by Bruce P. Majors

The Obama regime has been saying very ugly things about Americans, telling outright lies, making inane arguments.

Nancy Pelosi and Stenny Hoyer said that protesters are un-American. Pelosi claimed that were the kind of people who wore swastikas and that they were all stooges or paid actors. Robert Gibbs claimed that the townhall protesters do not represent America, though they seem to have appeared by the thousands across the country in every state and polls show that they have growing support. Harry Reid said they are “evil-mongers.” An array of websites and blogs, all affiliated with the DNC or funded by billionaire George Soros, assert that the protesters are simply racists who do not like nationalization of medicine because it is being proposed by a black President.

Obama himself is off his game, in part because he has been speaking sans teleprompter. He has told two outright lies. First he said AARP has endorsed his “healthcare reform.” But AARP, faced with a revolt from its members, denies that is has endorsed any plan. Second, Obama, while trying to drum up envious class hatred, pulled some numbers out of the Executive Ass, and claimed that private medicine led to evil (but apparently not yet hook-nosed) doctors denying preventative care to patients so that they could amputate limbs and bill patients $50,000. The AMA had to point out that such amputations usually cost more like $500.

The President has also been making remarkably stupid analogies, at one point likening his “public option” of government health insurance to the USPS. During a week that the Post Service was announcing closings of hundreds of stations and massive debts. Even Obama’s fans must be beginning to wonder if they have backed a man out of his depth, a congenial B student, the product of a long process of social promotion. Which we could assay more easily if his transcripts and other records were not hidden.

And then there is the matter of the White House compiling an enemies list, after Obama asked people to email “fishy” emails they receive to “flag@WhiteHouse.gov.” When questioned by FOX News’s Meghan Kelly, WH Press person Bill Burton evaded the question of whether the White House maintains such a list for close to 5 minutes. And on Thursday, Fox News correspondent Major Garret asked Gibbs why people were receiving emails from the WH at email addresses the recipients had never given out (perhaps Axelrod had mistakenly sent emails to the enemies list?) and Gibbs could give no answer, though his first response suggested that such a list was being maintained, when he asked if Major Garret could give him the names so he could “check them” against his list.

Now these people are well known to be a mean and base group. Rahm Emanuel sends people dead fish as a threat. Pelosi exempts US territories where her wealthy husband has factories from minimum wage increases (but makes sure they apply to his competitors). Reid lobbies for zoning variances that create instant appreciation for worthless land he owns in Nevada. Etc.

How did such a stupid, hostile and dishonest cabal of name-calling, mud-slinging cretins end up attempting to take over a country with threats and smear tactics? The townhall protesters are concerned that we are taking a steeper path down toward totalitarianism than the one we had heretofore been on. But the answer to this question of how the rats came to rule our ship of state is that we are already far along the road to serfdom.

50 years ago, social philosopher and Nobel Laureate Frederich Hayek wrote “The Road to Serfdom,” in an attempt to understand the rise of totalitarianism in Italy, Germany and Russia. Hayek’s thesis was that socialism leads to dictatorship and totalitarianism, despite democratic window dressing. When the state controls the jobs, the printing presses, and the schools, opponents of the administration in power, not to say supporters of independent parties or factions that are rarely in power, find themselves more often jobless, promotionless, without a chance at publication or a scholarship, than supporters of the regime. With every percentage of GDP placed under government control, democracy and liberty diminish. But “The Road to Serfdom” explored other phenomena associated with the slippery slope to statism, including the question of “Why the Worst Get on Top.” Hayek’s words are prophetic and describe the Obama’s Presidency exactly. To quote Hayek on the rise of the worst:

“NO DOUBT an American “fascist” system would greatly differ from the Italian or German models; no doubt, if the transition were effected without violence, we might expect to get a better type of leader. Yet this does not mean that our fascist system would in the end prove very different or much less intolerable than its prototypes. There are strong reasons for believing that the worst features of the totalitarian systems are phenomena which totalitarianism is certain sooner or later to produce. Professor Frank H. Knight, notes that the authorities of a collectivist state “would have to do these things whether they wanted to or not: and the probability of the people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an extremely tenderhearted person would get the job of whipping master in a slave plantation.”

So the rats are now cornered, on their sinking ship — Obama endorsed candidates are down 14% in New Jersey and Virginia. What will be their next move? They were happy to watch government snipe shooters kill protesters in Tehran; White House Press Secretary Gibbs even said last week that President Ahmahdinajad is the “President Elect” of Iran. But how fast can they scrap the libertarian principles of our American Constitution, the “negative rights” that limit government power that Obama criticized earlier in his career, so that they can undertake the fascist moves they need to seize more control of our lives and livelihoods in the face of growing opposition?

Bruce Majors is an unpaid Tea Party community organizer in Washington, D.C. and has written for the American Spectator, Los Angeles Times, Des Moines Register, and Cleveland Plain Dealer. You can contact Bruce at majors.bruce@gmail.com.

by Peter Orvetti

Wayne Allyn Root - or W.A.R., as he likes to call himself - is off to an early start in his second run for the Libertarian presidential nomination.  The hyperactive entrepreneur has just published “The Conscience of a Libertarian,” a 368-page book about his policy prescriptions and Libertarian conversion.

The subtitle - “Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling, and Tax Cuts” - gives readers a fair idea where the Las Vegas businessman and television personality is coming from.  As befits a writer whose previous works include “Millionaire Republican,” Root definitely comes to the libertarian movement from the right.  The title, of course, alludes to Barry Goldwater’s 1960 book “The Conscience of a Conservative,” and Root mentions his “heroes” Goldwater and Ronald Reagan many times throughout his text.

This is not a subtle book, and it is not a philosophical one.  While 1984 Libertarian presidential nominee David Bergland’s “Libertarianism In One Lesson” offers a brief, somewhat theoretical introduction to libertarian concepts, and “Healing Our World” by Root’s 2008 nomination rival Mary Ruwart appeals to those coming to libertarianism from left or pacifist backgrounds, Root’s book contains a lot of conservative red meat of the type heard daily on Fox News.

This is not necessarily a bad thing.  The 2010 and 2012 elections will center around economic issues, particular skyrocketing spending and an ever-deepening deficit.  Root shies away from dealing with social issues in detail, preferring to aim his fire at bloated bureaucracy.  Root says he and his former classmate Barack Obama took very different directions after graduating from Columbia University.  Obama, Root says, went from law student to professor to attorney to community activist to politician.  In contrast, Root has created his own businesses, directly created jobs, and made new wealth.

But Root too is now a politician, and this is a politician’s book.  Root may be the most media-savvy figure ever to seek the Libertarian Party presidential nomination.  He made dozens of appearances on Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and other stations while seeking the 2008 nomination, and displayed a talent for distilling libertarian ideas into the sort of short, snappy lines needed for success in that arena.  Root was the favorite for the nomination until the late entry of Bob Barr and Ruwart, and given Root’s media chops, it is possible he would have outperformed Barr’s 524,000 votes if he had been the nominee.  (Root became Barr’s running mate, but the Barr campaign made little use of Root.)

While Root does not spend much time on personal and social issues, his lifestyle is a libertarian one.  He homeschools his children — one of whom placed his name into nomination at the 2008 Libertarian National Convention in a widely praised speech — and has made himself rich in the gaming industry.  He blasts his old party, writing, “When it comes to issues like abortion, gay rights, stem cell funding, right to die (think Terri Schiavo), online poker, medical marijuana, and censorship of television, the GOP is actually in favor of Big Brother moving into our bedrooms, taking over our televisions and computers, and taking control of our lives.”

Since this book is as much about promoting Root as it is about promoting libertarianism, much of it is personal.  Root writes about himself on almost every page, and even quotes himself within his own text.  He calls for — in all capital letters — a “ROOT REVOLUTION.”  This self-promotion can get a bit irritating after a while, but Root’s high-spiritedness can also be infectious as he makes his pitch to people like himself.  These are not just small business owners, homeschoolers, and members of the gambling community, but also personal health and holistic living advocates, disappointed Republicans, and the religious.

Root is an engaging and energetic character, better suited to the screen than the page.  In his television appearances, his upbeat demeanor and bubbling good nature take some of the edge off his slams against big government, while in print these can come off as harsh and overblown.  But it is on the air — on his new radio show and in his continued cable news channel appearances — that Root will promote his message, and himself, between now and 2012.  Root has a characteristically ambitious long-term plan: win two to five million votes as the Libertarian presidential nominee in three years, draw “Ross Perot-like numbers” in 2016, and “become your first Libertarian president” by winning in 2020.  This book, it would seem, is just the start.

