By Matt Hawes
Livestream is providing coverage of the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. Watch it below:
By Matt Holdridge
From the Huffington Post:
Over the past few weeks, the news out of Afghanistan and Iraq has been pretty grim. Abstruse and bizarre comments from Afghan President Hamid Karzai troubled America’s diplomatic community; violence followed the election of Iraqi president Iyad Allawi; and a leaked, two-year-old video showing the killing of civilians in New Baghdad raised fundamental questions about U.S. military policy.
It’s a sequence of stories that two years ago would have produced howls in Congress and spurred demonstrations outside the Beltway. Today, the fallout is negligible.
America’s military campaign in Afghanistan and its draw-down in Iraq are hardly resonating on the political landscape.
…Having a Democratic president in office has, indeed, changed the dynamics in fundamental and sometimes difficult ways for the progressive community. And it’s not just simply because it presents more opportunities for collaboration than existed under George W. Bush.
…”I think it is true that progressives do not want to take on this war partly because they think it will hurt their specific domestic causes, partly because they think it will be disloyal to Obama,” said Robert Greenwald, the activist filmmaker who has spearheaded anti-war efforts. “In the end, not pushing Obama on this is one will be one of the greatest single mistakes progressive will make and will continue to make.”
The Liberty Movement, for better-or-worse, has often had to join forces with the principled Left on certain foreign policy issues because of the Right’s embrace of neo-conservative thought.
Members of our movement, this website included, have pointed out for sometime the loss of anti-war enthusiasm among progressives. In many instances, we’ve become the sole critic of our government’s foreign adventures.
This of course begs the question, was the opposition to American empire on the Left ever really principled to begin with, or just an issue to be abandoned once electoral victory was at hand?
By brandonwbarrios
Congressman to hold hearing into baseball and chewing tobacco
Washington, D.C. – Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.) announced on Wednesday a congressional hearing on the use of chewing tobacco by young people, the health problems it causes and the influence of professional baseball players who chew tobacco.
“Just because there’s no smoke doesn’t mean there’s no harm,” said Pallone. “Young people should understand the consequences of chewing tobacco. The best way to protect them against health damage is to get a better understanding of the extent of its usage, the health problems it can cause and the factors that influence its usage.”
Read the rest here.
Sounds like a big waste of time and money. I’ve never met anyone who is not aware chewing tobacco may cause cancer. The concern is slapping a sticker on chewing tobacco like its done on cigarettes is not enough. These extremists want more. Next they should argue stickers be placed on donut boxes stating “May Cause Obesity”, if they haven’t already.
The extremists in our society are the statists of any political party that ignore our individual liberty while seeking ways to impose their beliefs and opinions on everyone. They are proponents of a nanny state whose actions are outside the scope of law. They ignore the natural rights outlined in our Declaration of Independence from the very aura they’ve come to represent – intrusive government.
Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)
D.C. Office Phone: (202) 225-4671
New Brunswick Phone: (732) 249-8892
Long Branch Phone: (732) 571-1140
By Matt Holdridge
Tom Woods did an interview on April 7, 2010 with Brian Wilson on 1370 AM WSPD in Toledo, Ohio regarding state nullification of federal law and the critisism of it.
As Tom writes in today’s featured article,
Over the past few years, but especially during the past several months, there has been an extraordinary revival of interest in Thomas Jefferson’s idea of state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws. According to Jefferson, if the federal government were to monopolize constitutional interpretation, it would of course interpret the Constitution in its own favor and consistently uncover previously unknown reservoirs of additional federal power. Only a fool would consent to such a system, thought Jefferson, and the peoples of the states were not fools.
Needless to say, nullification is nowhere to be found on the three-by-five card on which our betters have written out the range of allowable opinion, so it has been greeted with the usual hysteria from predictable quarters.
Listen to Tom’s interview with Brian here.
Also, don’t forget that you can hear Tom speak on the subject live at the C4L Iowa Regional Conference on May 14-16, 2010.
By Deb Wells
Congratulations to Campaign for Liberty member Romaine Quinn for winning his neighborhood for Liberty!
