Ron Paul on Eliminating the Fed

On Wednesday, Congressman Paul appeared on Fox Business to talk about gold and the need to eliminate the Federal Reserve System.

The Government Is In Over Its Head

During a July Joint Economic Committee hearing, Congressman Ron Paul talked about the business cycle, the GDP, and how government interference makes the economy worse.

Hollywood Hates Capitalism - Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps Edition

Here is an interesting theory from the guys at Reason T.V.

Ron Paul on Government Reform

On Tuesday, Congressman Ron Paul appeared on Fox Business' America's Nightly Scoreboard to talk about what needs to be addressed if we are to ever have serious reform.

The Virginia Declaration of Rights

Just thought it would be good to read the Virginia declaration of rights if you haven't yet. And maybe read them again if you have already. Keep in mind that this was written and passed unanimously by the Virginia State Legislature in 1776, one month prior to the Declaration of Independence was passed unanimously by the 13 colonies. And a full 12 years before the Constitution was ratified and made law. The Virginia Declaration of Rights A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government . Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them. Section 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal. Section 4. That no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, nor being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary. Section 5. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciary; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burdens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part, of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct. Section 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled for the public good. Section 7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised. Section 8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man has a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers. Section 9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Section 10. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted. Section 11. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred. Section 12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments. Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Section 14. That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government separate from or independent of the government of Virginia ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof. Section 15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles. Section 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.

Ron Paul "This Is Much Bigger Than The Great Depression!"

It Happens First in America: The Brave New Welfare State

Stephen Baskerville, political scientist whose articles I've posted before, comments on America's direction; pushing into uncharted socialist territory while Europe is already confronting the limitations of its welfare state(s). The US lacks the specific history (WWII devastation) that led western Europe into "quasi-socialist welfare systems." European states managed to operate them without them becoming tyrannical.

Now, "America, not Europe, is on the cutting edge of the welfare state," he writes.

“…do we not in fact stand as a kind of warning to the West, revealing to its own latent tendencies?” – Václav Havel

"Like most trends, it is happening first in America."

Read the whole article: It Happens First in America: The Brave New Welfare State

Sharon Angle vs. big government

I want to know why its a bad thing for Sharon Angle, Nevada's republican candidate for U.S. Senate, to want to reign in the Federal monster and cut unconstitutional programs like Social Security, Medicare, Department of Education, and the IRS. The good news is she holding onto a statistical tie with Harry Reid despite the apparent lack of liberty-minded voters who have a problem with these ideas. Have we become so attached to the idea of a big Federal government that can do everything for us that these are scary ideas? I mean, Social Security could easily be phased out by giving to those who have already been paying in what their owed at retirement and letting the new generation of workers be free from the ponzi scheme tax, and teach them they can do much better by saving and investing for themselves! Do the math dummy. Medicare and Medicaid can easily be handled at the State level where the taxes are collected anyway. We just cut the Feds out of the process. That way our money doesn't ever have to go through two governments and be "laundered" twice before the benefits are paid. The Department of Education has been nothing but a failure. Our kids have gotten dumber as The government sets the curriculum. Which means our kids learn what they want them to learn. I mean how stupid can we be letting this go on? Schools should ALL be private. Then they would have an incentive to actually educate or go out of business. And you and I as parents would have more say-so in our children's education. Not to mention more choice in where they go and what they learn. Maybe we would actually see schools teaching critical thinking again. If we started doing these things at the State level or privately, and got away from the idea that only a mighty and powerful central government can handle these things, eventually there would be no need for an IRS anyway! How great would it be to see a repeal of the 16th amendment! Wake up people. You are already living under a quasi dictatorship. When was the last time you told your government what they were going to do, how they were going to behave, or what rules they were going to have to follow- like it or not? I'm pretty sure the answer is never. But they sure are good at imposing all they want on us- like it or not! We MUST dismantle the Federal monster and give the power back to the States and their people or we will all be chanting "yes we can" by the point of a gun.

