House Panel Approves Letting Government Pick Who Succeeds & Who Fails

If this measure doesn’t concern you, then you just don’t see what’s happening. Our federal government since Obama took office is taking over everything from Banking,insurance companies, the auto industry and maybe soon the health insurance business. To add to that they’re being given the power to split up “healthy” companies that “appear” to be a risk of getting to big to fail. Yes you heard me right! I don’t think most people understand when your federal government is picking who succeeds and who fails that is a fascist economy plain and simple.

House Panel Approves Systemic-Risk Measure, Advancing Overhaul

A House panel approved legislation strengthening U.S. authority to police large, complex firms that pose risks to the economy, advancing the Obama administration’s effort to overhaul U.S. financial rules.

The House Financial Services Committee voted 31-27 today for a bill creating a council of regulators to monitor systemic risk, shifting the cost of a failure to the financial industry and giving regulators the power to break up healthy firms.

The legislation would give the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. the authority to dismantle systemically risky firms and merge two bank regulators, the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

The legislation was amended by Representative Paul Kanjorski, a Pennsylvania Democrat, to let regulators dismantle healthy, well-capitalized financial firms whose size would threaten the economy.

The measure removes a three-decade ban on congressional audits of Federal Reserve interest-rate decisions, an amendment offered by Representative Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas who has called for the abolition of the central bank.

Another amendment creates a fund to cover the government’s costs for unwinding a failed firm. The measure puts the FDIC in charge of the fund, to be supported by fees from companies with more than $50 billion in assets that would generate as much as $150 billion.

The legislation is part of the Obama administration’s plan to overhaul U.S. rules governing Wall Street to prevent a repeat of last year’s financial market collapse, leading to more than $1 trillion in taxpayer bailout programs.(Which the government shouldn’t have done in the first place.)

The committee today began debating legislation to create a national insurance regulator, the last piece of House Financial Service Committee Chairman Barney Frank’s overhaul package. Insurers are regulated by states.

“A federal insurance office will provide national policy makers with access to the information and resources needed to respond to crises, mitigate systemic risk and help ensure a well-functioning financial system,” said Kanjorski, sponsor of the legislation.

Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said the panel would vote on the insurance legislation later today, and the full House would begin debate on the regulatory legislation on Dec. 9.

Business Week.com

The Push Back Begins:Health Care Freedom in Virginia

Well here’s another example of the 10th amendment in action as the founding fathers intended and federal nullification because of another  overbearing unconstitutional  bill possibly coming from Congress/Senate. Arizona has also done the same thing with their Arizona Health Care Freedom Act , the Health Care Freedom for Alaska, as well as Kansas with their Kansas Health Care Freedom Amendment. The health care vote yesterday is far from the end of things – and  even when it passes the Senate (which I assume some version will), it’s still not the end of the road for freedom.

The real way to resist DC is not by begging politicians and judges in Washington to allow us to exercise our rights…it’s to exercise our rights whether they want to give us “permission” to or not.

Nullification – state-level resistance to unconstitutional federal laws – is the way forward.  It’s peaceful, effective, and has a long history in the American tradition.

Better yet, we expect to see 20-25 states considering legislation to effectively ban national health care in their state in the 2010 legislative session. That same number of states has been able to effectively prevent the Real ID Act of 2005 from being implemented without ever being repealed or challenged in court.

The bottom line?  If you want to make real change; if you want to really do something for liberty and for the Constitution…focus on local activism and your state governments.

No more marches on Washington – they don’t work.

And on the 2nd amendment we have Tennessee,Montana and now Kentucky passing their Firearms Freedom Acts. These things happening is making me believe what the Russian man said several months ago now I am starting to believe may com true. “Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S by Civil War breaking it up into six pieces”.

Health Care Freedom in Virgina

The Campaign for Liberty has stepped to the plate big time in Virginia, getting out ahead of the feds and finding a sponsor for the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, to be introduced in 2010.

The Act reads, in part:

Neither the Governor nor the Department of Health, the Department of Public Welfare or any other Commonwealth agency shall participate in the compliance with any Federal law, regulation or policy that would compromise the freedom of choice in health care of any resident of this Commonwealth.