Peter Orvetti was an early political blogger in the United States, running his Orvetti.com political news report from 1997 through 2002. He is a past editorial writer for the Cato Institute, served as Deputy Director of Communications for the Libertarian Party in the lead-up to the 2000 party convention, and has published commentaries in several major newspapers. Contact Mr. Orvetti at peterjorvetti@gmail.com.

by Larken Rose

Imagine that a rash of burglaries had been happening in your home town, including repeated armed robberies of your local convenience stores and other local shops near your home. And suppose the people in your neighborhood held a meeting to discuss how to put an end to the crime wave, and the discussion went something like this:

Neighbor A: “This situation is intolerable! If we don’t put an end to this, right now, this town is going down the tubes!”

Neighbor B: “I agree. I can’t tell you how angry I am. Good people are constantly being robbed. This has to stop! What are we going to do?”

You: “Well, for starters, are the local shop owners armed, so they can defend themselves? And how about if we do a sort of town watch thing? The crooks are often armed, so it might be good if we either chipped in to hire some armed security service, or have local people with guns taking turns driving around at night, and…”

Neighbor A: “Whoa, let’s not start talking crazy! Come on, let’s keep the discussion reasonable here.”

Neighbor B: “I agree. I don’t want to be associated with THAT guy [you]. That’s not at all the kind of solution we’re looking for.”

You: “Huh? What’s the problem? Well, if you guys don’t like guns, let’s at least come up with some way that the shops can easily lock down their places quickly, if they see one of the crooks coming, and then…”

Neighbor A: “Are you talking about trying to actually prevent the robberies? We can’t do that!”

Neighbor B: “Who invited this guy [you] to this meeting? Look, we’re looking for real solutions, not this wacky, kooky stuff.”

You: “Well, what did you guys have in mind?”

Neighbor A: “I’ve been working on a very strongly-worded letter we could send to the crooks, telling them just what we think of them.”

Neighbor B: “And I’ve been planning a protest, with as many people as we can get to attend, where we publicly demand that the criminals stop robbing the local stores.”

You: “And what if they don’t?”

Neighbor A: “Then I guess we’d have to come up with better letters, or bigger demonstrations.”

- —————————————–

You may find it hard to imagine having such a bizarre, ridiculous discussion, or trying to deal with people who are that batty. Some of us have no trouble imagining it, because we do it on a daily basis, with only a very slight change:

“Patriot” A: “This situation is intolerable! If we don’t put an end to this, right now, this country is going down the tubes!”

“Patriot” B: “I agree. I can’t tell you how angry I am. Good people are constantly being robbed. This has to stop! What are we going to do?”

And what happens when someone then suggests actually resisting tyranny?

“Patriot” A: “Whoa, let’s not start talking crazy! Come on, let’s keep the discussion reasonable here.”

“Patriot” B: “I agree. I don’t want to be associated with THAT guy [me]. That’s not at all the kind of solution we’re looking for. Who invited this guy to this meeting? Look, we’re looking for real solutions, not this wacky, kooky stuff.”

And what do they propose, instead?

“Patriot” A: “I’ve been working on a very strongly-worded letter we could send to our congressmen, telling them just what we think of them.”

“Patriot” B: “And I’ve been planning a protest, with as many people as we can get to attend, where we publicly demand that congress respect our rights!”

And what if they don’t (which they certainly won’t)?

“Patriot” A: “Then I guess we’d have to come up with better letters, or bigger demonstrations.”

- ————————————–

There is an enormous, fundamental difference between most people who SAY they are pro-freedom, and the people who actually BELIEVE in individual liberty. Lots of people express “outrage” at the dozens of ways in which those wearing the label of “government” are robbing us, defrauding us, controlling us, harassing us, assaulting us, and so on. But when someone comes right out and suggests RESISTING, even if only passively, lots of those alleged freedom- lovers either vocally object, or get very quiet.

Now, it’s one thing to say that resisting in a certain way at a certain time is unlikely to have any positive effect (and that’s often true), but it’s quite another to actually be scared of the IDEA of disobeying the politicians, as MOST self-proclaimed freedom advocates are. If obeying whatever the politicians decide to call “law” is, in your mind, a higher moral obligation than fighting for freedom–yours and everyone else’s–then stop pretending to love freedom. If you are still in the mindset of the slave who will bravely BEG his master to free him, but who would never dream of just running away without his “owner’s” permission, then stop telling yourself that you believe in liberty.

The truth is, hardly any Americans these days actually believe in individual liberty and unalienable rights. In fact, most of those who call themselves conservatives, Constitutionalists and libertarians believe that the only legitimate and civilized way to “resist” tyranny is to BEG the masters to please be nicer to us.

And that is why there was such a wide disparity of responses to my July 4th speech in front of Independence Hall, among people who would usually consider themselves to be on the same “side.” I know a lot of people talk about “uniting” and “working together,” but my speech–and most of what I do, in fact–is intended to DIVIDE: divide the whiny slaves from the free men. And we need that divide, because whiny slaves don’t ever achieve freedom, and better methods of whining is all they will ever contribute to the supposedly shared cause.

When I openly talked about these things last July 4th, in front of Independence Hall (which seemed fitting), it scared some people, offended some people, and fired up some people. Well, now I hope to scare, offend, and fire up more people, now that the video of my July 4th speech has finally been posted online. Whether you agree a little bit, a lot, or completely with what I said in my July 4th “rant,” I hope you will send the following link to everyone you know, to at least make them THINK about things, enough to decide which side they’re on:

http://tinyurl.com/larkenrose7-4-09

Find out more about Larken Rose at http://www.larkenrose.com

by Rusty White

How is it that Americans have become so easily manipulated?? Have we forgotten the manipulation and lies our government and MEDIA used in the propagandist film Reefer Madness? While it is truly sad to see these two young people in Texas make such a stupid mistake, it is equally as sad to see the media use it for propaganda. How is this any different than when elders give a young person a beer, or a when a person puts alcohol in a bottle to get a kid to go to sleep? All are wrong, yet you don’t hear anybody asking for the same punishment. Why?

Have our people been manipulated so badly that they actually believe these two toddlers are now addicts? How is it that no one asks the question: If the drug war is remotely working, the longest and most expensive war ever, a war against our own people, how is it we still see horror stories like these and large drug busts over and over again? How come the need for resources continues going up instead of down as common sense would dictate?

How is it we have so many claiming to be of faith, wrongfully claiming to be acting with the Almighty’s blessing to rip a family a part for abusing his gift to all mankind? Do these young people need punishment? Yes. Just like those who use this sad event to justify their self-serving agendas do! It is a sad day for freedom and a nation that claims to protect people’s right to free will, when one group of people can claim to have the right to force others to live as they see fit!

Using this manipulated hype, if a young person gives a toddler a beer. Then all beer drinkers are bad people, I call BS! If a young person lets a toddler drive in his lap, then all drivers are bad, and we need to get rid of all the cars! But no, this is the “Devil’s Weed” and it is to blame for this! You might want to remember who created this gift to all mankind, and check out Genesis chapter 1 verse 29 thru 31.

We had a prime opportunity to use this information for real education as to the dangers of underage drug use. But no, the media turns on the hype machine and throws logic and common sense away replacing it with self-serving agendas and propaganda. Why? We let self-serving bigots manipulated by their bias, fear and hate tear another family apart. We have people so full of fear they want to give these two young people more time than a child molester gets???

Wake up people! Refuse to be manipulated and controlled by fear and hate! Educate yourself with the truth and start asking why. It is my belief that we as a nation and a people started going wrong when we started accepting the despicable and un-American act of people not minding their own business! When we started accepting false religious bigots who cover their hate, their biased and self-serving agendas with false faith. Those falsely justifying their fear, bias and hate and those manipulating the masses doing the same will one day stand before the same Almighty that created this gift to all mankind, that was manipulated in to a weapon to tear his flock apart. Fact: I would hate to be in your shoes! Which one will come out better, the one who used his gift and harmed no one and is willing to accept his judgment? Or those who have falsely claimed sole ownership of his gift and turned it into a weapon to tear his flock apart???

When did Americans become so full of fear that they cowardly let their faith be manipulated into being used as a weapon against others while remaining silent??? And some still wonder why our people are turning away from faith, could it be there is very little true faith being practiced and they don’t want to be a part of a LIE???  Fear is neither an American trait nor value, nor is it justification for abusing our faith or our own people and our freedoms and rights! There Has To Be A Better Way!!!!