As they say, all politics is local. This gentleman has taken these words literally and has decided to take back his own backyard by first serving on his city council, then walking door to door to get elected as mayor.
He took a stand on an issue that was of deep concern to his neighbors and they, in turn, elected him to represent them.
This is a great example of “Winning Your Neighborhood for Liberty” as reflected in our Local Coordinator program. Quinn beat the incumbent mayor with 53 percent of the vote!
Rice Lake Voters Elect 19-Year-Old Mayor
A young man wearing a Hollister T-shirt, shorts and sandals picked up election signs Wednesday in Rice Lake, Wis. The 19-year-old wasn’t a campaign volunteer. Romaine Quinn is the new mayor.
Quinn, who served one year on the Rice Lake City Council before being elected mayor on Tuesday, said, “Age, I don’t think, necessarily makes a difference, I mean, it’s about the issues.”
Judging by the talk at Maxine’s restaurant, he might be right.
“Apparently, a lot of people wanted change,” said 78-year-old Del Hanson, who voted for Quinn.
http://wcco.com/local/19.year.old.2.1620097.html
By Matt Holdridge
From The Hill:
Fundamental changes to the federal budget will be needed to rein in unsustainable deficits, Congress’s budget watchdog said Thursday.
“U.S. fiscal policy is unsustainable, and unsustainable to an extent that it can’t be solved through minor changes,” Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast.
Spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, plus defense programs and debt interest, will exceed the rest of the federal budget in 10 years if most of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are extended, as President Barack Obama has proposed, Elmendorf said.
“It’s a matter of arithmetic,” Elmendorf said of getting record deficits under control.
“Government would need to make changes in some set of the large programs, large parts of the tax code that we think of as the fundamental parts of the budget.”
The article goes on,
The deficit would bottom out in 2014 at a level equal to 4.1 percent of gross domestic product, which is higher than the 3 percent level considered to be sustainable by the White House and independent economists. Deficits would again rise after 2014.
The debt-to-GDP ratio would go from 63 percent this year to 90 percent by 2020, the CBO said. A “select group of countries,” including Greece, which is facing a fiscal crisis, have debt levels that high, which is “worrisome,” Elmendorf said.
Given the CBO’s track record, it’s difficult to tell whether they’ll be correct or not. However, one thing is certain, Washington is addicted to spending and that won’t end anytime soon.
By Jesse Benton
Dr. Paul will be on MSNBC with Dylan Ratigan tomorrow at 4:00 pm ET and then…..
Jesse Ventura is guest hosting Larry King on CNN at 9:00 ET, and has invited Ron to take part in his political panel. Should be interesting!
By Andrew Ward
Count me in.
Heads up: Judge Andrew Napolitano will be laying down the law on today’s Happy Hour on Fox Business, 5-6pm ET. That’s great in and of itself, but if you click here you’ll be able to interact with him live using the website’s chat tools!
What will you ask the Judge?
By Anthony Gregory
It is all well and good that the U.S. and Russia, possessors of the world’s largest nuclear stockpiles, are planning to reduce their arsenals. This has always been the goal of thoughtful humanitarians and prudent policy makers. Nixon and Reagan had similar goals—Reagan looked forward to a day of zero nuclear weapons, as does Obama.
But there’s a loophole. All nuclear-armed states, under the Obama doctrine, promise not to use nukes against non-nuclear armed states that are in compliance with their non-proliferation treaty guidelines. Although Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and although the U.S. intelligence community declares that Iran has not tried to obtain a nuclear weapon since 2003 at the latest, the Obama administration’s position is that Iran has been flouting the NPT, claiming that Iran was “caught” building a nuclear reactor in Qom—even though Iran was open about this, and it probably falls within Iran’s rights under international agreement to develop nuclear energy for peaceful uses. By all credible acounts, Iran is years away from the uranium purity needed to make a weapon, much less one that could threaten the United States. Iran is right now deterred by both Israel and the U.S., both nuclear-weapons states that dwarf the military capacity of Iran. But most Americans have bought into the propaganda that Iran already has nuclear WMD.