Man, just copying and pasting that feels great.

Delegate Bob Marshall (VA-13) deserves credit for agreeing to carry this critical legislation. Now is the time for Virginians to start contacting their state representatives to inform them about the measure and ask for their support should ObamaCare make it out of the Senate.

Credit is also due to Delegate Charles Carrico (VA-5), who has agreed to carry the Virginia Firearms Freedom Act, which is similar to recent measures adopted in Tennessee and Montana.

In marked contrast to the health care “reform” legislation recently passed by the House, neither of these bills exceeds three pages.

This is great news for those in Virginia who still cling to the Constitution, but introducing these bills is just the beginning. Victory will require inexhaustible passion and energy since, as always, we must give our state legislators the courage to defend our freedoms.

And it will take political courage. Nancy Pelosi has already said that even if such measures pass at the state level, the federal government has the authority to impose its will upon the voters anyway. (No they don’t!) Then stick us with the bill, of course.

Try finding that one in the Constitution.

Thanks, but no thanks, Nancy.

Like the signs say: We’ll keep our money, guns, and freedom; you keep the change.

TenthAmendmentCenter.com

TSA changes procedure after Ron Paul supporter incident

Transportation Security Administration screeners at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport probably wish that the fellow they chose to grill last March about a box of cash wasn’t a Ron Paul devotee who runs a committee devoted to individual rights and constitutional government.

But grill Steven Bierfeldt they did, and eight months later the incident has yielded revised rules requiring TSA agents to stick to matters related to flight security rather than policing airports for other crimes.

Bierfeldt and the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented him in a lawsuit, announced in a news release this week that the TSA had changed its rules in response to the litigation.

“It’s a huge victory for civil liberties that TSA agents no longer have free rein to conduct sweeping, baseless searches and detain passengers who don’t pose a threat to flight safety,” Bierfeldt said in a statement.

A TSA spokeswoman, Lauren Gaches, acknowledged to the Washington Times on Tuesday that the policy with regard to cash had changed but declined to release copies of directives. The newspaper quoted her as saying that the TSA “routinely assesses its policies and screening procedures to ensure the highest levels of security nationwide.”

Last spring, a TSA blog post defended the questioning but concluded that “language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate.”

A later blog post referring to “the St. Louis incident” says that “the tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate, and proper disciplinary action was taken.”

Bierfeldt said he was ushered to a small room and questioned after passing a metal box containing $4,700 through a Lambert screening checkpoint. He said the cash related to his job as director of development for the Campaign for Liberty, a lobbying group that sprouted from the presidential campaign last year of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian Republican from Texas.

Bierfeldt said he was interrogated for a half-hour in an increasingly threatening manner and told he was being placed under arrest. He recorded audio of the episode on his iPhone.

Bierfeldt’s suit contended that the TSA’s pre-flight screening should be aimed at keeping weapons and explosives off airplanes.

Before it was due to be heard in September, the ACLU said the TSA issued a policy directive stating that “screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security.”

The government agency responded in October with a second directive pointing out that transporting large amounts of cash is not illegal, the release said. The ACLU added that it is taking steps to drop the suit on Bierfeldt’s behalf.

StlToday.com

The Spirit of the Founders

I just watched this great motivating video and had to post it.

1776 saw a revolution that changed the world. This great nation is now on the verge of extinction. The republic so hard fought for is being robbed by corporatists, tyrants, socialists, and special interests. Join with the Liberty Candidates to begin our next r3VOLution!

RJHarris2010

Democrats irked by Obama signing statement

Well here we go again, Obama doing something he said he wouldn’t do. Just as Bush, Obama ignores a part of the law he disagrees with and says he’s above the law. The Constitution doesn’t give him this authority. The Constitution says Congress makes the laws and if the president disagrees with them, he can veto it……….not ignore part of it. Obama was a “Constitutional lawyer” , I’m sure he knows this, but is ignoring it because of his position as president. So hypocritical IMO.