Originally published at the LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) blog March 8, 2007.

by R. Lee Wrights

A few years ago I wrote an open editorial for a local newspaper in which I informed the superintendent of my daughter’s public school district that his services were no longer required. As far as my family and I were concerned, it was the day we fired the local bureaucrats and took our child out of a failing education system.

I said it then and I say it now, government today is filled with politicians that think it is their job to take care of us. Either we are too lazy to care for ourselves and our children; or, we are too stupid to know what is best for our precious offspring and ourselves. No matter the reason, the majority of politicians in this country today believe in their hearts that they must save us from ourselves. Even to the point of promoting failing children so as not to ruin their self-esteem.

A few weeks after I fired the school system’s leading bureaucrat, the State justified my decision to remove my child from a forever-failing government school system. My hometown paper reported that the state’s promotion standards, which are designed to test third, fifth and eighth grade students, were largely being ignored by principals all across the state, at least at the fifth grade level. I was absolutely appalled to learn that seventy-three percent of fifth grade students (the only students tested for that year) who failed their exams were promoted anyway. In my county alone 298 students failed their tests not once, not twice, but three times and still only 53 of these unfortunate, inadequately-educated children were held back. Why are our children being robbed of a proper education?

You see, there was a “provision.” Ah yes, the all-powerful provision, better known as the exception to the rule. In this case the provision allows for principals to have the final word on who gets promoted to the next grade and who does not. Now I ask you, what the hell good is a standards test if the decision of pass and fail is left up to the principal anyway? Why even bother requiring these unfortunate children to take a test that means absolutely nothing since the final decisions rest in the hands of one individual bureaucrat? The result of this fatally-flawed system is 245 students from my home county entered the sixth grade that year woefully under prepared. Almost two hundred and fifty fifth-grade children did not learn that year and stood even a slimmer chance of learning the following year. Why? Just so principals could dress up their statistics to reflect success that does not actually exist, that’s why. Inexcusable! And remember, we are being forced to pay for this incompetence.

I say inexcusable, but of course, bureaucrats always have their reasons for doing something absurd. In this case an assistant superintendent for elementary schools told a reporter that, “Most of these students were promoted either because they won an appeal or because they met a variety of conditions that qualified them for a local waiver.” The “conditions” mentioned were appalling. For instance, if students are not achieving at grade level but they show a year’s worth of progress in one subject, they can be promoted. In other words, if your child enters the fifth grade reading at a third grade level all he or she has to do in order to be promoted to the sixth grade is improve their reading skills to a fourth grade level. This allows the school to show an inflated promotion rate while keeping a percentage of the children, and potentially even all of the children, perpetually two years behind in their studies. No wonder McDonald’s has little trouble filling those low-level positions.

Another “condition” the State uses is extra tutoring. If failing students (remember they more than likely are already two years behind) participate in extra tutoring, and, score within a range that is “very close to passing,” they can be promoted. That’s right, if a child just comes close to passing he or she can be promoted. Again we see how bureaucrats work the school system to give the impression that they are serving our children well. In reality, however, government schools are failing our children by promoting them with little regard for standards and no concern for their future. Education has become another governmental bureaucracy that perpetuates itself by falsely inflating its success rate at the expense of innocent children. But don’t forget, they are keeping the fast-food industry well stocked with a young, energetic work force.

Is your child receiving a proper education? How would you know if they were not adequately schooled? Can you trust a system that ignores skill level in favor of simple if only meager progress? The children of this country suffer and your own tax dollars pay for the instrument of their affliction. Do as I did. Take back responsibility for your child’s future. Do not leave their fate in the hands of a beastly bureaucracy that does such a poor job of educating young minds. These minds are too precious to be trusted to administrators that are more interested in graduation rates than they are in educating the future leaders of our communities.

Enough is enough! Give your children a decent shot at success by taking control of their education. Love them enough to ensure not only that they do not fail in school; but moreover, make sure that the school system they attend does not fail them.

Originally published in Liberty For All February 5, 2007.

R. Lee Wrights is a writer and political activist living in North Carolina. He is the co-founder and editor of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All. Contact Lee at rleewrights@gmail.com.

by Bruce P. Majors

President Obama seems to be a congenital liar, and perhaps a little more stupid than his fans thought. A product of a long process of social promotion and congenial B studenthood, perhaps. (If he would release his transcripts we would know.)

Faced with dropping poll numbers and nationwide protests by angry voters, President Obama conducted a Potemkin Village town hall in New Hampshire, much like Stalin created fake Russian villages with fake prosperity and villagers ordered to smile and answer correctly to Western journalists. The New Hampshire Potemkin town hall was pathetic. Over 1,000 anti-Obamacare protesters were outside. Inside, staged softball questions, including one from a wee moppet whose mom ran part of Obama’ selection campaign in Massachusetts. And a moronic analogy between Obama’s proposed public health option and the US Postal Service.

Does Obama want us to think the public health option will suck more and more taxpayer money into a black hole, while providing shoddy service, little innovation, and being forced to close hospitals and leave communities with diminishing services, as does the Post Office? Does he think that the governmental Post Office was created AFTER FedEx and UPS came into existence, to keep them “honest” by providing competition, as he dishonestly claims a government funded health insurance is needed to keep private insurance companies honest?

Leaving aside the Obama crew’s failure to grasp that insurance companies provide a check on each other, as long as we are free to pick among them (and would provide more options and be more competitive if the government did not regulate them into uniformity with mandates and prevent them from competing across state lines for our business), what about the question of innovation? The US Post Office only managed to figure out a vending machines could sell a stamp decades after private retailers had been using them to sell gum, snacks, condoms, tampons and everything else. Governments do not innovate, and have little incentive to do so.

And what of government’s failure to innovate if we allow Obama to nationalize the 1/6 of our economy devoted to medical care? One of President Obama’s recent statements about the furor he is facing from voters is that it’s OK that nationalized medical care may mean old people (and others? the handicapped? disabled? incurable? genetically compromised?) will be strongly “nudged” (to use Obama team member Cass Sunstein’s new Orwellian term for totalitarianism) to forego costly treatments and just take pain killers and expire without making trouble, because “we” already ration health care in that those evil insurance companies sometimes say “no” to such treatments.

Of course one can always pick an insurance company that does cover what you need treated. Or you can pay cash for a treatment, even if that means mortgaging a house, borrowing from relatives, or appealing for donations. Obama is either dishonest or dumb in that he evades the way innovations happen, perhaps because he intends for innovation to end, or at least be strictly controlled by a federal government that will decide when any are needed. Innovators in a market economy usually create new products and services that are extremely expensive and available only to the wealthy initially, and then are made more cheaply by new competitors entering the market. A recent example being flat screen TVs or cell phones, once luxury items, a few years later, cheap and ubiquitous. Medicine is, or should be, no different, as such things as lasik surgery have shown.

Most medical services, other than cosmetic surgery, today are provided in very heavily regulated markets, and paid for by government-controlled health insurance provided to employees through their employers because of the tax code. Consumers do not have the same control they do in their free market purchases where they shop and control the purse strings. As a result the medical technologies covered by current government-regulated insurance have not fallen in price as rapidly as lasik surgery. Overall health expenditures increased from 5.9 percent to about 14 percent of gross domestic product from 1965 to 2001 and to 16.2 percent of GDP by 2008. [1] Henry Aaron, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, recently asserted that medical spending continues to rise faster than the GDP because the population is growing and new medical technologies and therapies are constantly being developed to enable more people to receive treatment than previously possible. [2]

Professor Mark Pauly of the Wharton School of Business stated, “Basically, most of the data I know about indicates that the lion’s share-whatever that is-of the growth in medical spending per capita, even after you adjust for the aging population, is accounted for by what we call technology.” [3] For example, before the development of hip-replacement surgery, an arthritic hip was treated with aspirin and a walker. Now a single hip replacement can cost from $20,000 up to $50,000 depending on age and the length of hospital stay. [4] Advances in medical equipment also seem to drive medical expenses ever upward. MRI (magnetic resonance imagery) machines involve both heavy capital outlays and additional personnel. The average x-ray costs $80 while a similar MRI machine costs over $1,200 per examination. Unlike x-rays, MRIs can detect brain and muscular disorders. [5]

Obamacare plans to solve the problem of costs, not by deregulating and allowing consumers to shop as they do with lasik, but by denying you access to the new services. Obamacare means that new drugs, treatments, procedures and medical devices will not come into being. Perhaps we will have a somewhat more equal access to treatment (except for the ruling political class, like Congress, who are more equal than others) unless we are elderly or in some other group deemed socially value-less. But the care we will be receiving will never include anything that did not already exist in 2009.