As with all his other doublespeak, Iran’s gestures for peace and nuclear disarmament are actually a threat of war, even nuclear war, against Iran. Let us hope the U.S. does not engage Iran militarily, for it could easily become a disaster that makes Iraq and Afghanistan look like the cakewalks the neocons promised.
By Anthony Gregory
They shut down three terminals in LAX after a guy walked by without undergoing secondary screening. Two fighter jets escorted a plane to the ground when a man onflight lit a cigarette. How much longer will air travel be subject to such hysteria?
By sweetliberty
Without a trial. Without even being charged with a crime.
“Instead, in Barack Obama’s America, the way guilt is determined for American citizens — and a death penalty imposed — is that the President, like the King he thinks he is, secretly decrees someone’s guilt as a Terrorist. He then dispatches his aides to run to America’s newspapers — cowardly hiding behind the shield of anonymity which they’re granted — to proclaim that the Guilty One shall be killed on sight because the Leader has decreed him to be a Terrorist. It is simply asserted that Awlaki has converted from a cleric who expresses anti-American views and advocates attacks on American military targets (advocacy which happens to be Constitutionally protected) to Actual Terrorist “involved in plots.” These newspapers then print this Executive Verdict with no questioning, no opposition, no investigation, no refutation as to its truth. And the punishment is thus decreed: this American citizen will now be murdered by the CIA because Barack Obama has ordered that it be done. What kind of person could possibly justify this or think that this is a legitimate government power?”
The rest of the article is fantastic. Worth the read.
By Anthony Gregory
Notice that the U.S. atrocity captured on video was carried out against people in Iraq on the basis that they had guns. Some apparently didn’t even have the weapons they were alleged to have, but consider the primary issue: People walking around in Iraq with weapons are fair game for killing by remote control.
Of course, the U.S. establishment claimed that it has “liberated” the Iraqi people. What kind of liberation is it if the Iraqis cannot even keep and bear arms—and they need it even more than Americans do, considering the chaotic violence unleashed by the war.
But here’s the truth: Although Saddam Hussein was a violent and repressive monster, one freedom he allowed many of his people was the right to bear arms. In Baghdad, personal gun ownership was common before the war. The media even reported gun sales increasing in anticipation of the U.S. invasion.
That all changed after the U.S. liberated the Iraqi people. The American military assisted the new U.S.-friendly regime in going door to door rounding up personal weapons in Baghdad. Along with the institution of an income tax over Iraq, the rise of Sharia Law, the ratification of a Soviet-style Constitution, the persecution of women, Christians and Jews that increased rapidly with the fall of Saddam, gun control is one of the many exports of “freedom” to Iraq, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.
Some might say that this disarmament of civilians was necessary for the functioning of the war—if so, this is another reason to question the war—but it has been seven years and those residing in Iraq are still living in fear of being blown away if they happen to be carrying a personal weapon. Gun rights are universal, and no military occupation can be “liberation” if it involves massive weapons confiscation aimed against the people supposedly being liberated. Also frightening is the fact that when martial law was imposed upon New Orleans in the wake of Katrina, U.S. military personnel back from Iraq were brought in to assist the local and state authorities, who themselves went door to door confiscating the weapons of peaceful Americans when they most needed them. The war on Iraq was always an act of gun control—an act to enforce UN resolutions regarding “weapons of mass destruction”—and we see to this day that it really is impossible to be free and safe when the government lording over you, whether foreign or domestic, cannot trust you with the human right to keep and bear arms.
By brandonwbarrios
Due to government intervention in private industry it is beneficial for corporations to waste billions of dollars lobbying government to protect or achieve profits or market share instead of earning it through the innovation of a product, service or any advancement that progresses our society. Government intervention and its consequential lobbying is truly an enemy of progress.
As reported on Market Ticker:
On March 23, 2010, the President signed into law comprehensive health care reform legislation under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR 3590). Included among the major provisions of the law is a change in the tax treatment of the Medicare Part D subsidy. AT&T Inc. (“AT&T”) intends to take a non-cash charge of approximately $1 billion in the first quarter of 2010 to reflect the impact of this change. As a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health care benefits offered by the company.