The House rebuked President Obama for trying to ignore restrictions to international aid payments, voting overwhelmingly for an amendment forcing the administration to abide by its constraints.

House members approved an amendment by a 429-2 vote to have the Obama administration pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require a Treasury Department report on World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) activities. The amendment to a 2010 funding bill for the State Department and foreign operations was proposed by Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), but it received broad bipartisan support.

thehill.com

Democrats Irked by Obama’s Signing Statement

President Barack Obama has irked close allies in Congress by declaring he has the right to ignore legislation on constitutional grounds after having criticized George W. Bush for doing the same.

Four senior House Democrats on Tuesday said they were “surprised” and “chagrined” by Obama’s declaration in June that he doesn’t have to comply with provisions in a war spending bill that puts conditions on aid provided to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

In a signing statement accompanying the $106 billion bill, Obama said he wouldn’t allow the legislation to interfere with his authority as president to conduct foreign policy and negotiate with other governments.

Earlier in his six-month-old administration, Obama issued a similar statement regarding provisions in a $410 billion omnibus spending bill. He also included qualifying remarks when signing legislation that established commissions to govern public lands in New York, investigate the financial crisis and celebrate Ronald Reagan’s birthday.

//

“During the previous administration, all of us were critical of (Bush’s) assertion that he could pick and choose which aspects of congressional statutes he was required to enforce,” the Democrats wrote in their letter to Obama. “We were therefore chagrined to see you appear to express a similar attitude.”

The letter was signed by Reps. David Obey of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, as well as Reps. Nita Lowey and Gregory Meeks, both of New York, who chair subcommittees on those panels.

The White House said Tuesday the administration plans to implement the provisions of the bill and suggested that Obama’s signing statement was aimed more at defending the president’s executive powers than skirting the law.

“The president has also already made it clear that he will not ignore statutory obligations on the basis of policy disagreements and will reserve signing statements for legislation that raises clearly identified constitutional concerns,” White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a statement.

Democrats, including Obama, sharply criticized Bush as overstepping his bounds as president. In March, Obama ordered a review of Bush’s guidelines for implementing legislation.

apnews.excite.com

Signing Statements Erode Constitutional Balance

Recently, the General Accounting Office studied nineteen instances where the president issued so-called “signing statements.” In such statements, the president essentially begins the process of interpreting legislation – up to and including declaring provisions unconstitutional, hence often refusing to enforce them.

The GAO study found that in nearly 1/3 of the cases studied, the administration failed to enforce the law as enacted. This approach is especially worrisome for several reasons.

First, these signing statements tend to move authority from the legislative branch to the executive, upsetting our delicate system of checks and balances. Next, these statements grant the president power not given by the Constitution, allowing him to usurp powers of the judicial branch. Finally, the idea of agencies refusing to enforce the law as enacted sets precedent for the type of run away administrative actions our constitution was expressly enacted in order to avoid. Contrary to the claims of those who raise this issue for purely political purposes, the most significant challenge to liberty presented by these statements is that they can serve to further erode our constitutional republic.

In his “Notes on Virginia,” Thomas Jefferson spoke clearly and directly about the idea of elected representatives delegating their responsibility to other branches of government, saying in no uncertain terms that since such representatives had received their authority by delegation from the people – expressly for the use as representative – the legislature had to choose to either use the authority granted or return it to the people. In other words, there is to be no delegation of authority from the representatives to the executive branch of government.

Concerns with signing statements ought to include a concern for the health of our constitutional republic, it ought not to be based upon the political battle of the day. Regardless of whether the president is named Bush or Clinton (or Obama I might add), and without respect to any particular political interest, we in Congress need to fulfill our oath of office and protect and defend the constitution and our republic. Our constituents deserve no less, and should demand it of all of us.

antiwar.com by Ron Paul

Ron Paul/Judge Napoliano Slam the Federal Reserve’s New Dictatorial Powers

More unconstitutional authority given to the Federal Reserve:

Article 1 section 8:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes……..To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;” (nothing in the Constitution about private banks like the Federal Reserve which isn’t federal at all.)