Notes

1- Steve Eisenberg, medical director of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, September 19, 2001.

2- Geri Aston, AMNews staff, “Medicare sound for now, but long-term outlook is gloomy,” April 17, 2000, Amednews.com: The Newspaper for America’s Physicians.

3- “Health Policy Discussion” from “Productivity in Health Care: The Value of Medical Technology,” AEI Conference, February 28, 2001.

4- Leigh Hopper, “Hip replacement firm issues recall,” Houston Chronicle, January 23, 2001.

5- Mark H. Gurda, “Rising costs, September 18, 2000”

Bruce Majors is an unpaid Tea Party community organizer in Washington, D.C. and has written for the American Spectator, Los Angeles Times, Des Moines Register, and Cleveland Plain Dealer.

by Jay Ambrose

Now we know the enemy in the health-care debate, the really, truly despicable people, the worms who ought to be stuffed back in the dirt they crawled out of. It’s ordinary citizens who have had the temerity to show up at meetings of their representatives in Congress, asking in so many words — “What in the name of heaven are you planning to do with our lives?”

Happy enough to be cheerleaders when Cindy Sheehan and her ragtag followers were out and about calling George W. Bush a mass murderer, Democrats, the left generally, some pretend journalists and a number of big-name commentators are aghast at a lack of respect for the Washington malefactors, fearful that someone will think everyday Americans actually know what they’re talking about and worried about how hard it will be to set the record straight if their critiques are widely circulated.

Nancy Pelosi goes further. She asserts swastikas had been spotted at these protests, as if that is comment enough. Listen, speaker of the House: There are kooks out there. No matter what the event, kooks show up. I have no idea whether someone with a swastika actually was at some health-care protest or two or three, but that would hardly mean what Pelosi implied, that what we have here is just a bunch of neo-Nazis. What we have are people who have been following developments and very well may grasp what is at stake in the rush-job “reform” proposals better than poor Pelosi ever could or even more than some gullible, non-sequitur-plagued, exaggerating writers in big-time media.

Here’s the deal. The Democrats contend health care is a “right,” which is to say they think health insurance should be an entitlement provided free if necessary to every single American resident, including people who simply don’t want it and illegal aliens who are likely to be given plenty of opportunity to obtain government handouts without fear of detection. One device to accomplish universal insurance would be a so-called public plan, which is to say a government-run alternative that sooner or later might well be the only show in town, even though all but the very tiniest businesses would be required to either provide health insurance or pay a penalty.

According to the most trustworthy non-partisan people in D.C. — the staff of the Congressional Budget Office — the cost of current Democratic bills would be enormous, at least another trillion dollars over the next decade. This will come on top of the tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities already owed to Medicare, money that will be due to beneficiaries beyond what will be available from tax revenues or any means other than higher taxes or deficit borrowing. At some point, and not all that much further down the pike, we will have annual, economy-wrecking obligations making this year’s stimulus package and bailout billions look like pipsqueak stuff, and meanwhile count on higher premiums caused by still more mandates on insurance companies. 

Something will have to give, and a hint of what that will be is contained in the idea of President Obama to have a Medicare panel making sweeping decisions on fees and advisable care. Severe rationing could eventually become the way of things, no matter what dodges you are told about new efficiencies or preventive health practices doing the money-saving job. Given how much we’ve recently been hearing about how old people really don’t need as much care as they are now getting, I’d say they should keep a keen eye on the formulas Obama and friends have in mind.

The short of it is that while incremental, gradual, market-based reform is certainly needed along with a careful restructuring of Medicare, a really, really big, all-at-once, statist, semi-socialist transition will have even bigger unintended consequences, and ordinary citizens will pay dearly unless their insights can help forestall the hubris.

Jay Ambrose, a contributing columnist at Independence Institute and former editor of the Rocky Mountain News, returned to Colorado to write nationally distributed columns and take up other pursuits last December after nine years in Washington, where he served as director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard newspapers.

© 2009 The Independence Institute
13952 Denver West Parkway, Suite 400
Golden, CO 80401
303-279-6536

from SAF

BELLEVUE, WA - The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit on behalf of three residents of the District of Columbia and a New Hampshire resident, seeking to compel the city to issue carry permits to law-abiding citizens.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court on behalf of Tom Palmer, George Lyon and Amy McVey, all District residents, and Edward Raymond, a New Hampshire resident. SAF and the individual plaintiffs are being represented by attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case in 2008 that overturned the District’s handgun ban on the grounds that it was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

“Once again,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “we’re heading back to court because the anti-gun city administration refuses to abide by the law. It is beginning to appear like residents of the District are up against a rogue city government that simply does not want to ease its stranglehold on the most important civil right of all, the right of self-preservation.”

“In most major American cities,” said attorney Gura, “where the right to bear arms is respected, licensed permit holders have proven themselves safe and effective. Washington, D.C. already requires handgun registrants to complete the background checks and training classes required of carry permit holders throughout the country. It is pointless to deny these individuals the right to bear arms.”

SAF previously sued the District over its restrictive handgun registration policies, leading the city to amend those policies. This time, SAF is alleging that the District previously had a city code under which the police chief could issue licenses to carry handguns to individuals, including citizens not residing in the District, though the city did not issue such licenses as a matter of policy for several years. That authority was revoked last December by the Mayor and City Council.

Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against the continued ban on carrying handguns by law-abiding citizens for personal protection.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Copyright © 2009 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.

Second Amendment Foundation
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
Email: InformationRequest@saf.org

by Peter Orvetti

There was an ugly turn in the national debate over health care policy last week.  Reasoned arguments were cast aside, and threats, name-calling, and coercion took center stage.  Oh, and some of the critics of President Obama’s plan got out of hand too.

Aggression, intimidation, and physical violence of the sort seen at some of the so-called “town hall” meetings on health care have no place in public discourse.  Such tactics are despicable, not to mention counterproductive.  But those in the halls of power are employing subtler, though still insidious, tactics to suppress dissent.

“If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”  That’s the message posted last Tuesday, not by the Democratic National Committee, nor by Obama’s re-election campaign-in-utero Organizing for America, but on the official White House website by a government employee.  Can you imagine if the last administration had posted something like that about the Iraq war?

In a letter to Obama, Sen. John Cornyn wrote, “I am not aware of any precedent for a President asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed ‘fishy’ or otherwise inimical to the White House’s political interests. …  I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward emails critical of his policies to the White House.  I suspect that you would have been leading the charge in condemning such a program-and I would have been at your side denouncing such heavy-handed government action.”

The White House website message called on readers to rat out “disinformation” about the President’s agenda — which legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano warns may be a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974.  But a lot of the Democratic criticism of the opposition is not even about its message — it’s about the method of delivery.  Sen. Barbara Boxer said on MSNBC, “This is just all organized.  You in the media have to take a look at what’s going on here.  This is all planned.  It’s to hurt our president and it’s to change the Congress.”

Well, yes, some of the actions have been organized — just as demonstrations against the Iraq war have been organized, just as demonstrations against Vietnam and in favor of civil rights were organized.  That’s called “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  And yes, it is aimed at changing the direction of policy, or, failing that, to change the policy makers.  Isn’t that the point of all activism in a free society?

While his partisans were making these complaints, Obama himself — with that hypocritical speed that only political types can withstand without getting whiplash — sent an email to supporters.  The former community organizer wrote, “We’ve got to get out there.  These canvasses, town halls and gatherings only make a difference if you turn up to knock on doors, share your views and show your support.”

Political journalist A.B. Stoddard said of the Obama Administration’s efforts, “They obviously feel that they have to fight back against these ‘mobs’…but this is democracy in action.  There is nothing they can do.  The more they complain about it at the White House level, I think the worse it becomes.”

The issue here is not whether or not an expanded government role in paying for health care is a good idea.  You do not need to be an opponent of the President’s plan to be concerned by this orchestrated — dare I say, organized — effort to stifle and marginalize any criticism of the President’s views.  It was bad when Bush did it, it was bad when Nixon did it, and it’s bad when Obama is doing it.

It does seem that one good thing has come of all this, however.  The atmosphere at the “town hall” events has become so toxic that some members of Congress have cancelled the large, staged events in favor of actually scheduling one-on-one meetings with their bosses - their constituents - to discuss their concerns.  That’s change we can believe in.