The 'Unholy Alliance' Against War

Freedom and the Family: The Family Crisis and the Future of Western Civilization

Author Stephen Baskerville is without a doubt the nation's leading political
scientist on the subject of family policy. This article was published in
Humanitas, Volume XXII, Nos. 1&2, 2009. I offer a few short excerpts
and of course the link to the full article (PDF).
(Posted here by Roger F. Gay)


In April 2009, Dr. James Dobson stepped down as head of the conservative
Christian group Focus on the Family with a pessimistic
message about his years in the “culture wars.” “We are right now
in the most discouraging period of that long conflict,” he declared.
“Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles.”1
Dobson’s words were widely taken as an admission of defeat. His
statement highlighted a trend that now seems inexorable: In the
Western World the traditional family continues to unravel, and its
defenders are increasingly giving way to resignation and despair.

Yet an historical perspective reveals that the conflict over the
family may only be beginning and that we may be on the verge of
a wider confrontation that will decide not only the survival of the
family but fundamental questions about the scope and nature of
the modern state.

.....

Most Americans know from personal experience that the most
direct and common threat to the family today is not the marriage
of two homosexuals but divorce within families. Divorce now
threatens most families and every society in the Western world.
Not only is it multiplying single-parent homes among the affluent
as welfare did among the poor; it now poses a serious threat to
privacy, civil liberties, and constitutional government, as children
are forcibly taken from their parents on a variety of divorce-related
pretexts and parents who resist are taken away in handcuffs.
Most people know someone whose children and private life have
been placed under government supervision through divorce, very
likely without the person’s consent. Yet even many who think of
themselves as conservatives do not raise as a public issue this flagrant
restriction of freedom.

....

Forty years of not merely easy but involuntary divorce have acculturated
us not only to immorality but also to tyranny. That most
people do not readily see the tyranny in what has been described
(until government takes control of their own children, property,
and freedom) may be the most alarming observation of all. “Before
my own experience, my tendency was to look down condescendingly
on divorced people and, for the most part, blame the men,”
writes one correspondent to a national magazine. “My attitude,
of course, changed drastically when it happened to me.”19 Government
agents routinely seize control of the children, property,
and movement of vast numbers of citizens who have committed
no crime, and we acquiesce because our culture has made what is
happening appear commonplace: “divorce,” “custody battle,” and
“division of property.” Euphemisms conceal a stark and shocking
reality.

Link to the full article (PDF).

Consumption spending is 70% of GDP-So what?