Read the rest here. Consequences of Health Care: Valuations
The above article briefly sums up one of the ways the administration plans on paying for health care reform—redistributing wealth between private industries owned by private shareholders. Inevitably, this redistribution will consequentially take wealth from an even greater number of citizens, employees or customers.
The nature of these charges relates to previous federal subsidies that will be prohibited starting in 2011. As noted in the article they must be accounted when realized per GAAP. The subsidy covered a portion of the cost of their retirees’ prescription drug coverage and also allowed these costs to be deducted from the companies’ income tax. It encouraged companies to continue providing this coverage to retirees in order to keep them off of government-funded Medicare Part D. Due to the change in tax treatment of this subsidy, over a dozen corporations have announced charges ranging from $10 million by Goodrich Corp. to $1 billion by AT&T. Other companies reporting such charges include Boeing, Caterpillar, Deere, Prudential Financial, 3M, Honeywell, AK Steel Holding, Valero and Allegheny Technologies. The Obama Administration and Congress must not have received the memo informing them the U.S. economy isn’t exactly a winner.
The proponents of this reform argue for the closing of a tax loophole, among which group of beneficiaries these newly acquired taxes will be redistributed and what intention they aspire to achieve. It would be difficult to argue the merits of the reform and what interests they serve, as an equal argument can be made on behalf of the previous arrangement. What is certain though is that government subsidies to private industry always involve conflicts of interest, special interests and unintended consequences. Government intervention breeds further government intervention. For example, the growth of an employer-based health care system should be credited to the federal government and their encouraging it through changes to the tax code. Any criticism of this system’s failures should be credited to its creator and cheerleader, interventionist government. It is also important to realize who these interventions and subsidies affect: everyone.
Any immediate or future negative effects of these costs on the companies’ earnings and therefore stock valuation hit the investment portfolios of the thousands of shareholders invested in these companies. Why defend shareholders? Well, it shouldn’t be hard to understand that these shareholders are affected negatively and are now that much poorer. Whatever the future scenario, an economic opportunity has been reduced and/or redistributed. Should they have chosen to utilize this now-lost portion of their wealth to consume or pursue some form of entrepreneurial aspiration, those that suffer would be anyone who would have benefited from this now-impossible purchase, job creation, service or product. Had the shareholder opted to store this wealth in the bank, our gracious fractional-reserve banking system would have lent that amount of savings many times, financing the purchase of a home or the creation of a business venture by another party. It also isn’t difficult to understand that although a significant number of companies will be paying higher costs, there is certainly an industry that benefits from this reform: the pharmaceutical companies and their shareholders.
Due to the higher costs yet unchanged output, any sustainable profit-maximizing business will seek further efficiency and greater output per worker to recoup the costs. Burdened with these additional per year costs, cuts will be made to reduce labor costs. Indirect losses to private employees will be realized through the loss of one’s job, cuts to their employment benefits or retirement packages. This is a measure currently underway as briefly reported to the SEC by AT&T. Found here.
There may even be the loss of technological advancements that will never be realized due to a lesser amount of capital being allocated to the research & development areas of these businesses than would have otherwise been the case before the reform bill. The $1 billion charge by AT&T is a hefty chunk of change, to say the least.
These opportunities and benefits have now been transferred to the demographic and industry that stand to benefit from this reform. No surprise, government will surely claim any new opportunities, benefits or “job creation” as their own while ignoring what was lost in the process. To reiterate, so long as government intervenes in private industry through subsidies and special favors, special interest lobbying will remain a dominating influence within the beltway. Due to government intervention in private industry it is beneficial for corporations to waste billions of dollars lobbying government to protect or achieve profits or market share instead of earning it through the innovation of a product, service or any advancement that progresses our society. Government intervention and its consequential lobbying are truly an enemy of progress.
The government granting subsidies to one demographic or private industry at the expense of others is really the business of picking winners and losers, a business it should have no part in. The government needs to get it right, or get out. I advocate the latter.
By Matt Holdridge
It looks like labor unions are the next in line for a bailout.
From the DailyCaller:
Legislation introduced last week could shift costs of union pension plans to taxpayers in an attempt to stave off organized labor’s pension funding crisis.