Peter Orvetti was an early political blogger in the United States, running his Orvetti.com political news report from 1997 through 2002. He is a past editorial writer for the Cato Institute, served as Deputy Director of Communications for the Libertarian Party in the lead-up to the 2000 party convention, and has published commentaries in several major newspapers. Contact Mr. Orvetti at peterjorvetti@gmail.com.

by Kevin Tuma

by Jessica Pacholski

In finance the term “free market” is bandied around quite often. Free market capitalism versus socialist capitalism. I call it socialist capitalism because all financial systems are based on capital, production, labor, and commodities, hence are capitalistic. The only difference is who controls the means of production the people or the government. Those who argue the case for central planning and tighter government control often blame the free market for our problems. However, they don’t seem to understand what a free market is and often define corporatism as capitalism.

Corporatism, or Mercantilism, is where the large politically connected businesses dominate the market through the cartelizating effect of centralized power. In other words, it’s a government protected ring of monopolies. Free market capitalism is where the people actually regulate and control capital and production, competition is not good for monopolies and large market share in an industry is the outcome of consumer choice. In other words the free market is all of us. Billions of people making non-coerced transactions of our own free will, that is the “invisible” hand, it is consumer regulated business.

All business is motivated by its own interests. In actuality, all people are motivated by their self interest whether the reward is tangible or not. To change a business model it is far more expedient to go right to the source, make it unprofitable. If a company does something you find unconscionable, don’t give them your money. If doing the right thing makes them a profit it is an incentive for them to do so. You tie in their self interest with populace’s interests and everyone does better in the long run.

Competition is a positive. It keeps businesses honest, something that regulation does not do. When any industry is over regulated the corporation’s main objective becomes how to get around the regulation or use it to destroy smaller competitors. As a matter of fact the large corporations lobby for many of the laws that people assume they would be against. Why do they do this? Because many of the smaller less established businesses go under due to the new regulations, they do not have the resources to comply, ensuring compliance is very expensive and only the largest firms can afford to conform to the new regulations. Hence the reigning in of industry that the people feel regulation accomplishes usually serves to squash competition and enrich certain influential businessmen who use the government as special protection. This is monopoly, a condition that is near impossible in a real free market since government interference is necessary for it to exist.

Capitalism is usually maligned as “Social Darwinism”, dog eat dog, but is this a fair account? For a company to stay on top in an unfettered free market it must meet the needs of the consumers, keep their prices low, and keep innovating, if they fail to deliver they go out of operation. I guess that is survival of the fittest, however I can’t see why this is a bad thing. Companies that cannot compete should be forced to re-evaluate their business practices to become more efficient or be eliminated to make room for companies that can.

I know, what about the workers? How does it help workers to keep unproductive companies on life support and kill companies that could take its place? What if they are missing opportunities by keeping unsuccessful businesses alive? If their company is replaced with a more successful one they would benefit. It would be likely that the more stable company would offer competitive pay and because of better business practices their solvency helps to ensure their future employment. How are workers then hurt by the dissolution of the former employer’s company? It may cause short term problems, such as temporary unemployment, as the market changes, but in the long run both the workers and the consumers, who are in reality one in the same, are better off.

In short we should view the economy as an ecosystem, not a machine. It is the habitat of human interaction the natural process of evolution is a positive for all by directing resources into productive businesses and eliminating wasteful ones. The only way for this to work is to remove the force of government regulation in favor of consumer regulation. The “animal spirits” that Keynesian’s offer as a reason to dismiss free market advocates is a complete misdirection. We are the animal spirits and we are capable of making decisions without coercion. That is why they ridicule. They seek strong central control of the market which is really central control of the people.

Keynes once admitted that his economic system worked best under a “totalitarian” government. What he neglected to mention was that by adopting his system you could create one in a free society. Central planning of an economy is central planning of people’s decisions and choices. You cannot have freedom in the other areas of life without freedom in economics through free markets, yet there are many people who seem to think that you can.

The coercive approach doesn’t work. If you don’t believe me than think about this: There were over 10,000 pages of regulation on the issuance of mortgages at the time of the subprime market implosion and it was useless in stopping the catastrophe.

Jessica Pacholski is a 36-year-old mother of three beautiful girls who lives in Clayton, NC. She is a full-time mother and part-time writer who enjoys reading, painting and stirring the pot.  You can contact Jessica at jessicapacholski@gmail.com.

by BetteRose Ryan

The Free Market tends to be a wispy, tenuous idea that we often have trouble corralling so others may see it.  No matter what we say or what example we use, others can usually point to it and say “That’s just a conjecture.” 

The week of January 15th gave us a little real world example on how government, in its effort to help by controlling the market, actually hurts those who are on the bottom half of the income scale.

Tortillas are a main food staple in Mexico.  People consume an average of ten tortillas a day according to a recent NPR news story.  That same story says the cost of tortillas has risen to over 50% in some areas of Mexico, with other area prices going almost as high.  So what is the cause of this?  With everyone saying everyone else is to blame, all one really has to do is take a look at what the government is doing to find the real cause.

First, the government of Mexico worked out some deals years ago that allowed Gruma to obtain 70% of the market share in the tortilla trade.  You might think that Gruma then could fix the price of tortillas. You might be right.  It is something the government is investigating.  After all, Gruma has already had to go into court to prove itself in the US when other tortilla manufactures complained about the loss of ’shelf space’ to Gruma.  If you wonder who this company is, you might know them as Mission, one of their family. But who allowed this ability to set price?  The Government made it possible.  It is not just the price of tortillas that gets set by this manufacturer of tortillas and corn flour but also the price paid for raw corn.

Second, Mexican government entered into the North American Free Trade Agreement.  How can this be anything but good with a name like Free Trade?  It seems this agreement allowed the corn producers of the US to sell their product in Mexico.  Okay, not so bad maybe, except that corn is subsidized in the Untied States.  Taxpayer money is used to keep the cost of producing the corn artificially low.   This caused a great many of the small farmers in Mexico to go out of business.  In fact, many of them left their farms in Mexico to work illegally at farms in the US.  This caused a shortage of corn produced in Mexico.  The government once again was the prime actor in this.

Then comes the ethanol rage.  Corn in the US is no longer headed to Mexico but to US ethanol plants.  Let us not go into the fact that the government has mandated the use of these fuels and how that affects the market.  Rather, keep in mind that without US corn, Mexico now has a corn shortage.

Finally, there is good news for the small farmer.  He can return to Mexico, restart his corn-producing farm and make a livable profit even with Gruma holding 70% of the market. This will enrich the small farmer and lower the number of illegal aliens in the US, right?  Wrong!  Once again, the government is planning on stepping in and helping by bringing in corn at the lowest possible price from any other country it can. This is bad news for the small farmer, since he won’t be able to compete; good news for the person who purchases the tortillas, at least for the time being; and great news for Gruma, who can set prices at whatever it chooses free of market competition.

The lesson in all of this is, the government started the problem, the government made the problem worse, and the government continues to worsen the problem, all the while hurting the very people it claims to be trying to help.

So what would have happened in a true free market?  Gruma may have been able to get a large share of the market but not for long.  If Gruma raises prices too much, it will encourage other tortilla makers to compete with it because profit is high.  If it presses corn prices down too far, again, other tortilla makers will be encouraged to compete because costs will be low and profit will then be high.  There will be competition provided the government has not passed laws to prevent this competition.

What about NAFTA? If it were truly a free trade agreement, one would have to remove any items that were subsidized from the trade list.  Mexico’s corn market would not have be affected by the influx of cheap corn, which ran farmers out of business, nor by the removal of that corn, which caused the price of corn products to skyrocket.  Free trade should mean trading of products free of government subsidies and other government interference.

Originally published in Liberty For All February 12, 2007.

by Larken Rose

Imagine that one of the thousands of “law enforcers” of any one of the various tyrannical regimes throughout history–under Stalin, Mao, Hitler, whoever–was on his way to “work,” where he was going to harass, assault, oppress and murder people. And imagine that you could intercept him, and he had to listen to you for an hour, before you let him go. (No, you’re not allowed to just kill him in this hypothetical scenario; that would be too easy.) Do you think you could say anything to him that would make a difference?

What would you do to try to appeal to his humanity, to try to convey to him the idea that what he is about to do is bad, even if he’s “just following orders,” and even if what he’s doing is “legal”? Could you persuade him to quit, to give up his job of authoritarian thug? Could you at least make him be just a little bit nicer to his potential victims? What difference could you make, in an hour, in the mind of that guy who values blind obedience as some great virtue? Think you could change his world view? Think you could make him see the light, and convince him to respect the rights of all individuals?

I’ve spent quite a few years trying to figure out how to best convey to people the fact that true human freedom for everyone is not just the best practical idea, but is the only civilized, human option. However, given an hour with a Nazi, I doubt I could make much of a dent in his indoctrination. Give me a whole day, or a week, however, and I think it’s a lot more likely, even if still a long shot.

