States of Personal Privilege?

How good is Sen. Max Baucus's health reform bill? So good that Democrats have made sure some of the most costly provisions don't apply to their own states.

The Senate Finance Committee is gearing up for a final vote next week, and Chairman Baucus now appears to have the Democratic votes to pass his bill. Getting this far has of course meant cutting deals, and those deals, it turns out, are illuminating. The senators are all for imposing "reform" on the nation, so long as it doesn't disadvantage their constituents.

Sens. Harry Reid (Nevada) and Charles Schumer (New York) are among those inserting goodies for their states.

A central feature of the Baucus bill is the vast expansion of state Medicaid programs. This is necessary, we are told, to cover more of the nation's uninsured. The provision has angered governors, since the federal government will cover only part of the expansion and stick fiscally strapped states with an additional $37 billion in costs. The "states, with our financial challenges right now, are not in a position to accept additional Medicaid responsibilities," griped Democratic Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland.

Poor Mr. Strickland. If only he lived in . . . Nevada! Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is worried about losing his seat next year, worked out a deal by which the federal government will pay all of his home state's additional Medicaid expenses for the next five years. Under the majority leader's very special formula, only three other states—Oregon, Rhode Island and Michigan—qualify for this perk, on the grounds, as Mr. Reid put it recently on the Senate floor, that they "are suffering more than most."

Tell that to Mr. Strickland, who is still trying to figure out how to close an $850 million budget hole, in a state with near 11% unemployment. And tell it to Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander, who quipped: "I wonder how citizens in Wyoming, in California and Florida and other states will feel if they pay more taxes so that Nevadans can pay less taxes."

To pay the bill for his version of ObamaCare, Mr. Baucus's legislation would tax high-value insurance plans—a 40% tax on plans that cost more than $21,000 a year. Democrats argue it is reform to make those who can afford "luxury" health care chip in for those who can't afford any at all.

That is, unless you live in a state such as New York. That state, along with some others, has many high-value plans—in part because it boasts a lot of union members with "Cadillac" plans, in part because the state has imposed so many insurance regulations that even skimpy plans are expensive. Sen. Chuck Schumer didn't want a lot of angry overtaxed New Yorkers on his hands, so he and other similarly situated Democrats carved out a deal by which the threshold for this tax will be higher in their states. If you live in Kentucky, you get taxed at $21,000. If you live in Massachusetts you don't get taxed until $25,000. This carve-out is at least more sweeping, applying to 17 (largely blue) states, though that's cold comfort if you live in Louisville.

Mr. Baucus will also pay for his bill by socking it to pharmaceutical companies, on the principle that drug companies are filthy rich and should have to contribute to health care. The view is a bit different in New Jersey. The state's Web site boasts it is the "global epicenter" of the drug industry, where "15 of the world's 20 largest pharmaceutical companies have major facilities." And Sen. Bob Menendez, of the Garden State, seems concerned that his home-state employers are going to struggle to both pay their federal liabilities and to continue to grow and innovate. Thus Mr. Menendez's quiet deal for a $1 billion tax credit for companies investing in drug R&D.

The Baucus bill, we are assured by many Dems, will successfully "bend down" the health-care cost curve. Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow isn't counting on it when it comes to her constituents. She and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry included $5 billion in the bill for a reinsurance program designed to defray the medical costs of union members.

"This will help our employers, whether it's the auto industry or whether it's other industries, be able to lower their costs for early retirees," said Ms. Stabenow. She is apparently unaware that this is what the broader bill is supposed to do, even without $5 billion in union slush money.

So, health-care "reform" is good, smart and necessary, so long as it isn't fully applied to the states of the senators who are pushing it. The Democrats' growing problem is that somebody is ultimately going to have to pay, and Mr. Reid's bad example has given every one the same idea. "If Colorado has a fair claim on being treated the same way Nevada has been, of course we're going to ask to have that kind of treatment," promised Sen. Mark Udall, upon news of the Reid deal.

Most senators are saving up their special state demands for when the bill hits the Senate floor. At that point, we'll get an even better idea of how much health-care change Democrats truly believe in.

Liars!!

It seems to me that Obama and many other Democrats lied to win election (just like the Republicans did before them). We were promised . . .


• No mandates requiring Americans to buy health insurance

• No tax increases on Americans earning less than $250,000 a year

• A tax cut for the middle class

The House and Senate healthcare bills break these promises.

The Baucus bill in the Senate contains the following language on page 29: "The consequence for not maintaining (health) insurance would be an excise tax."

This is both a mandate and a tax increase -- two broken promises in one short sentence.