Senator Bob Casey, Pennsylvania Democrat, introduced the Create Jobs & Save Benefits Act of 2010 to address the funding problems faced by union-administered multi-employer pension plans.
Multi-employer pension plans have to cover the benefits of members, even if their companies are defunct. Currently the costs are shared among the companies that remain in the pool, but Casey’s bill proposes offloading them to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC), a federal corporation, which backs the pensions of 44 million workers, more than 75 percent of which are nonunion.
…Union pension plans suffer from the same aging demographic problem as social security suffers.
Before the economic downtown, when the latest pension data were available, only 17 percent of labor pensions were fully funded, compared to 35 percent in the non-union sector. More interestingly, pension funds of union staff and officers are well-funded — in the 90-plus percent range — while the funds of labor’s rank and file suffer.
It appears the federal gravy train has no stops, especially if you’re a politically well-connected group like organized labor.
By Matt Hawes
CBS News has an interesting report out concerning this weekend’s Southern Republican Leadership Conference and the potential impact it could have on the political climate for the next few years. The article also includes a survey asking people to pick their favorite candidate.
Every four years, in between presidential elections, conservative activists gather to take stock of some of the most prominent names in the Republican Party — and consider which of them has what it takes for a successful run for the White House.
That gathering, the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, takes place this Thursday through Saturday in New Orleans. Among the speakers will be Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Bobby Jindal, Michael Steele, and Sarah Palin, whose speech will be closely watched for signs as to whether the former Alaska governor is serious about a presidential run or is opting instead a lucrative media career….
If you are in the New Orleans area and have not made plans to attend, click here for more information about obtaining tickets. Dr. Paul will be speaking to the Conference this Saturday. Come out and support the liberty message!
By Andrew Ward
This morning, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan explained that Congress pushed the central bank to fuel the housing boom. Featured article after article has pointed out this simple fact, but it’s rather telling that the former chairman would be so open to political nature of the Fed. Reuters reports:
“If the Fed as a regulator had tried to thwart what everyone perceived as a fairly broad consensus that the trend was in the right direction, homeownership was rising and that was an unmitigated good, then Congress would have clamped down on us,” he told a questioner at a congressionally appointed commission investigating the financial crisis.
Greenspan continues to spell out just how much of the Federal Reserve’s so-called independence is at stake:
“There’s a presumption that the Federal Reserve’s an independent agency, and it is up to a point, but we are a creature of the Congress and if … we had said we’re running into a bubble and we need to retrench, the Congress would say ‘we haven’t a clue what you’re talking about’”
The fact of the matter is that Federal Reserve is a political creature. While one of its primary functions is to protect the banking oligopoly from the economic consequences of fraud, it is given the ability to legally counterfeit money by the very government that directly benefits from its easy money policies. At the very least, Congress should be legitimately auditing its own creation.
By John Tate
Congressman Ron Paul and Campaign for Liberty are coming to Iowa on May 14-16 for our Iowa Regional Conference and Forum on the Future of Conservatism in America!
With unconstitutional powergrabs such as ObamaCare opening more Americans to our message and causing them to take action, we have an unprecedented opportunity to turn back the tide of statism.
Make no mistake about it, we can win this grassroots Revolution.
But to do so, we’ll have to understand the ins-and-outs of the political process and equip ourselves with the knowledge necessary to pass and defeat key legislation, raise the funds to build, expand, and sustain new efforts at the local and national levels, hold our elected officials accountable, and turn every available opportunity to our advantage in fighting for our liberties.
C4L’s Iowa Conference will kick off on Friday night, May 14, with a free and open to the public Freedom Celebration featuring Dr. Ron Paul and other special guests.
Our Saturday, May 15 activities will be highlighted by our grassroots training as well as our open to the public Forum on the Future of Conservatism in America, where we will examine true conservative principles from historical, constitutional, and moral perspectives and clearly articulate the need to reduce the size of government, maximize freedom, and return to the Constitution.
I’m proud to announce that we’re able to offer tickets to our grassroots training classes, which also includes Saturday lunch with a special guest, for our lowest price ever – only $59!