Of course, in the heat of battle, when the authoritarian mercenary is charging at you with guns blazing, or when the fascist pig has his jackboot on your throat, your chances of using logic and reason to make him see the error of his ways are pretty much zilch. So it’s convenient if you can start a dialog before things get to that point. (As a backup plan, it’s also convenient if you equip yourself so that you can kill him before his jackboot ever finds your neck.)

Still, what does one say to a fascist? Calling him names, however well-deserved they may be, isn’t going to win him over (but it might be fun anyway). Telling him he’s stupid and evil, even if true, is also unlikely to cause any honest self-examination on his part (and might cause some unpleasantries to be inflicted upon you). So, assuming you could even get his attention for a moment, what should you say to Mr. Order-Obeying Statist Enforcer? (My apologies to the noble American moose for the unfortunate acronym there: M.O.O.S.E.)

Unfortunately, any message which sounds like, “You’re the bad guy,” or even, “What you believe is wrong,” will almost always be met with resistance and defensiveness. People don’t like to hear that they are stupid or bad, even if they are–ESPECIALLY if they are.
(I must admit, however, that I found it quite entertaining to watch a guy I met in prison politely informing the “guards,” on a regular basis, that they were agents of evil for assisting in the imprisonment of lots of people who had not committed any force or fraud. Whether it made them think or not, at least it made them occasionally squirm.)

So maybe telling the fascists that they’re evil won’t accomplish much. On the other hand, saying nothing seems like a bad idea, too. Some of us can already imagine, without much effort, when the day will come when we find ourselves at odds, in a very drastic way, with the enforcers of so-called “authority.” If, for example, the American tyrants decide to disarm the public, or seize all gold and silver, or arrest as “potential terrorists” anyone critical of the government, things are likely to get very unpleasant. So, before that day comes, is there any way we might get through to some of the state’s mercenaries, to nudge them in the direction of NOT blindly obeying orders to oppress everyone?

Yes. Give a copy of “The Iron Web” to your favorite (or least favorite) fascist.

And no, I’m not kidding.

It would be an interesting (albeit impossible) experiment, to see how many American “law enforcers” would change their ways, whether a little or a lot, if they were all forced to read the book. Of course, most probably wouldn’t change at all, but I bet some of them would, and when they were next called upon to oppress their fellow man, they might look at things a little differently, and might act a little differently.

For those who haven’t read “The Iron Web” (first of all, go to http://tinyurl.com/theironweb and order a copy!), one of the main characters in the story is an ATF agent, and, despite what you might expect from me, he’s not a bad guy. Obviously, he doesn’t believe what I believe (I don’t think there are many anarchist federal agents out there), but he has good intentions, wants justice to be done, and is capable of a bit of actual thought.

And then scary stuff happens. (How’s that for a plot summary?)

For those familiar with Stanley Milgram’s psychological experiments, which I often reference, you may recall that Dr. Milgram found that the one thing most likely to make someone refuse to obey a nasty command from a perceived “authority” is the person seeing someone ELSE refusing to obey. For whatever strange psychological reason, hardly anyone wants to be the FIRST to disobey “authority,” but many don’t mind being the SECOND to do so. (After that, lots of otherwise obedient people seem perfectly willing to rebel against a malevolent “authority.”) I think the reason is that there is huge mental inertia against even the POSSIBILITY of disobeying ever occurring to most people. But once that barrier is broken, by someone suggesting that disobedience could even be an option, suddenly a lot of people are able to at least consider it.

When the fascists are at your front door, with guns drawn, at that point I don’t think hurling a copy of “The Iron Web” at them would be very helpful. But if a week, a month, or a year before that happens, they happen to read it, I believe it might really have an impact. The book was NOT just written to make pro-freedom people feel good (although it seems to do that, too). It was written for a far more important reason: to try to get everyone ELSE–the general public and even those in “government”–to see that “government” and “law enforcement” is not something good people should look to, to make society peaceful, prosperous and happy.

I know it seems strange to start giving out free gifts to fascists, because a lot of us view them as our enemies (which, in a very real sense, they are). But wouldn’t it be convenient if we could talk some of them out of being our enemies before things get nasty? No, I can’t guarantee that reading the book will make a Nazi into a saint, but you never know if you don’t try.

Find out more about Larken Rose at http://www.larkenrose.com

by Richard C. Evey

There has been talk about AKA and if he was born in the United States or Kenya? Just to make clear, AKA is the guy who lives in the White House. During his life he has had seven aliases.

MSM has been talking about this off and on for the past few months; only when there is little to talk about 24 hours a day. The issue has been gaining strength throughout the country and the world.

The DINO’s are all upset with certain media for even talking about the issue, saying that he was elected, sworn in and is in the White House and that makes it good. The RINO’s talk about it just because they want to run their mouths and have to keep hammering on AKA, just like the DINO’s did to Bush.

Those of us who are part of the alternative news have been talking about this for years and no one has really listened. But I digress.

Now let us come to a real important issue. What would happen if AKA, the press or anyone comes up with the TRUTH? That there is not a Hawaiian birth certificate for AKA and the TRUTH that AKA was born in Kenya, Africa. Then the human excrement would really hit the osculating device. What then would happen?

1. He is not the president, his election is invalid.
2. All the bills that he signed into law are null and void.
3. All the executive orders that he signed are null and void.
4. Any agreement, documents, etc are null and void.
5. Any orders he gave to the military would be null and void

That would put the financial market in a total chaos and possible collapse. It would cause panic throughout the world. There would be riots in the streets of this country, as well as around the world.

Who would take over? Biden? Would there have to be another election?

The results of this would be world shaking. There could be total chaos. But if it were to happen, then this would be the perfect time for martial law to be declared and the military would be in charge, just what the New World Order people want. Then those who are really in charge will be really in charge.

I really think that it would never happen. Those in charge do not want a military take over of the United States. Again, there would be chaos worldwide.

This is just like when the truth came out that Bush and his minions lied about the WMD and lied about Iraq. People talked about it off and on but did little to correct what had happened. The RINO’s defended Bush and the DINO’s talked about it. But it all died a slow painful death except for a few of us on the other side of the fence, away from government control.

The truth came out about the Civil War, USS Maine, the Lusitanian, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, USS Liberty, Rudy Ridge, Waco, federal building in Oklahoma, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the media did nothing. Because the American people are afraid if the government is not there. What will I do? How will I survive? All because the people rely on the government to be their mommy.

The truth will always cause panic among the people. They will realize that the government has been lying to them all these years and the American people will not accept it. The media is controlled by the government just like it is all over the world. Therefore, it is up to the people to embrace and spread the truth themselves. Fear not the truth, for the truth shall set you free.

by Julie Fox

Chair’s Report (Bill Redpath):
The Chair had lunch on March 23rd with George Will.  After the lunch, Will requested to be included on the LP’s media list.  Attended Freedom Fest and the regional C4L conference held in June in Las Vegas.  Redpath described Freedom Fest as a “great conference” with about 1700 attendees.  He has a meeting planned with Jim Clymer, Chair of the Constitution Party, the week following the St. Louis LNC meeting.  Redpath included other events he attended as well, which will be included in the LNC meeting minutes. 

Treasurer’s Report (Aaron Starr):
Confidential financial reports will be distributed to LNC members between the 20th and the 31st of the following month.  Rent charges contain “maintenance” fees, which include property tax charges and various other expenses incurred by the landlord.  This is an annual fee that is charged each year in May on top of the regular monthly rent.   Accounts payable as of May 31 was $15,000, all being current.   Net income year-to-date has averaged $6,000 per month. 

Aaron Starr moved to add text to the LNC Policy Manual, Article III, Section 3, Position Description of National Treasurer.  After a friendly amendment was accepted, the LNC passed a motion to add, “To prepare a quarterly Treasurer’s Report to be mailed to any sustaining member who either a) was a registered delegate at the most recent regular convention, or b) requests such reports.”   Monthly financial statements will no longer be e-mailed to LP members from their LNC representatives, but members can/will receive hard copy quarterly statements via the mail. 

Secretary’s Report (Bob Sullentrup):
Sullentrup noted the mail ballots introduced to the LNC since the last meeting in Charleston.  Sullentrup spoke about the 2010 convention.  Speakers are currently being sought for the convention.  To date, speakers include:  David Nolan, Bob Barr, Gary Nolan, Mary Ruwart, Jeff Davis (relative of Jefferson Davis), Neal Boortz, and Jim Lark, who will be speaking at the Torch Club event.  The incoming national chair will be given time to speak and take questions on Monday of the convention, something that has not been done at previous LPN conventions. 