Congress wants to force all Americans -- including those who earn less than $250,000 a year -- to buy government mandated insurance (a tax!), or pay a tax penalty if we don't. Either way we're going to pay higher taxes to comply with your wishes, or face a policeman's gun if we refuse.

To make matters worse, the Congressional leadership wants to force me to include the IRS in my personal healthcare decisions. The Baucus bill requires . . .

• Individuals, health insurers, employers, and government health agencies to report detailed health insurance information on all Americans to the IRS.

• The IRS to report my personal income level to state exchanges, insurance companies, and employers, as part of a scheme to control how much insurance I can have, and how much I can spend out of my own pocket.

Complying with these regulations will cost money. That's another tax, and another broken promise.

It get's worse. The Baucus plan actually depends on the non-compliance tax to fund itself! A report issued by the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office projects the federal government will raise about $2.8 billion from these individual mandate penalties.

I will also have to pay the cost of employer mandated coverage, or the tax penalty employers will pay if they don't provide coverage. This mandate/tax scheme will increase the prices I pay for goods and services. I could even lose my job if my employer can't afford to buy the mandated insurance, or has to pay the penalty for not buying it. But this part of the scheme is even worse than it sounds, because . . .

The employer mandate/tax is rigged to hit hardest on small businesses that employ workers from low-income families. But there's more . . .

The Senate bill expands Medicaid by $37 billion. The states fund most of Medicaid. Where will they get the money? . . . from the Martians? No. They'll get it from me by raising my state taxes at the behest of Congress.

And, of course, these increased state taxes are likely to fall on people who earn less than $250,000!

First the Republicans promised us fiscal restraint and no nation building. We gave them power and they broke their promises. Then the Democrats promised us middle class tax cuts, no middle class tax increases, and no expensive health insurance mandates. We gave them power and they too broke their promises.  STOP LYING TO US!

Obama's Foreign Policy Same As Bush

Healthcare Reform is Economic Malpractice

This is from "Texas Straight Talk"


By: Ron Paul

Healthcare Reform is Economic Malpractice

As Washington continues debating healthcare reform the rest of the country is primarily concerned about jobs and the economy. It is still uncertain what policies will be implemented, but I am certain about one thing: It will only further devastate our economy and our dollar.

The leadership has come up with a proposal they are confident will be what they consider fiscally responsible, only to have it scored as nearly twice as expensive by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Estimates of past healthcare spending programs have been off by as much as 100 percent so there is no telling what the actual cost will be.

The past century should have taught us one thing: that government intervention is expensive. Government programs lend themselves so easily to waste, fraud and abuse. Combine that with overall inefficiency and it all adds up to a hefty price tag for the taxpayer, with not much leftover for actual services. An outright takeover of an entire sector of the economy, especially one as important as healthcare, is something that we just cannot afford for the government to do right now. Not to mention the fact that it is completely unconstitutional. But Washington insists on torturing the numbers and tinkering around the edges rather than facing this truth.

If healthcare reform does indeed pass, we should not be under the illusion that it will be free. The money to pay for it will have to come from somewhere. They say they will get the money from cutting waste, fraud and abuse, but all of that is seemingly intrinsic to government programs. Since they want to expand the government’s reach we have to assume we will be trading waste, fraud and abuse for waste, fraud and abuse with a bigger budget. The powers that be have insisted the money won’t come from higher taxes, it won’t come from rationing of care, and it won’t come from higher premiums. This can only then put more pressure on the Fed to print the money out of thin air. We already have a weakening dollar. They are accelerating everything that weakened it in the past. Adding this new, monumental pressure could very well be the straw that will break the dollar’s back.

Foreign creditors are already nervous about continuing to invest in the US because of our skyrocketing debt. The explosion of debt that is certain to accompany the enactment of this national health care bill can only add to that nervousness.

Ironically, enactment of the health care bill could help the cause of liberty by hastening the day when Congress is forced by economic circumstances to stop increasing the welfare-warfare state and return to the Constitution.

There are many problems with our current healthcare system, to be sure. There are many tragic stories to be told. However, we need to look at the root of our problems in order to address them properly. More government intervention and bureaucracy injected into healthcare will take a flawed system and make immeasurably worse.

Posted by Ron Paul (11-09-2009, 11:27 AM) filed under Healthcare, Monetary Policy

Reading guide for new health bill - call congress and say NO

I recieved a very interesting e-mail, I felt obligated to share. From my understanding, this will be voted on possibly this week.

