Chewing The Cud

A letter to Congressman Goodlatte, concerning the invasive way the Commerce Clause is invoked to pry into the private lives of Americans.

Congressman Goodlatte,

I would like to bring to your attention the cases of Wickard v Filburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn ) and Gonzales v Raich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich), wherein the Supreme Court found “that Congress can regulate purely INTRASTATE activity that is not itself “commercial,” in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity” (emphasis mine).

Congress has seemingly confused economics with commerce. Setting prices is not Congress’ job. Setting quotas, to be met or not exceeded, is not Congress’ job. Telling an American what they can and cannot produce, and in what quantities, for personal use, is not the job of Congress!

Taking the Filburn case further, one can see it being applied to any number of self-sufficiency initiatives one may follow, like home gardening or personal solar/wind/hydro power.

As we can see with HR 875 and S 425, regulating home gardening is already being proposed. I am glad to see that no Republicans are supporting it, but 41 Democrats are (HR 875, that is).

As home power generation technology becomes more affordable and effective at displacing power drawn off the grid, how long until power companies join together to have Congress regulate how much energy a person can generate locally?

Congressman, this trend worries me as I’m hoping it worries you. We need strongly worded legislation that reigns in Congress’ ability to use the Commerce Clause as carte blanche to stick it’s nose in the economy. Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the Several States, NOT in the private lives of Americans, no matter how much Congress “thinks” it may affect the national economy.

Please respond by letting me know how you are personally going to reign in Congress’ power (something any true Republican would actually do, even though it reigns in their own “power”). I would like to work with you on drafting this legislation so that it protects the individual’s ability to take care of themselves and their families without Congress influencing those decisions.

Sincerely,

James Aimonetti

Regarding the VP “Debate”: Overall, Palin didn’t suck. Biden was good. Neither was very impressive. I would have liked to have seen a third party VP candidate up there to actually talk substance.

That said, why will no one acknowledge that the Federal Reserve is directly responsible for the financial meltdown?

The monetary supply was increased by the Federal Reserve and loaned that increase to firms on Wall Street at low interest rates. There was no call from the market for an increase, there was no market influence on the interest rate. Other than Ben Bernanke, can anyone name someone else on the Federal Reserve board? Can anyone remember voting for Bernanke to replace Greenspan? So, we have a board with no tangible oversight determining the monetary supply and interest rates.

With all this cheap money to be had, and with the nature of Wall Street to make money, it is only natural (good or bad is subjective) for the financial industry to take the money and do something with it. The cliche “kid in a candy store” is so fitting because we are seeing the tummy ache of too much candy. Do you blame the kid for getting the tummy ache? Sure, there has to be personal responsibility. The kid has to learn a lesson. But what about the parent who let the kid run wild in the store? If you gave a kid $500 and let them loose, don’t you think they’d most likely buy candy and not something more nutritious?

So the Wall Street folks took the artificially low-interest money and went nuts. How did the kid get the $500? It was given to him for essentially free. Now, what if the kid had had to work hard to earn $20, perhaps by mowing the lawn or some other chore. Wouldn’t they be more likely to purchase something of value instead of some candy? The same with Wall Street. Given sound money, investments would be more prudent, and investors would not be buying debt-backed investments at such ravenous rates.

The Federal Reserve is ultimately to blame for the mal-investments. By corrupting the free market with cheap money, investors binged on candy and now have a tummy ache. The bailout will be another handout, and another tummy ache (or worse) later down the road. Sure, those investors that lost their scruples will need to pay, to be hurt by the collapse. In that way, the market becomes stronger. If the Federal Reserve continues to inflate the money supply, we will see more bubbles (remember, this “housing” bubble was preceded by the tech bubble, which also was fed by artificially low interest rates).

Let’s take a look at some other numbers.

The 2008 fiscal year ended Sept 30th. On that day, the Federal Debt was $10,024,724,896,912.49. $10 trillion dollars. In 1913, when the Federal Reserve was spawned into being, the Federal Debt was $2.916 billion. Almost a 3,500 times increase.

The national debt grew by $1,017.1 billion this year (2008), the first time the debt has grown by over $1 trillion dollars. The rancid cherry is that since Sept. 15th of this year, the debt increased $390.6 billion. In 15 days! 40% of the year’s debt in 15 days? Sounds like Sec. Paulson and Bernanke have assured the next few generations an uphill battle to solvency.

The $700 billion bailout will not stem the tide. It will not turn the ship. It will do nothing but exacerbate the problem. The silver lining, so far, is that the citizens of this country pressured the House enough to get a ‘No’ vote on the initial bailout bill. The Senate has passed a turd of a bill that includes the $700 billion bailout, as well as over $150 billion in tax breaks. So they want to take $700 billion and remove another $150 billion from the tax revenue. Doesn’t that seem odd? Anyway, if Americans are ever to take their country back, a doubling, tripling, even a quadrupling of efforts is needed to ensure the bill does not pass the House.