Staff Report (Robert Krause, Wes Benedict, and Donny Ferguson):
Wes Benedict was hired as Executive Director effective July 17.  His top priorities during his first months on the job will be fundraising and increasing membership in the LP to 20,000.  Benedict has a proven track record from his Executive Director position in Texas, where his biggest successes were with fundraising, candidate recruitment, and membership.  

In regard to recent discussions amongst LNC members on the cost of various fundraising methods, Krause noted that having one’s account debited is much less costly to the party than paying with a credit card.

Ferguson noted that elected Libertarians should keep him updated with their activities.

National Volunteer Coordinator Austin Petersen will be leaving the LP on August 14 to pursue career opportunities with the Cato Institute.

Campus Organizing Report (Jim Lark):
Lark encouraged members of the LP to work with Students for Liberty.  SFL plans to work with LP campus organizations.  Please note that there can be no formal connections due to SFL’s 501(c)3 status.

Following the Campus Organizing report and regional reports were executive sessions where the LNC held teleconferences with newly hired LPN attorney Gary Sinawski and with FEC consultant Paula Edwards.  Edwards relayed general information regarding state parties filing with the FEC that is able to be shared with members.  She urged state parties to file with the FEC due to the likelihood that some of their financial transactions could likely be construed as being related to federal election activity. 

Lark made a motion, which passed without objection on Sunday morning, that “The members of the LNC offer our appreciation and gratitude to Austin Petersen, national Volunteer Coordinator, for his fine work on behalf of the Libertarian Party, and we offer our best wishes to him in his future endeavors.”

Nondisclosure Form (Stewart Flood):
Currently LPN staff and consultants sign confidentiality agreements.  Flood introduced a nondisclosure form to be signed by LNC members.  Further discussion was postponed until the December 2009 LNC meeting so LNC members would have ample time to review the document before voting on its use, and to allow the LNC’s attorney to review it as well.

Election of Credentials Committee:
Five members of the credential committee are elected by the five state parties with the highest membership numbers as of December 31, 2009.  The other five are elected by the LNC.  Those were:  Jeff Dimit (serving as interim Chair), Emily Salvette, Mark Bodenhausen, Christiana Mayer, and Scott Lieberman.  Michael Houze, with the next highest number of votes, became the alternate.

APRC Review (Mary Ruwart):
Ruwart made the motion that the APRC, with input from the new ED, rewrite Article 6, Section 3, Part F of the LNC Policy Manual before the next LNC meeting in December.  She noted that LP News should not be considered a time-sensitive document in regards to APRC review of its contents before publication. 

Membership Analysis (Mary Ruwart):
Ruwart’s analysis of the numbers indicated that the LP is losing money sending direct mail appeals to unqualified leads.  Direct mail is profitable only when it goes out to qualified leads.  Ruwart stressed that, in terms of profitability, we need to focus more on renewing members than in getting new ones.

Financial Records Confidentiality (Mary Ruwart):
Ruwart made the motion that all donor records should be considered private.  The arguments against this motion were that membership donor data (while not exact amounts) was available already through state data dumps, donors’ names appear on the LP’s website, and that donation ranges appear with members’ names in LP News.

Alicia Mattson made a motion, which the LNC passed, to create a five-member committee to study the issue and bring it before the LNC at the December meeting.  The motion passed.  The committee will be selected by the Chair within two weeks following the St. Louis meeting.

Strategic Plan (Aaron Starr):
Starr made the motion that the LNC policy manual section related to the LP’s strategic plan be deleted, considering that the LNC has not been reviewing and updating the plan yearly as outlined in the policy manual.  The LNC voted to delete this section of the policy manual.  The strategic plan still remains, but the LNC’s requirement to review it yearly no longer does. 

LNC Convention Oversight Committee (Michael Colley):
The 2010 convention will be held in St. Louis on Memorial Day weekend.  The St. Louis meeting was held at the same site (the Renaissance Hotel) so LNC members could take a tour and experience the accommodations.   In addition what was included in the Secretary’s report, Colley noted that the LPN is hiring an event coordinator to handle the event.  He is currently accepting applications from companies in the St. Louis area.  Steve Hellin of LP Illinois, who lives close by in Collinsville, IL, volunteered to act as a local contact. 

Planning began three months ago for the 2012 convention.  The site will be on the east coast.  Currently being considered are Pittsburgh, Washington DC, Nashville, Cincinnati, and Charlotte.  Other possibilities at this time are Baltimore and Manchester, NH.  Site considerations include locations of major airline hubs, tourist attractions, and involvement of local and state parties in planning of the event.

By-Laws Committee (Dan Karlan):
The By-Laws Committee sent out a survey twice to LP members.  1032 members have responded to the survey to date.  Karlan urged LNC members who have not yet filled out the survey to do so.

Discipline - or not - of Steve LaBianca (Dan Karlan):
Karlan presented a resolution regarding the refusal of LNC alternate Steve LaBianca to follow the LNC’s policy manual’s instructions that LNC members acknowledge viewing of a sexual harassment video each term.  Karlan’s resolution commended LaBianca for taking a stand on the issue of sexual harassment.   More than one LNC member brought up their concern of how this would affect director’s and officer’s insurance coverage should the LNC pass the resolution, which resulted in the resolution being dropped.

The resolution submitted is as follows:

WHEREAS, the Policy Manual Article I: GENERAL POLICY, Section 8: HARASSMENT AND OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOR PROHIBITION, states (page 10), “Toward ensuring that all LNC members are thoroughly familiar not only with this policy but also the ramifications of it, they must participate in a standard program of exposure to the issues raised by these concerns…. Violations of this policy may result in disciplinary action against the perpetrator including removal from the LNC”; and

WHEREAS, failure to subscribe to the policy adopted by the LNC exposes the LNC and the LP to substantial and catastrophic risk in this litigious social climate; and

WHEREAS, Regional Alternate Steve LaBianca, in a general disclosure to the LNC dated May 1, 2009, declared that he “refuse[d] to read and/or acknowledge reading the allegedly required sexual harassment policy of the LP and/or LNC”; and

WHEREAS, said Regional Alternate further stated, “I am ready to be made an example of, I am ready to be ‘disciplined’”; and

WHEREAS, it appears that Mr. LaBianca’s challenge to us is sufficiently clear as to absolve the LNC from any legal exposure for his rebelliousness; therefore be it

RESOLVED, that Regional Alternate Steve LaBianca is hereby commended for his willingness to take the heat for his personal and principled objection to the requirements of the LNC Policy Manual.

 
Policy Manual Changes (Dan Karlan):
The proposed new policy manual was handed out, to be reviewed by LNC members before the December meeting.

Policy Manual Amendment (Dan Karlan)
The LNC passed a motion by Karlan to add the following text to Article 1, Section 2, Sub-section F of the policy manual,  “main motions must be submitted in writing to the Chair before being moved.”   The following endnote will accompany the text, “See RONR, page 32: “A resolution or long or complicated motion should be prepared in advance of the meeting, if possible, and should be put in writing before it is offered.”

Ballot Access Report (Bill Redpath):
Recent ballot access legislation in WV reduced the amount of signature required in half (to 7500 for statewide candidates).  Current law requires 1% of the vote in the gubernatorial race for ballot access.  A ballot access bill has partially passed the Oklahoma legislature.  The LP, with help from Bill Redpath, covered costs for a lobbyist in OK.  Cost of the lobbyist is $2500/month.  The lobbyist will need to be hired again when the bill goes before the OK state legislature for a final vote. 

Ballot drives are currently underway in Alaska, Nebraska, New Mexico, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alabama, and Arkansas. 

Audit Committee Report (M Carling and Julie Fox):
The LPN received a favorable opinion on the audit of its financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2008.  Review of the audited financial statements as of December 31, 2008 was held in open session.  No issues were discussed.  Discussion of the auditor’s management report was done in executive session.

Executive session was held to discuss FEC reporting issues.

The next LNC meeting will be held December 5-6 in a location to be determined within two weeks of the St. Louis meeting.  The LNC will meet following that in Austin, TX, in conjunction with the LSLA conference Feb. 27-28.   The final meeting of this LNC’s term will be held on May 28 in St. Louis, at the start of the 2010 LPN Convention.

Please note that I will not be attending the December 2009 LNC meeting.  I will provide a Region 6 report.  Region 6 alternate, Jake Porter, will attend the December meeting in my absence.  Please also note that I do not intend on serving on the LNC in the next term.  I will be focusing my time on my campaign for Illinois State Comptroller in 2010, and after that on Illinois local and state party activities, and Illinois ballot access issues as well. 