Reading guide for new health bill - call congress and say NO


From: House Republican Conference - Mike Pence, Chairman

Reading Guide—Pelosi Health “Reform” Bill

October 29, 2009

In order to assist Members, staff, and interested parties seeking to read and review the health “reform” legislation (H.R. 3962) introduced by House Democrats, the Republican Conference has compiled a list of important page numbers and provisions in the 1,990-page “Affordable Health Care for America Act:”

1990 page HR bill can be found at: http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

Page 94—Section 202(c) prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government

Page 110—Section 222(e) requires the use of federal dollars to fund abortions through the government-run health plan—and, if the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions

Page 111—Section 223 establishes a new board of federal bureaucrats (the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee”) to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase—and would likely require all Americans to subsidize and purchase plans that cover any abortion

Page 211—Section 321 establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries at the HULewin GroupUH, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage

Page 225—Section 330 permits—but does not require—Members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care

Page 255—Section 345 includes language requiring verification of income for individuals wishing to receive federal health care subsidies under the bill—while the bill includes a requirement for applicants to verify their citizenship, it does not include a similar requirement to verify applicants’ identity, thus encouraging identity fraud for undocumented immigrants and others wishing to receive taxpayer-subsidized health benefits

Page 297—Section 501 imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health insurance—the tax would apply on individuals with incomes under $250,000, thus breaking a central HUpromiseUH of then-Senator Obama’s presidential campaign

Page 313—Section 512 imposes an 8 percent “tax on jobs” for firms that cannot afford to purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health coverage; according to an HUanalysisUH by Harvard Professor Kate Baicker, such a tax would place millions “at substantial risk of unemployment”—Uwith minority workers losing their jobs at twice the rate of their white counterparts

Page 336—Section 551 imposes additional job-killing taxes, in the form of a half-trillion dollar “surcharge,” more than half of which will hit small businesses; according to a model developed by President Obama’s senior economic advisor, such taxes could cost up to 5.5 million jobs

Page 520—Section 1161 cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, potentially jeopardizing millions of seniors’ existing coverage

Page 733—Section 1401 establishes a new Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research; the bill includes no provisions preventing the government-run health plan from using such research to deny access to life-saving treatments on cost grounds, similar to Britain’s National Health Service, which denies patient treatments costing more than £35,000

Page 1174—Section 1802(b) includes provisions entitled “TAXES ON CERTAIN INSURANCE POLICIES” to fund comparative effectiveness research, breaking Speaker Pelosi’s promise that “UWe will not be taxing [health] benefits in any bill that passes the HouseU,” and the President’s promise not to raise taxes on families with incomes under $250,000

The House Republican Conference • GOP.gov

1420 Longworth HOB • (202) 225-5107

PDF file of this doc can be found at:

http://files.meetup.com/1395436/Pelosi%20HC%20Bill%20Reading%...

Obama wants to shut down the internet?

From an e-mail via Campaign for Liberty...

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) recently introduced S. 773, "The Cybersecurity Act of 2009."
Initial cosponsors include Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN), Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).


You see, Barack Obama is seeking sweeping new powers to "shut down" all private internet in the event of a "cybersecurity emergency" — a vague term that the President can define at his discretion.
And Rockefeller's bill gives Barack Obama just what he wants.
That's why this expansive new power grab should really be called "The Internet Takeover Bill."
As you know, the Internet has developed into an independent sphere where 1st Amendment Rights can still be (fairly) freely exercised.
It's also become an important outlet for liberty-minded speech, cutting around the Obama-worship and corporate censorship of the mainstream media.
And we've already seen the Obama Administration's reaction to any online speech they deem "fishy."
In July, the Administration called upon Americans to report their friends' and neighbors' emails to help Barack Obama silence the "disinformation" about the Obamacare bills in Congress.
Well, now Barack Obama wants to cut out the middle man.
If the Internet Takeover Bill passes, Barack Obama can silence his dissenters directly — by ordering a shutdown of all Americans' access to the Internet.
That's right. Under this bill Barack Obama can order all non-government U.S. networks to shut down access to the Internet.

But that's not all.

Even outside of periods of White House-declared "emergency," this bill mandates that private-sector networks only be managed by government-licensed "cybersecurity professionals."
If you think dealing with your office IT department is bad now, just wait until they're federally-licensed bureaucrats.
And God forbid you like to visit websites that spread "fishy disinformation" like freemarket healthcare solutions: Passing socialized medicine could soon become enough of an "emergency" for Barack Obama to shut them down.
You know, for the public good.

I personaly urge any of you reading this, that we all let our Reps know that we know this is trying to get sneaked through, and that we all strongly oppose it.