This article by the great economist Robert Higgs says it simply and easily enough for anyone to understand. Why is this so hard to understand for the Obama administration? Consumption Spending Is 70 Percent of GDP — So What? By Robert Higgs on Sep 5, 2010 in Budget and Tax Policy, Economics, Employment, The State It must be a condition of employment that a journalist who writes about the current recession include in his article the statement, "consumption makes up more than two-thirds of the economy" or "consumption spending accounts for 70 percent of GDP." This seemingly simple, factual statement, however, is nearly always intended to carry some explanatory weight, and on occasion the writer spells out this explanation by adding a statement such as, "unless consumers begin to open their wallets and spend more, recovery from the current recession will be impossible." At first glance, this journalistic commonplace appears to make sense. Anyone can understand that, say, a store at the mall will not hire additional employees unless its sales increase enough to justify the additional expense. Hence, would-be employees will remain unemployed; they will purchase fewer consumption goods than they would have purchased if they had jobs; and therefore the stores will not hire more workers; and so forth. The circle of a theory of income and employment seems to be closed, and thus an explanation provided for the lingering recession: consumers are not spending enough. One does not need a Ph.D. in economics, however, to discover that something must be wrong with this way of thinking about prosperity and recession. Checking the national economic accounts produced by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis (Table l.l.6), one finds, for example, that the most recent quarterly peak in real personal consumption expenditure occurred in the fourth quarter of 2007. This spending ($9,244 billion at an annual rate) equaled 69.2 percent of contemporary GDP ($13,364 billion at an annual rate)—where the data are expressed in dollars of 2005 purchasing power. Real GDP did not fall significantly until the third quarter of 2008. When it reached its trough in the second quarter of 2009, it had fallen to $12,810 billion, down about 4 percent. At that time, real personal consumption spending was $9,117 billion, down only 1.4 percent, and equal to about 71 percent of GDP. Thus, as usual over the course of a boom and bust, consumption spending varied proportionately less than GDP as a whole. As every student of the business cycle learns early on, the most variable part of aggregate expenditure is private investment. When real gross private domestic investment peaked, in the first quarter of 2006, it was $2,265 billion, or 17.5 percent of GDP. When it hit bottom in the second quarter of 2009, it had fallen by 36 percent to $1,453 billion, or 11.3 percent of GDP. (Deducting investment expenditures aimed at compensating for depreciation of the private capital stock [Table 1.7.6], we find that real net private investment – the part that contributes to economic growth—in the most recent quarter was only one-third as great as it was at its peak in early 2006.) The ups and downs of the business cycle are obviously driven not by consumption spending, but by investment spending. In the second quarter of 2010, real personal consumption was $9,270 billion, or slightly above its previous peak, at an all-time high. If stimulating consumption spending were the key to an economic revival, we would have achieved one already. And if we accepted real GDP as an adequate index of the economy's health, we might affirm that conclusion, given that in the most recent quarter, real GDP was only 1.3 percent below its previous peak. With the official unemployment rate stuck near 10 percent and millions of people having left the labor force or having settled for part-time work, however, that conclusion is hard to swallow. The vulgar Keynesian focus on consumption unfortunately tempts politicians to approve "stimulus" measures aimed at pumping up this part of total spending—measures such as long extensions of unemployment insurance benefits, aid to state and local governments to help them avoid personnel reductions, and increases in the salaries of federal employees. Some economists even go so far as to single out such measures for special praise on the grounds that because such payments are most likely to give rise to consumption spending in the near term, they have the greatest "multiplier effect." Such arguments, however, fail to grasp the true nature of the boom-bust cycle, especially the central role of investment spending in driving it—and, more important, in driving the long-run growth of real output that translates into a rising standard of living for the general public. Politicians, if they truly wish to promote genuine, sustainable recovery and long-run economic growth, need to focus on actions that will contribute to a revival of private investment, not on pumping up consumption. In the most recent quarter, real gross private domestic investment was running at an annual rate more than 20 percent below its previous peak and, as noted, real net private investment was fully two-thirds below its previous peak. To bring about this essential revival of investment, the government needs to put an end to actions that threaten investors' returns and create uncertainty that paralyzes their undertaking of new long-term projects. Gigantic measures such as the recently enacted health-care legislation and the financial-reform law, which entail hundreds of new regulations whose specific content, enforcement, and costs are impossible to forecast with confidence, contribute to "regime uncertainty" and thereby encourage investors to hold large cash balances or to park their funds in short-term, low-yield, less risky securities. Such investments cannot support genuine recovery and sustained long-run growth. In sum, our crying need at present is for a robust revival of private long-term investment. Consumption-oriented government "stimulus" programs, at best, only ensure a protracted period of economic stagnation.

More Stimulus and More Money Down the Drain

Ever since the last stimulus package passed by congress and signed into law by President Obama the economy has not done anything to improve, and the wise man would say, "lets try something else." However, this government under the leadership of President Obama is going to throw more money down the drain with another pointless stimulus package aimed at fixing the countries infrastructure and create jobs.

From Fox News:

WASHINGTON -- Appealing to a union crowd on Labor Day, President Obama on Monday is calling for a $50 billion investment in long-term infrastructure projects that the administration claims will stimulate the flailing economy, create jobs and refill the exhausted highway trust fund.

Though the infrastructure package is aimed at the next six years, the investment of $50 billion is intended to be a "front-loaded" expansion of the $814 billion stimulus package that emphasized shovel-ready projects.

When will we stop adding on to the same problem? We are just creating problems by doing the same exact thing we have done in the past that didn't work.

This administration and this President are clueless to the fact that more government will not fix the problem. Stop the spending and start actually trying something else that will get the job done and save this country from financial disaster.

'Don't Tread on Me' Flag Under Fire By HOA

We have the understanding in this country that when we own property we have a right to do as we please on that property.

Well, it looks like a liberty loving man in Arizona can't fly his "Don't Tread On Me" flag in front of his house because the homeowners association doesn't approve.

This goes back to the HOA's that have gotten people for flying an American flag without approval. While I understand you sign a HOA contract when you buy a house, but you are the property owner that has a right to display your political beliefs under the 1st Amendment.

Here is the report from Fox News:

Ron Paul on Uncertainty in Middle East

Ron Paul on Fox Business

On Wednesday, Congressman Paul appeared on Fox Business' America's Nightly Scoreboard to discuss Iraq, Afghanistan, and foreign policy.