Now, there are those Congressmen that know the bailout is bad news for the taxpayer, but they can’t get help but feel like they need to do something. Here’s how you can help them do something. When you call, fax, and email them, everyday, you can mention that they should support three bills: HR 2755 (Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act), HR 2756 (Honest Money Act), and HR 4683 (Free Competition in Currency Act). These three bills will help the economy recover in a more timely manner and with more lasting changes that will discourage this scenario from playing out again.

To those Congressmen that voted ‘yes’ on the initial bailout, they must reverse their votes or else be run out of town. To those that voted ‘no’ initially, encourage them, thank them, and require them to stay true to that ‘no’ vote.

From a mailing list:

Just like you wouldn’t buy a new car with a serious defect, nor should you vote for a politician with a serious defect and then work to fix it later. You also shouldn’t buy a car with a serious defect because the only other car on the lot is an even bigger piece of junk.

What should you do?

Keep your money and walk, and tell the dealership that you aren’t buying until they carry something that’s worth buying. That is how we get quality cars, and that’s how we’ll get quality leaders.

Think voting for a candidate is throwing your vote away because they can’t win? Vote for them anyway. Let your voice be heard.

As the primary season winds down for our two main political parties, it comes time to question within ourselves what direction we wish our country to take. With that in mind, ruminate on this quote:

A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

The quote, often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, seems to actually have originated from Gerald Ford. Regardless, the message of the quote is clear: big government does not act in the individual’s interests, and given a chance, will take whatever it can from you.

The perception that we Americans seem to have of our government as fundamentally good is dangerous. When we view the body of history, we see that the more of life government controls, the less liberty the individual is able to express. Both political parties trumpet a decrease in personal liberty, though they would never admit it outright. Democrats hide it under themes of “saving the children” and “eliminating poverty”. Republicans hide it under themes of “family values” and “patriotism”. How are the parties doing?

“Saving the children” has led to a fear, especially among men, that helping a child in need, even if it’s your own, will be misconstrued as a sexually-motivated, dangerous activity. There also seems to be an article or editorial every month or so lamenting the lack of un-monitored exploration by children. Indeed, I had free reign of my childhood, traveling the town and surrounding wilderness alone and with siblings. Today, children are fenced in, constantly monitored, given highly structured and “safe” activities, “diagnosed” with ADD or ADHD or whatever they’re calling it today, given pills to reign in their natural exuberance. I call bullshit! This sheltered lifestyle, in my opinion, leads to what some Internet commenters call “sheeple”, people unable to question authority and assuming those in power know best.

While property values have dropped across the country and foreclosures increase, the low-income borrowers have been hit the hardest. Improper lending practices (such as no-money-down, ARMs, especially to first-time buyers) have packaged up debt and exported it worldwide. Because lines of credit have been relatively scarce in low income areas, with the decrease in standards in the lending industry, low income families gravitated to the credit with little more that rosy visions of owning a home of their own. While a noble goal in and of itself, it seems most homebuyers allowed this dream to overshadow the stark realities that came with a mortgage, particularly the adjustable rate variety. So as this housing collapse has come to light and the ramifications are just beginning to be felt, where are the Democrats? Oh yeah, allowing the “Federal” Reserve to bailout the very financial institutions that got the housing market in this mess. What about the little guy? Not a dime. With a majority in both the House and Senate, the Dems have failed to bring help to ailing homeowners.

You know what could help the economy? $3+ trillion dollars spent overseas maintaining our empire. Oh wait. With a majority in Congress, their hands on the purse of the government, the Democrats have continually caved to Bush’s demands for more funding of the occupation in Iraq. So while Obama and Hillary debate about the war, they and their Democratic cohorts continue to feed the beast. Condemning Bush’s foreign policy is easy and takes no guts; opposing funding and actually bringing the troops you claim to support home is hard and takes intestinal fortitude, something history has shown lacking in the Democratic party. Why is that? Oh yeah, 100+ members of Congress directly profit, through their investments, from the military activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries. Why actually take a meaningful stand and cease to vote for funding when it hurts their individual bottom line?

Don’t kid yourself…the top echelon of Democratic and Republican leadership all hang out at the same country clubs, are members of the same corporate boards, eat at the same high end restaurants. They are cut from the same cloth; they just think they can keep power by espousing different ways of stealing your liberty.

So how does “family values” steal liberty? Probably two of the hottest issues, abortion and gay rights, are both attacked under the guise of “family values”. Abortion, in my mind at least, is the trickier of the two. At what point does a fetus gain the right to individual liberty versus the right of the mother to determine what happens to her body? It is a contentious point and not one that is solved, as far as I can tell. Each must draw their own line, and I think at this point government cannot weigh in here with law. Leave it to the mother, her support structure, and the doctor, to determine what is right.
Gay rights is, to me, a no brainer. The ability to marry should not be restricted by law. Indeed, marriage between heterosexuals has lacked the moral fortitude that “family values” pushers claim. While the examples are numerous to the point of depressing, let’s take a high profile case: John McCain. After his first wife had an accident and was no longer desirable to him, McCain “upgraded” to a newer, younger, richer, and more influential model, Cindy. Sure, he acknowledges his misstep but does that give him the right to tell Ellen DeGeneres she can’t marry Portia de Rossi because he believes in the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman? The failings of the religious right in upholding their “values” far outweighs any perceived damage from a homosexual lifestyle. Plus, as near as I can tell, the only rationale for opposing gay rights is Biblically based. While the Bible certainly has great stories and examples of noble living, it should not, cannot, be the sole basis for law in a “free” society. I have not seen arguments that are not rooted in Biblical passages.