Until next time.....

Death to the Dollar?

 A report in Britain's daily newspaper The Independent said oil-exporting countries in the Middle East and big energy consumers such as China, Russia, Japan and France were working on a plan to end the practice of buying and selling crude in dollars. You can see the full article here http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/06/markets/dollar_oil_gold/?postversion=2009100615
Although, these countries deny any talk of such. Who could blame them? If it weren't for the legal tender law, a lot of informed Americans would be using something other than the dollar, if they knew what was best for their savings. Read the Feds Monetary report: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/BOGUMBNS.txt The Fed has doubled the money in one year! That means the dollar has lost 50% of it's value in one year! So much for that RV and year long vacation at retirement.... retirement? At this rate there may not be a retirement for anyone. One has to wonder whether true or not, what would be the implications if something like this happens. Dumping the dollar would mean flooding the market, which would cause serious inflation and major loss of confidence in the currency, after all, is it not the faith in the currency in which gives it it's value? Last I knew the dollar was backed by nothing, other than a bunch of morons (us) playing monopoly and using it's money. Maybe we should just continue to graze like cattle on the lies spit out by the media and the Obama ilk. Let's just take their word for it that everything that looks like it is a mess ( like the economy) will be just fine, and everything that seems to be bullshit (Swine Flu) will kill you if you do not do what you are told (Like getting vaccinated).

LIBERTY REQUIRES UNITY

"[Y]our union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other."
George Washington

UNITY was indispensable to the formation of our nation and the establishment of the Constitution. George Washington, in his Farewell Address, said: "The unity of government . . . is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. . . . it is of definite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness . . . accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as the palladium of your political safety and prosperity." All three authors of the Federalist Papers proclaimed the benefits of a strong union. James Madison stated: "[E]very man who loves liberty ought to have it ever before his eyes that he may cherish in his heart a due attachment to the Union of America and be able to set a due value on the means of preserving it." Madison also stated: "We have seen the necessity of the Union as our bulwark against foreign danger, as the conservator of peace among ourselves, as the guardian of our commerce and other common interests, as the only substitute for those military establishments which have subverted the liberties of the old world, and as the proper antidote for the diseases of faction, which have proved fatal to other popular governments." John Jay, stated: "[T]he prosperity of America depend[s] upon its Union." Finally, Alexander Hamilton said: "I have endeavored, my Fellow Citizens, to place before you in a clear and convincing light, the importance of Union to your political safety and happiness. I have unfolded to you a complication of dangers to which you would be exposed should you permit that sacred knot which binds the people of America together to be severed." Their messages instruct us that in unity, encompassing more than the mere union on paper of the states, there is mutual strength and safety.

Unity requires adherence to common principles -- a shared vision. Such principles include democratic standards of justice, fairness, equality, and individual freedom of religion and speech, among others. Thomas Jefferson eloquently stated in his Inaugural Address: "[E]very difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have been called by different names brethren of the same principle. . . . Let us then pursue with courage and confidence . . . our attachment to union and representative government." In order to create and maintain unity, as evidenced by the very process by which the Constitution was forged, personal opinions must be tempered and often compromised for the benefit of the whole. Thus, the spirit of compromise is essential to the workings of our republican form of government; and the spirit of mutual commitment essential to our form of democracy. In this regard, the Founding Fathers warned that "factions" are destructive to the spirit of unity. What are the prime causes of "the diseases of faction"? Pride, or selfishness, and greed. A proverb states: "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." (Proverbs 16:18). The central feature of pride is enmity (Benson). Enmity, or animosity, may be pitted against persons or groups in society. Through selfishness, greed and envy, the enmity of pride leads to contentions and strife, causing divisions and factions, thus destroying unity. Humility, gratitude and camaraderie serve as primary antidotes to dispel pride, shield principle and preserve the unity necessary to sustain liberty.

"'A house divided against itself cannot stand.'"

Abraham Lincoln (quoting Mark 3:25).

Evidence emerges that seasonal flu vaccine increases risk of H1N1 swine flu

Mike Adams


Natural News

Friday, September 25, 2009

To hear it from the vaccine makers, their vaccines are perfectly safe and have no side effects. A person can receive an unlimited number of vaccines (10, 100 or even 1000) and have absolutely no ill effects, they claim. This is the quack science mythology upon which mass vaccination policies are currently based. But new evidence is emerging that people receiving a seasonal flu shot are made more susceptible to H1N1 swine flu as a result.