Ron Paul/Judge Napoliano  Slam the  Federal Reserve’s New Dictatorial Powers

Congressman Ron Paul tells MSNBC  that the very entity responsible for the economic crisis is now more powerful than Congress..

“They’re giving a tremendous amount of more power to the Federal Reserve – the very institution that created our problem. That’s about the way Washington works,” said the Congressman.

“Too much regulations to begin with, so they give it more. The Federal Reserve creates the problem, so we give them more power. It’s fiat money that’s the problem, so we allow them to double the money supply – you can’t solve the problems that way. That’s like saying you can take care of a drug addict by just giving them more drugs,” concluded Paul, adding that the lack of understanding about how the Federal Reserve created the problem and how the free market ought to work was the root of the crisis.

Responding to the Obama administration’s new regulatory reform plan, which will officially hand the Federal Reserve complete dictatorial control over the U.S. economy.Paul emphasized that no amount of regulation could compensate for a financial system created and controlled by the Federal Reserve that was completely unstable to begin with.

“The regulations should be on the Federal Reserve. We should have transparency of the Federal Reserve. They can create trillions of dollars to bail out their friends, and we don’t even have any transparency of this. They’re more powerful than the Congress,” said Paul.

As the LA Times reports, the government, in conjunction with the private Federal Reserve, would effectively have the clout to simply seize and take over any company it desires or considers a threat to the economy. Take over like General Motors?

In order to appease those opposed to the plan, such as Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, the Obama administration has agreed to create a “watchdog” council of regulators to “advise the Fed”.

However, as former chairman Alan Greenspan has most recently pointed out, given that the Fed is an independent entity, and therefore accountable to no one, it will have the power to simply reject and overrule any advice it is offered.

Healthcare & Big Government: A Marriage Made In Hell

In his latest column, Ron Paul criticizes the government’s unscrupulous intrusion into the doctor/patient relationship and exposes the privacy implication of establishing mandatory electronic medical records collections. He also presents two bills he recently introduced in Congress. One of them allows patients and physicians to opt out of any federal electronic medical records systems, while the other stops the federal government from forcing any American to purchase health insurance. — tmartin

HERE’S THE AUDIO VERSION OF THE ARTICLE BELOW: 4:16

Fight Government Encroachment into Healthcare!

by Ron Paul

With a faltering economy, and skyrocketing costs, healthcare continues to be a critical issue for all Americans. Unfortunately government encroachment into the doctor/patient relationship is poised to exacerbate our problems with healthcare.

RON PAUL ON REFORMING HEALTH CARE:

As an OB/GYN with over 30 years of experience in private practice, I understand that one of the foundations of quality healthcare is the patient’s confidence that all information shared with his or her healthcare provider will remain private. And yet, the Federal Government plans to undermine this trust with establishment of mandatory electronic medical records collections and “unique health identifier” numbers assigned to all Americans. Funding for this program was among the numerous provisions jammed into the stimulus bill rushed through Congress earlier this year.

Electronic medical records that are part of the federal system will only receive the protection granted by the federal “medical privacy rule.” This misnamed rule actually protects the ability of government officials and state-favored special interests to view private medical records without patient consent.

Aside from those concerns, the government’s ability to protect medical records is highly questionable. After all, we are all familiar with cases where third parties obtained access to electronic veteran, tax, and other records because of errors made by federal bureaucrats. We should also consider the abuse of IRS records by administrations of both parties. What would happen if unscrupulous politicians gained the power to access their political enemies’ electronic medical records?

For these reasons I have introduced the Protect Patients’ and Physicians’ Privacy Act, HR 2630, which allows patients and physicians to opt out of any federally mandated, created, or funded electronic medical records system. The bill also repeals sections of federal law establishing a “unique health identifier” and requires patient consent before any electronic medical records can be released to a 3rd party.

