was considerable backlash to the war. Even FDR ran under the pledge to keep America out of the European Wars.
By the time the election of 1952 rolled around, the democrats had controlled the white house for 20 consecutive years under an interventionist foreign policy which included entry into WWII and a foray into the Korean War without congressional declaration. It was Robert Taft who ran a campaign to end the insanity and revert back to the pre WWI foreign policy that the United States was founded upon. The destruction of the Taft Campaign damaged the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan were all by-products of the Eisenhower victory. Ford and the Bushes were an indirect result. The interventionist foreign policy of the democrats was adopted. We have had 60 years of bi-partisan foreign policy and it is time to break the grip of Wall Street.
War is money, and the Wall Street bankers stood to make a lot of money by financing both sides of future wars. They were not about to let Taft rain on their parade. The press got rolling once Eisenhower was convinced to join the race for the Republican nomination. We see the same pattern today. Rick Perry joined the race and the “Ron Paul Can’t Win” mantra has started. Do you think there is any animosity between the Wall Street bankers and Ron Paul? One of his key platform issues is for ending the Federal Reserve system.
I was able to dig up some source documentation. Take a look at the attached articles. They reveal the attitude of the New York Times towards Robert Taft and the campaign to derail his nomination bid. We must learn from history.
*** UPDATE *** See Time Magazine 9-5-2011 Article: Ron Paul Prophet. Aparently Time is right on cue with an attempt to discredit Dr. Paul. Unfortunately I do not have access to the article as I do not subscribe to the rag.
The National Popular Vote Movement is now at 132 electoral votes. This means that in 2012, the presidential candidate with the most popular votes will get a block of 132 electoral votes. This movement is not done. It is entirely possible that by the time the 2012 elections are held, the state by state breakdown of votes will not matter. What does this mean? If you live in CA, DC, IL, MA, MD, NJ, VT, WA or any other state that may pass the npv legislation, your electoral votes may go to a candidate that your state did not vote for. Your vote could be stolen from you. Check out the npv website and work against this legislation in your state.
There may be no greater, fundamental question that I have attempted to answer then, What is Natural Law and What are Natural Rights? Quite frankly, I have never been satisfied with my ability to adequately address this question. Sure, I have tried, and I think I have scratched the surface and hopefully conveyed some useful information. I have stumbled upon an episode by Harvard Graduate Thomas E Woods in which he sheds more light on the subject. The challenge for you will be that this discussion is couched in a pro-Catholic program aired by EWTN. I highly recommend the entire series as it smashes many misconceptions about the church and its contributions to our civilization. So, here are the links if you dare to view the episode.
I am stealing this excerpt from Larry Greenley 8/5/2011. Larry has done an excellent job of cutting through all the confusion and summarizing the federal budget problem. See my reference link for the full article which includes a breakdown of votes from across the nation and a video clip from Ron Paul’s floor speech.
Congratulations to Michael Doyle and Patrick Toomey for being the sole voice in opposition to this legislation from each Pennsylvania house. The excerpt follows:
In exchange for congressional authorization for an increase in the debt ceiling of an amount between $2.1 and $2.4 trillion (in a two-step process), congressional leaders promise to cut approximately $2.5 trillion in spending over the next ten years.
So, even though our annual federal deficits have been averaging over $1 trillion per year for a few years now, which would lead us to expect an increase of over $10 trillion in our national debt over the next ten years, the much ballyhooed debt deal will only shave $2.5 trillion off the over $10 trillion expected increase.
The basic problem is that we’re experiencing an increase in the national debt in the area of $2.5 trillion every two years, but the debt deal only provides a reduction of spending of $2.5 trillion over the next ten years.
However, there is an even bigger problem. The unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are variously estimated at $60-$100 trillion dollars or more. So the official, current national debt figure of $14 trillion dollars is a gross underestimation of our federal debt problem.
Everyone knows that by early 2013 we’ll be back in the same situation as we were before the debt deal of 2011. That is, we’ll be knocking on the debt ceiling again.