CBC News in Canada is now reporting disturbing findings you need to know about: “Four Canadian studies involved about 2,000 people, health officials told CBC News. Researchers found people who had received the seasonal flu vaccine in the past were more likely to get sick with the H1N1 virus.”

The story doesn’t cite the percentage increase in H1N1 virus risk, but it’s apparently enough to give pause to many doctors and infectious disease experts. “We don’t know with this year’s flu shot how it interacts with the pandemic flu shot, so it’s a worry,” said Dr. Michael Gardam in the CBC News article quoted below. He’s the director of infectious diseases prevention and control at the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion.

The upshot of all this is that Canadian health officials are now scratching their heads, wondering whether the seasonal flu vaccines will actually make the H1N1 pandemic worse!

It’s fascinating that this data is coming out of Canada, not the U.S. In the United States, the mainstream media has engaged in a virtual blackout of any information that questions the safety of vaccines, even while openly pushing outrageous lies about the swine flu vaccine (http://www.naturalnews.com/027055_s…).

Vaccines weaken your immune system

What this information reveals is further evidence that flu shots damage or weaken your immune system, making you more susceptible to subsequent infections. Flu shots don’t even work to reduce your risk of getting the flu that they’re targeting! Most people who get the flu are the very same people who routinely receive flu shots.
This will hold true with H1N1 swine flu as well: The people getting the swine flu virus will be primarily those who routinely receive flu vaccinations.
You know why? Because a flu shot trains your immune system to be lazy. It exposes your immune technology to an artificially weakened virus, resulting in a lazy adaptive response from your immune technology. In much the same way that your leg muscles atrophy if you stop walking, your immune system begins to weaken if you don’t exercise it. And this leads to an increased risk of being unable to defend against future exposure to infectious disease, which is exactly what we’re seeing with this Canadian study.

Vaccines are the quackery of modern medicine. They not only don’t work to protect people from the diseases they target; they also increase the risk of being infected with other diseases. And that doesn’t even include the ways in which vaccine ingredients (adjuvants or preservatives) can cause permanent damage to your nervous system.

If vaccines strengthen the immune system (as vaccine makers imply), then why do people who take such vaccines end up at higher risk of future infections? The only rational explanation for this is that vaccines compromise immune function. And if that’s true, then why should anyone take them in the first place?

Vitamin D makes flu shot vaccines obsolete

We could do away with vaccines almost entirely by giving people vitamin D supplements instead. Seasonal flu is no match for healthy levels of vitamin D in the blood, and with the addition of a few immune-supporting nutrients (like vitamin C, zinc, and omega-3 oils), the days of people getting sick from the seasonal flu would be all but over.

People who have adequate levels of vitamin D in their blood rarely get sick from seasonal flu. The flu primarily strikes those who are nutritionally deficient in one or more key immune system nutrients.

But rather than teach patients how to correct those deficiencies, the entire industry of western medicine would much rather poke a hole in your arm, inject you with chemicals, charge you forty bucks and keep you in the dark about the nutrients that would have protected you better in the first place. That’s modern medicine for you: Consumer ignorance plus chemical intervention. It’s a great recipe for making money, but it’s a terrible recipe for protecting public health.

That’s why I say just say no to ALL vaccines. They harm you far more than they help, and they’re based on the most absurd medical quackery you can imagine. As is common throughout the pharmaceutical industry, most of the “evidence” supporting the efficacy of vaccines was fabricated by drug companies. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere in the world that says vaccines protect you from seasonal flu better than vitamin D and immune-boosting nutrients. There’s not even any trustworthy evidence that seasonal flu shots reduce your long-term risk of being infected with the flu.

But now there is evidence that receiving a seasonal flu shot may increase your risk of contracting H1N1 swine flu, and that’s something to carefully consider if you value your health (or your life).

Additional sources for this story include:

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009…

MARKET ALERT! MARKET ALERT! MARKET ALERT!

In overnight trading Gold reached an 18 month high and, as we write this, it has broken NEW HIGH GROUND and is currently at $1,036.30! That price broke through the previous all-time high of $1,033.90 achieved on March 17, 2008.


What is causing this recent price rise and will it be sustained? There is incredible pressure on the US Dollar to no longer be the currency of choice for trading oil. According to a report released by “The Independent,” a British news organization, “Gulf Arab (states) are planning – along with China, Russia, Japan and France – to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, and GOLD...”