I have also introduced the Coercion is Not Health Care Act, HR 2629. This legislation forbids the federal government from forcing any American to purchase health insurance, or conditioning participation in any federal program on the purchase of health insurance. Forcing Americans to purchase government-approved health insurance is a back door approach to creating a government-controlled healthcare system. Congress would define what policies and coverage requirements satisfy their mandate. Does anyone then doubt that what conditions and treatments are covered would be determined by who has the most effective lobby? Or that Congress would be capable of writing a mandatory insurance policy that fits the unique needs of every individual in the United States?

With these conditions in place, I foresee the eventual imposition of price controls and limitations on what procedures and treatments that are covered. This will result in an increasing number of providers turning to “cash only” practices, making it difficult for those relying on the government-mandated insurance to find healthcare – the exact opposite of the desired result! Consider the increasing number of physicians who are already withdrawing from the Medicare program because of the low reimbursement and constant bureaucratic harassment from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Congress should put the American people back in charge of healthcare by expanding healthcare tax credits and deductions, increasing access to Health Savings Accounts, respecting privacy and the doctor/patient relationship. Further politicizing and bureaucratizing of healthcare will only increase costs and reduce quality, as demonstrated by most other countries with socialized medicine.

RonPaul.com

Fed Would Be Shut Down If It Were Audited, Expert Says

While we’re trying to get all this info from the federal reserve by the hardest, maybe we should consider sticking to the Constitution for coining our money. The founding fathers warned us about the “central banks” long ago, because they had dealt with them back then and knew what would happen. Remember, “those who fail to from learn history are doomed to repeat it.”

The Constitution gives Congress the power to “coin” money….not to delegate it to  “private banks”, i.e. federal reserve.

Article 1 Section 8

….To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;…….

Fed Would Be Shut Down If It Were Audited, Expert Says

The Federal Reserve’s balance sheet is so out of whack that the central bank would be shut down if subjected to a conventional audit, Jim Grant, editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, told CNBC.

With $45 billion in capital and $2.1 trillion in assets, the central bank would not withstand the scrutiny normally afforded other institutions, Grant said in a live interview.

“If the Fed examiners were set upon the Fed’s own documents—unlabeled documents—to pass judgment on the Fed’s capacity to survive the difficulties it faces in credit, it would shut this institution down,” he said. “The Fed is undercapitalized in a way that Citicorp is undercapitalized.”

Grant said he would support legislation currently making its way through Congress calling for an audit of the Fed.

Moreover, he criticized the way the Fed has managed the financial crisis, saying the central bank’s target rate should not be around zero.

“I think zero is the wrong rate for almost any economy,” Grant said, adding the Fed has “embarked on a vast experiment in moral hazard. Interest rates are the traffic signals in a market economy, and everything’s green. … You have to wonder whether these interest rates are the right clearing rate or rather they are the imposition of a central bank.”

Amid a disparity between analysts predicting there will be no rate hikes soon and the fed funds futures indicating tightening by the end of the year, Grant said he thinks the Fed indeed will begin raising rates as inflation creeps into the picture.

Fed funds futures have fully priced in as much as a half-point rise in the target rate from its current range of zero to 0.25 percent.

“If the hairs on the back of your neck stand up when there’s too much unanimity of opinion, then one begins to worry about this,” he said. “The Fed proverbially has been late.”

CNBC.com

Fed Unveils Lending Details After Lawmaker Pressure

The Federal Reserve unveiled its most detailed picture yet of its record $1 trillion expansion of credit, as Chairman Ben S. Bernanke responds to congressional pressure for greater transparency from the central bank.

For the first time, the Fed announced details on the number of borrowers and the ratings of securities pledged as collateral for loans. The data come in a new monthly report released by the central bank today in Washington.

Officials still stopped short of identifying the firms, a measure called for by some lawmakers and the subject of freedom-of-information requests and lawsuits.(Which I might add, the federal reserve it not bound to because it isn’t federal…..it’s private.)

Fed officials believe naming companies would undermine the central bank’s efforts to stabilize the economy, a senior Fed official said at a press briefing today.