It will be a big uphill battle to get LP Illinois statewide candidates on the ballot in 2010.  I hope that LP members in surrounding states will consider helping with that effort.  We can make history in Illinois with the Comptroller’s race, but we need to get on the ballot in order for that to happen!  Please contact me at jfox1214@sbcglobal.net if you can help, or if you have any questions or concerns regarding this report.

by Jessi Winchester, author of From Bordello to Ballot Box and America: The Final Chapter

“As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.”

- Dave Barry, Pulitzer Prize Winner Miami Herald Journalist

The Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the United States Constitution set forth the direction and principles the Founders intended for the nation.  The framers looked far into the future and were concerned that if the federal government were too powerful, tyranny would result.  Unfortunately, they were so correct.  The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were meant to be a check and balance that would restrain the power of the federal government by granting states a high degree of sovereignty.

The Tenth Amendment grants all powers to the states that are not clearly defined in the Constitution as being federal powers and the federal powers were originally very limited.  That all changed with Lincoln’s administration.  His obsession with a centralized government drove everything he did as president.  He pushed his ‘corporate welfare’ agenda to the exclusion of what was right for the citizens of the United States and eventually placed those citizens under siege with an armed military in order to obtain his goal.  States’ rights got in the way of Lincoln’s goal for a powerful central government so he simply went about rewriting history to flip-flop the authority of federal versus state power.  Daniel Webster fabricated a theory that the federal government existed first so the states were subsequently “created” by the federal government and therefore, the primary power belonged to the centralized government.  Lincoln embraced that ludicrous revision, thereby actually changing the intent of the Tenth Amendment.  From Lincoln’s tenure forward, the federal government continued it thirsty quest for power, virtually swallowing up states’ rights in the process, a practice that continues to the present day.

Enabling the president(s) are Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court.  Representatives are elected to be a voice of the people … not employees of the President.  We clearly see the majority of representatives vote for bills the president pressures them to enact, even when those laws are devastating to the citizens the representatives supposedly are there to protect.  Fear for their own political future drives many and fear of the wrath from the Oval Office drives others.  Congress has betrayed the American public that sent them to Washington with specific messages and every one of those who pander to the federal government rather than the wishes of the citizens of their states, should be fired and removed from office.

A major flaw in the check and balance theory of the three branches of government is how the U.S. Supreme Court Justices obtain their lifelong appointments.  Rather than the people voting for the Justices, the President appoints them and the same elected representatives that have failed the voting public are the ones that confirm the appointment.  Each president has his own agenda and therefore, his supreme court appointment(s) simply enhance his own plan of action.  Over time, congressional representatives have enabled the federal government to pilfer rights that legally belong to the states along with supreme court case laws that illegally deny rights to the states that are lawfully theirs.  The three branches of government have ignored the Constitution and stolen rights and power that lawfully belong to the states.  The more citizens stand by and watch the federal government get involved in areas where it has no authority, the more we kill the Constitution little by little and the more states lose the sovereignty granted to them by the blueprint of our nation.

The federal government has vastly overstepped its boundaries and usurped powers not allowed by the Constitution and is without question out of line.  When the federal government infringes on the peoples rights, it is up to the state legislatures to protect the citizens of their state.  The time for talk is past.  It is time for action.  The Obama administration is inflicting unheard of draconian measures that are so far outside the boundaries of the Constitution and the history of the entire United States, that states have begun to take measures to try to stop the impending oppression.

Many states are attempting to enact a non-binding Sovereignty Resolution that reaffirms state sovereignty and puts the Feds on notice that the states will not assist the federal government with any action that falls outside the perimeters of the U.S. Constitution and its designation of limited power for the federal government.

Some citizens confuse sovereignty with secession.  They are two separate issues.  This resolution does NOT advocate seceding from the union.  It simply puts the Feds on notice that the state intends to employ its Tenth Amendment rights as a sovereign state and attempts to compel the federal government to follow the law of the land - the U.S. Constitution.  It basically tells the Feds to “cease and desist” illegal activity.  Great achievements begin with actions such as this grass roots movement.  If we intend to take back our nation, return to the basics of the U.S. Constitution, protect our disappearing rights, and prevent a tyrannical police state / dictatorship …. then it is incumbent upon the citizens of this country to find their backbone and DEMAND our representatives - both on a state and federal level - do the right thing and stop this insanity.

In my home state of Nevada, the U.S. Constitution along with Section 1 and Section 20 of the Nevada State Constitution grant Nevada the duty and right to reaffirm our state sovereignty.  Any member of the state legislature who fails to uphold that duty does not deserve to hold their office and should be replaced in the next election.  The people are fed up and ready to take action.

Copyright © Jessi Winchester 2009 All Rights Reserved

by Peter Orvetti

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., was born 48 years ago tomorrow.  In the United States.

There has recently been an uptick in the new coverage of rumors, which first arose during Obama’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination last year, that Obama was actually born in Kenya.  The tale got fresh legs when Republican Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware was confronted at a town hall meeting by a woman claiming Obama was “not an American citizen.”  The woman was later identified as a frequent caller to a local radio station known as “Crazy Eileen” for her assertions that Obama is “the Antichrist” and her comments about aliens.  But the so-called “birther” theory has also been taken seriously by Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and other media commentators with hefty anti-Obama audiences.

The document released by the state of Hawaii in 2007 is not a copy of the original 1961 document, which, it is true, Obama has declined to request from the state.  But the document made public, a Certification of Live Birth, is acceptable to prove citizenship to the federal government to obtain a passport and for other purposes.  In addition, Hawaii officials said last week that they have examined the original document and confirmed its legitimacy.

The conservative National Review, no friend to Obama politically, recently wrote, “President Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at 7:24 p.m., in Honolulu County, Hawaii, on the island of Oahu.  The serial number on his birth certificate is 010641. …  The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate.  There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested.”

On July 28, the state’s health director made a blunt statement: “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”  Hawaii’s Republican governor has also said Obama was born in the state.

But the health department’s communications director, Janice Okubo, does not think any of that will satisfy the conspiracy theorists.  “It’s crazy,” she said.  “I don’t think anything is ever going to satisfy them.”  Indeed, as political psychology expert Jerrold Post of The George Washington University said of birthers, “They are not searching for the truth. …  It doesn’t soothe people to tell them it’s not legitimate.  That makes them angry.”

A Research 2000 poll conducted last week found that one in nine Americans - and more than one in four Republicans - think Obama was not born in the United States.  An additional 30 percent of Republicans are unsure.  The birther movement stokes such doubts with dubious evidence.  A tape distributed online contains a birther supporter asking Obama’s Kenyan grandmother, “Was she present when he was born in Kenya?”  A translator replies, “She says yes she was.  She was present when Obama was born.”  But a longer version of the tape contains a forceful clarification.  After talking with the woman, the translator says, “Obama was not born in Mombasa.  He was born in America.”  The interviewer replies, “I thought he was born in Kenya.”  The reply: “He was born in America, not in Mombasa. …  She says he was born in Hawaii.”

Obama is not the first president to face such challenges.  The enemies of Chester Arthur, one of the more underrated of the bearded presidents, claimed he was secretly born in Canada.  Past GOP presidential aspirants George Romney and Lowell Weicker were born in Mexico and France, respectively.  Arizona’s two GOP presidential nominees were both born on U.S. territory that was not part of a state - Barry Goldwater in the then-Arizona Territory, and John McCain in the Panama Canal Zone.

While if Obama had been born in Kenya he would not have been eligible to serve as president, those pressing the story seem to be acting from political, not constitutional, motives.  It is not likely that the same group would be as worked up if, say, it had been rumored that Sarah Palin had really been born in Russia’s Komandorski Islands, where she could see Alaska from her house.

As the National Review wrote, “The hallmark of a conspiracy theory is that a lack of evidence for the theory is taken as yet more evidence for the theory. …  Barack Obama may prefer European-style socialized health care.  He may consider himself a citizen of the Earth and sometimes address his audiences as ‘people of the world, as though he were born not in another country but on another planet.  Like Bruce Springsteen, he has a lot of bad political ideas; but he was born in the U.S.A.”

Peter Orvetti was an early political blogger in the United States, running his Orvetti.com political news report from 1997 through 2002. He is a past editorial writer for the Cato Institute, served as Deputy Director of Communications for the Libertarian Party in the lead-up to the 2000 party convention, and has published commentaries in several major newspapers. Contact Mr. Orvetti at peterjorvetti@gmail.com.