This unparalleled pressure on the US Dollar has created a buying frenzy for Gold. Whenever times of economic uncertainty are upon us, smart investors flock to GOLD! This news is everywhere in the mainstream financial media morning headlines:

“Gold May Advance for Second Day as Weaker Dollar Stokes Demand” – Bloomberg.com

“Potential End of Dollar-Based Oil Deals Helps Gold Shine” – MarketWatch.com

Audit the Fed By Tom Woods Published 09/25/09

Testimony in Support of HR 1207, The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, House Financial Services Committee, September 25, 2009




I am speaking this morning in support of HR 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. As the Committee knows, this bill would require a full audit of the Federal Reserve by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).



On November 10, 2008, Bloomberg News ran the following headline: "Fed Defies Transparency Aim in Refusal to Disclose." The story pointed out that the Fed was refusing to identify the recipients of trillions of dollars in emergency loans or the dubious assets the central bank was accepting as collateral. When the initial $700 billion congressional bailout was being debated last September, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and then-Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson couldn’t emphasize their commitment to transparency strongly enough. But "two months later, as the Fed [lent] far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn’t require approval by Congress, Americans [had] no idea where their money [was] going or what securities the banks [were] pledging in return."



Matthew Winkler, editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News, put it simply: "Taxpayers — involuntary investors in this case — have a right to know who received loans, in what amounts, for which collateral, and why specific loans were made."



This has been portrayed as a trivial matter being pursued by some cynical and uppity Americans who don’t know their place. But there is no good reason for Americans not to know the recipients of the Fed’s emergency lending facilities. There is no good reason for them to be kept in the dark about the Fed’s arrangements with foreign central banks. These things affect the quality of the money that our system obliges the American public to accept.



The Fed’s arguments against the bill are unlikely to persuade, and will undoubtedly strike the average American as little more than special pleading. Perhaps the most frequent of the claims is that a genuine audit would jeopardize the alleged independence of the Fed. Congress could come to influence or even dictate monetary policy.



This is a red herring. The bill is not designed to empower politicians to increase the money supply, choose interest-rate targets, or adopt any of the rest of the Fed’s central planning apparatus, all of which is better left to the free market than to the Fed or Congress. It seeks nothing more than to open the Fed’s books to public scrutiny. Congress has a moral and legal obligation to oversee institutions it brings into existence. The convoluted scenarios by which merely opening the books will lead to an inflationary catastrophe at the hands of Congress are difficult to take seriously.



At the same time, as we hear this objection repeated time and again, we might wonder just how independent the Fed really is, what with its chairman up for reappointment by the president every four years. Have these critics never heard of the political business cycle? Fed chairmen have been known to ingratiate themselves into the president’s favor close to election time by means of loose monetary policy and the false (and temporary) prosperity it brings about. Let us not insult Americans’ intelligence by pretending this phenomenon does not exist.



Moreover, try to imagine a Fed chairman doggedly seeking to maintain the value of the dollar even if it meant refusing to monetize a massive deficit to fight a war or "stimulate" a depressed economy. It is not possible.



If there is any truth to the idea of Fed independence, it lay in precisely this: the Fed may reward favored friends and constituencies with trillions of dollars in various kinds of assistance, while keeping the public completely in the dark. If that is the independence we’re talking about, no self-respecting American would hesitate for a moment to challenge it.



A related argument warns that the legislation threatens to politicize lender-of-last-resort decisions. Again, this is untrue. But even if it were true, how would that represent a departure from current practice? I hope we are not asking Americans to believe that the decisions to bail out various financial institutions over the past two years, and in particular to allow them to become depository institutions overnight that they might qualify for assistance, were made on the basis of a pure devotion to the common good and were not political at all. Most Americans, not unreasonably, seem convinced of another thesis: that Goldman Sachs, for instance, might be just a little bit more politically well connected than the rest of us.



Opponents of HR 1207 have sometimes tried to claim that the Fed is already adequately audited. If this were true, why is the Fed in panic mode over this bill? It is the broad areas these audits exclude that the American public is increasingly interested in investigating, and these are the gaps that HR 1207 seeks to fill.



The conventional wisdom seems to be that the monetary system we have now is sound and beyond reproach, and certainly better than any system that preceded it. My purpose today is not to render judgment upon such views, however deeply misguided I happen to consider them, and however inaccurate their implicit view of nineteenth-century financial panics. My point is simply this: if our monetary system were really as strong, robust, and beyond criticism as its cheerleaders claim, why does it need to rely so heavily on public ignorance? How can it be a sound banking system that depends on keeping the public in the dark about the condition of its financial institutions?



Let me also make clear that supporters of this legislation are strongly opposed to a watered-down version of the bill — which, incidentally, would only increase public suspicion that someone is hiding something.