Congressional Votes

The Fed’s effort at greater transparency in its emergency lending programs is a response to an April 2 nonbinding budget amendment sponsored by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, and the panel’s ranking Republican, Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, Bernanke said. That proposal passed 96-2.

The Fed didn’t mention the tougher measure, also nonbinding, sponsored by Sanders, which passed 59-39 on the same day. Bloomberg News filed a lawsuit against the Fed in November seeking the names of borrowers.

Sanders, in a statement last month, threatened to pass the measure again “in a stronger form” if Bernanke failed to accept it. Bernanke told Sanders in February that identifying borrowers would be “counterproductive” and result in “severe adverse consequences for the economy.”

Read entire article at Bloomberg.com

GM, Amtrak and an Increasingly Fascist America

Last week, General Motors finally declared bankruptcy. Many in government thought $20 billion in taxpayer dollars would save the company, but as predicted, it only postponed the inevitable. The government will dump another $30 billion into GM and take a 60 percent controlling interest for it. Public officials are now involving themselves in tactical business decisions such as where GM’s headquarters should move and what kind of cars it will build.

The promise that this is temporary and will eventually be profitable is supposed to ease the American people into accepting this arrangement, but it is of little comfort to those who remember similar promises when the American taxpayers bought Amtrak. After three years, government was supposed to be out of the passenger rail business. 40 years and billions of dollars later, the government is still operating Amtrak at a loss, despite the fact that they have created a monopoly by making it illegal to compete with Amtrak. Imagine what they can now do to what is left of the great American auto industry!

In a truly free market, GM would get your money one way and one way only – by selling you a car you want, at a price you are willing to pay. Instead, the government is giving public money to a private company in spite of the market signals it has been sending. Throwing money at GM does not stop it from being an engine of wealth destruction; on the contrary, it simply gives it more wealth to destroy.

Had it been allowed to fail naturally, the profitable pieces of GM would have been bought up and put to good use by now. The laid off employees would likely have found new jobs and all that capital would be in private hands, reinvested in companies that produce products demanded by consumers. Instead, we are all poorer now.

Political pressure, rather than the rule of law, is deciding how to divide up the remains of GM. The bondholders had billions in retirement savings invested in the company, and though they were entitled to nearly three times as much as the United Auto Workers, the bondholders were left with just a 10 percent stake compared to the union’s 17.5 percent stake. For their 60 percent stake, taxpayers have a future of constant bailouts to look forward to.

Comingling public control of private business is known as fascism. While today’s politicians may feel emboldened with all their new power, history will only repeat itself as all this collapses on itself. It is the height of hubris for bureaucrats and politicians to attempt to control the market and the freewill of the American people. In the end, the market always wins out. Maybe one day future generations will wise up and allow free markets to function and thrive without the albatross of government around its neck. For now, it looks like those in charge have not learned the lessons of the past, and have doomed us to repeat those mistakes once again.

DailyPaul.com

U.S. May Strip SEC of Powers in Regulatory Overhaul

The Obama administration may call for stripping the Securities and Exchange Commission of some of its powers under a regulatory reorganization that could be unveiled as soon as next week, people familiar with the matter said.

The proposal, still being drafted, is likely to give the Federal Reserve more authority to supervise financial firms deemed too big to fail.(Remember the federal reserve is no more Federal than Federal Express, it’s a private bank) The Fed may inherit some SEC functions, with others going to other agencies, the people said. On the table: giving oversight of mutual funds to a bank regulator or a new agency to police consumer-finance products, two people said.

See parts 4 thru 6 here:

The 75-year-old SEC, chartered to oversee Wall Street and safeguard investors, has seen its reputation tarnished as some lawmakers blamed it for missing the incipient financial crisis and failing to detect Bernard Madoff’s $65 billion Ponzi scheme. Any move to rein in the agency is likely to provoke a battle in Congress, which would need to approve the changes, and draw the ire of union pension funds and other advocates for shareholders.

“It would be a terrible mistake,” said Stanley Sporkin, a former federal judge and SEC enforcement chief. “Whatever the SEC has done or didn’t do, it is still the premier investor protection agency around.”

Bloomberg.com