Our Iowa Regional Conference will:
* Strengthen your understanding of history and foundational principles necessary to maintain liberty
* Teach you how to persuasively communicate our movement’s mission and message
* Train you in how to recruit, equip, and mobilize an army of informed citizens and build the organizational structure necessary to win
* Help you master the political process on the local, state, and national level
The Conference will take place at the Embassy Suites on the River in downtown Des Moines, where we have secured a special discounted rate for Conference attendees. However, this discount is only available for a limited time.
Campaign for Liberty and Ron Paul are coming to Iowa to take a stand for the ideas that can revitalize our nation and lead us boldly into the future.
Join us in Iowa and get the tools you need to take back your neighborhood, your country, and your life!
By Tim Shoemaker
One possible enforcement mechanism the IRS plans to use for the individual health care mandate will be to confiscate your income tax refund.
From The Daily Caller:
Individuals who don’t purchase health insurance may lose their tax refunds according to IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. After acknowledging the recently passed health-care bill limits the agency’s options for enforcing the individual mandate, Shulman told reporters that the most likely way to penalize individuals that don’t comply is by reducing or confiscating their tax refunds.
Speaking at the National Press Club on Monday, Shulman downplayed the IRS’s role in enforcing the recent overhaul of the health insurance industry by claiming the agency would not aggressively target individuals who don’t purchase coverage. He noted that the health-care bill expressly forbids the agency from freezing bank accounts, seizing assets or pursuing criminal charges, but when pressed said the IRS would most likely use tax refund offsets to penalize those that don’t comply with the mandate. The IRS uses refund offsets to collect from individuals that owe the federal government a delinquent debt. [emphasis added]
So when rationally uninsured Americans refuse to comply with the mandate and purchase health care policies it may be comforting to know instead of “freezing your bank accounts, seizing assets or pursuing criminal charges” they’ll just steal your tax refund.
By Matt Hawes
Congressman Paul recently appeared on Judge Napolitano’s Freedom Watch to discuss the health care legislation passed by Congress, including its individual mandate and the repercussions we can expect on our economy.
By Matt Holdridge
“I don’t worry about the Constitution on this.”
Yes, that was a comment by Phil Hare, a Democrat Congressman from Illinois in reference to the recent health care legislation.
As Fox News reports,
Confronted by an angry Tea Partier with a camera Thursday, an Illinois congressman said in front of several constituents at a town hall that he doesn’t care whether the new health care law violates the Constitution, as some critics have claimed.
In a video posted on YouTube, Adam Sharp of the St. Louis Tea Party asked Rep. Phil Hare which part of the Constitution authorizes the government to mandate that all Americans buy a private product such as health insurance. The Illinois Democrat replied, “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this.”
The Congressman later revised and extended his remarks in his own video saying he meant that he wasn’t worried the health care bill would be ruled unconstitutional (you can watch his full response and judge for yourself here).
In another similar, less publicized, incident, Congressman Tim Bishop (D-NY) stated at a health care town hall meeting over the summer that, “the central purpose of the Constitution is to provide for the common good.”
Regardless of what these men really meant, it further illustrates the extreme amount of ignorance regarding the Constitution on Capitol Hill.
As Judge Napolitano wrote in his book The Constitution in Exile,
Today the federal government recognizes no limitations on its power. It has utterly rejected the idea, integral to the Constitution, that it is one of limited powers, carefully and precisely delegated. Today the federal government does whatever it wants to do.
Philosophy aside, at the most basic level, the Constitution simply provides a sense of direction and organization for the three branches of the federal government. It outlines the individual and combined powers of these branches while reserving the bulk of governing authority to each state.
But how do we get from there to Phil Hare and Tim Bishop’s interpretation of the founding document?
The Judge explains,
The Founders gave us a small, discrete federal government, one of strictly limited powers; powers to address issues that are federal in nature. The Congress has confused federal with national, and has chosen to regulate any issue that it thinks affects more than one state, irrespective of the absence of federal power and the true presence of state power.
It is up to us to not tolerate this willful ignorance. We should use every chance we get to educate not only our neighbors about the role of the federal government but our elected officials as well.