If the Federal Reserve Transparency Act passes and the audit takes place, the American people will have achieved a great victory. If the legislation fails, more and more Americans will begin to wonder what the Fed could be so anxious to keep hidden, and the pressure for transparency will simply intensify. A recent poll finds 75 percent of Americans already in favor of auditing the Fed. The writing is on the wall.



The Federal Reserve may as well get used to the idea that the audit is coming. That would be a far more sensible approach than the counterproductive and condescending one it has adopted thus far, in which the peons who populate the country are urged to quit pestering their betters with all these impertinent questions. The Fed should take to heart the words of consolation the American people are given whenever a new government surveillance program is uncovered: if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.



The superstitious reverence that Americans have been taught to have for the Federal Reserve is unworthy of the dignity of a free people. The Fed enjoys a government-granted monopoly on the creation of legal-tender money. It is not an unreasonable imposition for Americans to demand to know about the activities of such an institution. It is common sense.

FIRST BOOK OF GOVERNMENT ....PSALM 2009

Obama is the shepherd I did not want. He leadeth me beside the still factories. He restoreth my faith in the Republican party. He guideth me in the path of unemployment for his party's sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the bread line, I shall fear no hunger, for his bailouts are with me. He has anointed my income with taxes, My expenses runneth over. Surely, poverty and hard living will follow me all the days of my life, And I will live in a mortgaged home forever.


I am glad I am American, I am glad that I am free. But I wish I was a dog .. And Obama was a tree.

HR 1207 Audit the Fed To Get Hearing in House Committee

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank has officially agreed to hold hearings on HR 1207. The hearings are tentatively scheduled for Friday, September 25 at 9:00 am.

Afghanistan and Iraq

I am finding myself asking why we are still in Afghanistan and Iraq. Did we not invade Afghanistan to go after the terrorist responsible for 9/11? Now what are we doing? Nation Building yet again? I don't know about you all, but with the economy in the state it is in, how can we afford to rebuild two nations and continue to fund our military and keep our own heads above water here at home? Does Obama know the answer? Will we just keep printing more money to support our efforts foreign and domestic. I thought Obama was the anti-war candidate. He sounds like a another Bush with a new found way of not only screwing us abroad but by sticking it in our ass even harder at home with his ridiculous domestic issues. He makes George Bush look like a fiscal conservative. When will it end? Comments anyone?

Same Tactics New Faces

If you have been listening to the news lately no doubt you have heard this or some variation thereof:

THE TRUTH: THERE IS NO “DEATH PANEL” MENTIONED IN ANY OF THE HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM BILLS UNDER CONSIDERATION, AND THERE NEVER WAS.
Former Governor Sarah Palin recently posted a note on her official Facebook page that falsely claimed that, under health insurance reform, a “death panel” of bureaucrats would “decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care.” The truth is that no such panel exists, or has ever been proposed in any version of the health care bills in Congress, that would judge a person’s “level of productivity in society” or determine whether they are “worthy” of health care.
The author of a similar provision, Republican Johnny Isakson, said it was “nuts” to claim the bill encourages euthanasia. Even Palin's home-state Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, after hearing Palin's comments, said, “It does us no good to incite fear in people by saying that there's these end-of-life provisions, these death panels... Quite honestly, I'm so offended at that terminology because it absolutely isn't (in the bill). There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill.”
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/counseling

Pay attention here the first thing we hear about the health care plan and debate is that it does not contain death panels. That is right death panels as if anyone had considered this notion short of science fiction and thought they could ever get elected again. What the proponents of this bill are trying to do is skew the debate so that it becomes entirely about whether or not the bill will set up a review board to arbitrarily kill the elderly.
They do not want to argue about the benefits and costs of a health care overhaul. they simply want to marginalize the opposition against them. Then that opposition looks frothing mad, shouting voraciously about a an obviously nonfactual statement. Many of the key speakers in opposition to this bill have swallowed the bait and are doing precisely what the people pushing this bill intended. This Argument is a red Hearing, the only purpose is to distract from the real argument about the slow process of socialization of one Sixth of economy.
The same tactic has been used to discredit the way libertarians feel about taxes ( that all taxes are wrong and no public spending should be done). The way that the right feels about abortion( whether or not i is morally wrong in the event of rape). The way that the left feels about National security( That all attacks are our fault and if we were all nicer it would not happen). I know these marginalization techniques work and i believe they are the most harmful type of disinformation out there. The only purpose is to destroy the real honest debate about what is right for the people in the whole.

I find it infuriating and so should you.

Next week more on the actually debate on health care and less on the red hearings.