Larry Greenley “Who Voted to Perpetuate Trillion Dollar Deficits?”
|Aye||PA-1||Brady, Robert [D]|
|Aye||PA-2||Fattah, Chaka [D]|
|Aye||PA-3||Kelly, Mike [R]|
|Aye||PA-4||Altmire, Jason [D]|
|Aye||PA-5||Thompson, Glenn [R]|
|Aye||PA-6||Gerlach, Jim [R]|
|Aye||PA-7||Meehan, Patrick [R]|
|Aye||PA-8||Fitzpatrick, Michael [R]|
|Aye||PA-9||Shuster, William [R]|
|Aye||PA-10||Marino, Thomas [R]|
|Aye||PA-11||Barletta, Lou [R]|
|Aye||PA-12||Critz, Mark [D]|
|Aye||PA-13||Schwartz, Allyson [D]|
|No||PA-14||Doyle, Michael [D]|
|Aye||PA-15||Dent, Charles [R]|
|Aye||PA-16||Pitts, Joseph [R]|
|Aye||PA-17||Holden, Tim [D]|
|Aye||PA-18||Murphy, Tim [R]|
|Aye||PA-19||Platts, Todd [R]|
|Yea||PA||Casey, Robert [D]|
|Nay||PA||Toomey, Patrick [R]|
This debt deal has given birth to a new “Super Congress”. A so-called committee of 12 that will formulate a plan to handle the deficit crises. This is a sham. The Congress has literally crumbled the Constitution into a huge paper ball and tossed it in the waste paper basket. 12 members are going to represent 435 Congressional districts and there will be no debate, no amendment and no filibusters allowed when the committee comes forward with its “recommendation”.
If, by some miracle, the Congress as a whole votes down the recommendation; then the OMB will slash the deficit on its own. Now, remember there is more than one way to reduce the deficit. If I were a betting man I would wager that tax increases rather than spending cuts will be the avenue of choice. Let’s talk about the constitutional problems with this legislation.
United States Constitution Article I Section 1
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
#1. The constitution tells us that all legislative power rests in a Congress. This “Super Congress” establishes the President (an executive branch official) as a legislator with veto power. This is different then the normal veto power of the president. It is different because under this committee he exercises the veto in the course of formulating the legislation. He becomes a co-author. As such, he is not exercising a simple assent or denial, he is engineering bills. Does he sit in on the discussions, I’m not really sure. I do know , however, that any proposal that would be rejected by the whole congress would result in the OMB cuts to go into affect. The OMB is an executive office.
United States Constitution Article I Section 7
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.
#2. According to the Constitution, all revenue generating bills are to originate in the house and it explicitly states that the Senate may offer amendments. These revenue generating bills will be originating in something akin to a joint-committee of the two houses, but it is really a revolutionary body never before assembled.
United States Constitution Article 4 Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government…
#3. And finally, I submit that this arrangement, because it blurs the separation of powers between the Legislative and Executive branches of government violates the very definition or a Republic.
Making matters worse, this deal never even pretended to address our real economic crises, THE DEBT. Listen to what they talk about. They talk about reducing rising budget deficits. The never speak of eliminating the budget deficit and they never talk about paying off the National Debt.
It’s as if Americans do not even understand terms. A deficit is when you spend more money than you take in. The debt is the total of all deficits plus the interest owed. Reducing the deficit means you are going to continue to have budget deficits and you are going to continue to grow the national debt. Whether the committee proposal is approved or denied, the debt ceiling will be raised. An approval will grant an increase of 1.5 Trillion and a rejection would result in an increase of 1.2 Trillion. Now, if you are going to raise the debt by 1.2 to 1.5 Trillion what is the point of the budget cuts?
Are we as a people too dumb to remain free? This appears to be the beginning of an oligarchical dictatorship. I would expect increased taxes, increased spending, increased debt and a decrease in benefits and services. The bankers will love this arrangement because it will increase the interest payments on an ever-increasing national debt.