Under the guise of Patriotism, President Bush brought us the Patriot Act, torture, Abu Ghraib, warrentless wiretapping, PROTECT America act, and more. He illegally invaded and occupied Iraq and has, more recently, been beating the drums of conflict with Iran. He speaks to Middle Eastern countries about increasing their levels of democracy and personal freedom, and yet enacts domestic policies that curtail free speech and political dissension. In our current state, we do not represent the country envisioned by the Founders.

And exhale!

So as we journey down the road to another President, take a real look at what each candidate offers. Obama offers hope. Hope for what? That the Democrats and Republicans can work together to more efficiently to steal our personal liberties? Hilary seems all but out, unless her ace up her sleeve is a hit on Obama, which she recently alluded to in a speech about why she was still in the race. Her voting record and words show she won’t get us out of Iraq anytime soon. “Responsible withdrawal” is code for “my generals will ‘find’ intel that requires prolonging the stay for national security”. McCain wants more war (Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb bomb Iran, anyone?). All three want more government control of more aspects of our lives. Try to think of something you do in your day that is not affected directly by government on some level. It’s hard. And heaven forbid you rise in dissent…

It is hard to trust politicians, isn’t it? I know I believed Colin Powell’s speech to the UN detailing Iraq’s WMD capabilities, with the mobile units and all that. That trust has gotten us involved in an unconstitutional war, one that has cost us and the Iraqi people dearly in lives, property, and money. Still, there is one politician who can be trusted, mostly because what he’s been preaching in the House has come to pass in our experience. It should be no stretch to know I’m talking about Ron Paul.

What I have come to learn is that Ron Paul is dead-on when he talks about the negative impact our foreign and monetary policies are having on our standard of living. While modern Republicans and Democrats think they represent different ideals, they are really two heads of the same beast. Both encourage a welfare state in our country; the Democrats just support a more visible version.

In an article written by Ron Paul in February of 2006, Paul lays out the last 100 years of US monetary policy, and shows, in crystal clear HD detail, how the Federal Reserve and the Federal government have given us a very false sense of prosperity. In essence, because of the government and the people of this nation as a whole, cannot live within their means, we have had to control the value of our dollar by force, either covertly overthrowing governments that threaten our dollar supremacy, or by outright war. The problem is that, militarily speaking, we are unmatched in the world in military might.

Why that’s a problem is that, rather than producing more goods and exporting them, generating wealth, we are the schoolyard bullies who, when someone questions the value of our dollar, we push them around until we get what we want. So it was with Iraq and Saddam. As the world’s reserve currency, the US dollar was the only currency used in pricing oil. In November of 2000, Saddam decided he would sell oil in Euros, challenging US dollar dominance. Before this time, there was no talk of Saddam and his threat to “national security”. Using 9/11 as a false springboard to rally support, the US military went in, and soon after Hussein’s capture, Iraq was selling oil in dollars, not Euros.

A similar situation occurred in 2001 in Venezuela when an Venezuelan ambassador mentioned the possibility of selling oil in Euros. Within that year, there was a coup attempt supported by the CIA. Fast forward to today and Iran’s plans to form an oil bourse that would sell its oil in a handful of non-dollar currencies, including the Euro. Following this announcement and subsequent execution, war drums began pounding in Washington, as the President fabricated Iran’s nuclear armament program to scare Americans into another engagement in the Middle East. Rumors abound, with one saying Bush wants us in Iran by the summer.

What is clear from reading the article is that our flawed and failed monetary policies are crumbling around us, and rather than face facts and make appropriate changes, we are resorting to violence against those that challenge our fairytale. Like punching a kid that tells you there’s no Santa, forcefully stopping countries from conducting business, particularly oil exports, in competing currencies only delays the inevitable collapse, and worse still, alienates us from the rest of the world who perceive America as a bully living in a dream world. Are we surprised at how little support across the globe we have anymore? Sure, countries roll out the red carpet for us when we visit because they fear our military, but when it comes to supporting our inane wars, their support proves scarce.

Dr. Paul’s article is much longer (probably a 15-20 minute read) and runs through a lot more of the history and implications, but it is very much worth the time to read it and contemplate the consequences of voting in McCain, Clinton, or Obama, all of whom support war to varying degrees (maybe not Iraq with Obama, but he still supports operations in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan). Keep in mind, too, that the article was written in 2006, and how much of its foretelling has come true.

Remember, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for true peace, not just withdrawal from Iraq.

Join the REVOLUTION!