Oh, thanks freedom for giving me this
outlet we may have our disagreements but
in the end we are on the same side.

Doctor Speaks Out at Town Hall Event

Constitutional rights:

There is no such thing as, “constitutional rights”.  The Constitution grants no rights.  Our Rights do not come from the Constitution, rather the Constitution recognizes our Rights are God given and inherent.  Crafting a Constitution does not change the fact that people cannot create rights or give rights they do not have to others.  Further, the Constitution does not, and cannot be amended to, limit the sovereign people of the United States of America.  The Constitution for the United States of America is the document the people used to create their government.  It is a Trust Indenture, wherein the delegates of the college, with the creative authority from the People, formed the Indentured Trust called “government”, wherein the officers of said government are the collectively assigned the capacity “Trustee” and the People are the Beneficiary.  The Bill of Rights was attached to The Constitution for the United States of America to form The Constitution of the United States of America, which binds government officials to the limited operations of government as specified in the contract and limits them from violating the God given inherent rights of the people.  These constitutions neither prescribe nor claim to prescribe any rights to anyone.  Instead they grant privileges to officers of government and restrict those officers from any action that would violate The Constitution of the United States of America.  Our Constitutional Republic government, only governs itself as it is limited by its Constitution and Law; it has no authority to control the sovereign people of this nation; the people govern themselves.  Again, the Constitution grants no rights; our Rights are God given, inherent and unalienable.

Therefore, though most rights in The United States of America are constitutionally secured, there is no such thing as a “Constitutional Right”.

Occult Law Property

Thanks to a very close person to me for this video, I felt obligated to share.

What qualifies someone to run Obamacare?

Now let me see if I can understand this......


Let me get this straight.Obama's health care plan will be written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes,overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is nearly broke.
What possibly could go wrong?

Comments?

Who is the real Freedomwatcher

I am a person who believes that in order for me or anyone to be truly free; I should be able to do what I want, where I want, and when I want. As long as I do not physically harm another individual, and individual's things, or reputation. That means that I do not buy into the authoritarian christian right, neo-conservatism, islamic extremism, the liberal left, or the overall Statism of total government. I believe in Constitutional government and the rule of law. I believe Common Law should set precendence over the people where the laws are decided in court under a jury of peers. That only government that should exists is, one that serves the people and leaves them alone. I believe that I have a right and responsibility to protect myself and my family, and that responsibility lies with me and not with the government if I so choose. I believe I should be able to believe what I believe, and voice my opinion on things according to my beliefs, and that my opinion should be of only that, and that it should have no grounds on to what others are supposed to believe. I am a christian, who practices my own faith in my own privacy, I do not force my belief on others as truth and consequence, but rather try to lead by example. I am a Constitutionalist and a Libertarian who believes in civil liberties and that our rights are derived from our creator and not from government, or any piece of paper or contract. I am a strict, fiscal conservative, who believes in not spending my money before I have earned it. I do not believe in war unless declared by congress (the people) and is considered an act of defense rather than aggression, only under armed invasion. I believe in sound money and a free market. That only the people themselves should dictate the prices we pay under capitalism and competition, not government or the Federal Reserve. I believe in sound money as to that, the people should have the liberty to accept what ever currency they feel sound, but redeemable in some fashion of Gold or Silver or equal value and that their savings, property, fruit of their labor, and overall wealth belong to them and only them, and whoever they choose to share it with; without government having a claim on any of it. I believe the overall masses have bought into a sort of allegiance to the state, and the policies thereof, rather than their own principles and the very ones this country was founded on. We all have a choice to make. Rather we want to continue to try to tell others in our own country and across the world what they can and can't do; continue to elect and re-elect the politicians who we have allowed to get us into this mess, and rely on to fix it. Or can we can go back to our original intent and just leave everyone including ourselves alone, and work towards life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Which, I believe is only achieved through us and good example, and not more government, not more entitlements, not more authoritarian fascism, or religious pressure and persecution; not more war, not more regulation, but FREEDOM in it's purest form. My liberty is every thing to me, and I will defend it at all costs. Can we grow up, and take care of ourselves? Can we leave others alone if they leave us alone? Can we live within our means, so that our children will have the ability to inherit what we have and what our ancestors have worked so hard for?

This is who I am. Like it or not, I don't care. I am not a sheep, not a follower, not a leader, but an individual... who just wants the government and everyone who keeps trying to force their beliefs and laws on me..to worry about yourself and to leave me and my family the hell alone! I am a Freedomwatcher, because mine and my families freedom is my responsibility and my duty to protect.