Archive for July, 2009

citizens May Need Three Shots This Fall??? July 30, 2009

July 31, 2009

The World Hell Organization flexes its syringe-wielding-tentacles (locally) once again.

Authoritarians are so arrogant, they think the sheep will let the government inject them with a government-contrived substance that will make thousands sick, and possibly hundreds or thousands succumb to the side effects of the inoculations.

Some folks are really gullible. Oh, and by the way; the federal government will provide the vaccine and equipment. Well, that means we are paying for that too.

THANKS BUT NO THANKS!!!

I’ll be responsible for my own health.

Check out this link from the chattanoogan.com

www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_155820.asp

1400 is More Than 200 via- http://www.et-liberty.com July 30, 2009

July 30, 2009

http://someoneneedstosayit.blogspot.com/2009/07/ap-vastly-understates-obama-protest.html

Technically, 1400 is more than 200. What is the truth?

In Liberty,

PK Lowrey

Please read “The Future is Calling”

● Part 1: The Chasm

● Part 2: Secret Organization and Hidden Agendas

● Part 3: Days of Infamy

● Part 4: The War on Terrorism

__._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages East Tennessee Liberty: http://www.et-liberty.com
Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty: http://www.campaignforliberty.com

The Meaningless Constitution by Don Cooper July 30, 2009

July 30, 2009

Courtesy of

LewRockwell.com

Home | Blog | Subscribe | Podcasts | Donate

The Meaningless Constitution

by Don Cooper
by Don Cooper
Recently by Don Cooper: A Fistful of Dollar


Article 8, Section I, Clause I of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Taxing and Spending Clause:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

It’s this clause that our government most commonly abuses in defense of their special interest legislation and subsequent taxing and spending.Supreme court associate justice Joseph Story (1812–1845) argued that the “Welfare Clause” gave congress the power to tax and spend as an independent power of the legislature; that is, the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else.

[T]he [General Welfare] clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution. … But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations. … [T]he powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.”

Interpreting the constitution in this fashion makes no common sense. If this one clause in the constitution gives the legislature discretionary power to tax the people and spend it on whatever programs they deem to provide for the general welfare then the constitution serves no purpose since any administration can and will define anything they want – most likely special interest legislation – to be providing for the welfare of the people and who is going to stop them and that is precisely the purpose of the constitution: to keep the government in check. In other words, in a document meant to constrain the power of the federal government our founding fathers gave them unbridled power.

Given the nature of men, the long dubious history of government corruption, fraud and waste, I find it difficult to believe that anyone thinks our legislature should be or posses the faculties to be our moral compass. Or that they truly act in the interest of the general welfare of the people rather than themselves.

Furthermore, any taxing of the people and spending by the government – even defense spending – by nature necessarily decreases the welfare of those taxed.

Consider the congress decides that providing healthcare for Americans is providing for their general welfare.

But the government has to pay for this healthcare somehow so they either raise our taxes, borrow money from foreign countries or have the Federal Reserve print more money to pay for it. All equally effective forms of taxation.

Let’s assume the government taxes Peter an extra $500/year in order to pay for healthcare for Paul. But of course that $500 won’t be $500 by the time it goes through the government’s inefficient beauracy so they also have to tax Robert, David, Jim and many others just to provide healthcare for Paul. Now Paul is better off because he now has healthcare. But all the people that were taxed to pay for it are worse off. They didn’t want to give that $500 to the government. They wanted to use it for clothes or food or investment or any number of other things.

Even if they receive the national healthcare as well they are still worse off since they had no choice in the matter. What if they don’t want government healthcare? They still have to pay the taxes. What if they don’t get hurt or sick to the point that they need to use the national healthcare? They still have to pay for it. And since $1 always comes out in any government program less than $1 there are many more people who are worse off resulting in a net negative change to social welfare.

Governments are always wrong in their estimations of the cost of their programs. In the 60’s Medicaid part A was estimated to cost $9 billion by 1990. As of 1990 Medicaid Part A had cost $67 billion in real dollars. Social welfare was certainly decreased.

Every dollar the government takes out of someone’s pocket is a dollar that person no longer has to spend for himself. Even if he is a recipient of the program his welfare is still less since he was forced to participate in a program he had no say in and had to give up other things he wanted to do.

Even if someone wants the government healthcare their welfare will decrease due to the quality of the care. The governments’ inherent inefficiencies, corruption and waste will provide subpar healthcare. Everybody remembers the scandal at Walter Reid Army Hospital. That is government run healthcare. Just visit your local VA or Army hospital. Talk to people about Medicare and Medicaid and other social healthcare programs that already exist and see what they say. The quality will also continue to go down as the costs go up since there are no market signals to correct the inefficiencies. The inefficiencies will be dealt with by spending more money to correct the problem decreasing social welfare even further.

Economically, financially, logistically and socially it is impossible for the federal government to provide for the general welfare regardless of what they do. That’s why if a clause in the constitution is not clear and concise then it should be discounted and not interpreted to be anything more than what it is. Clauses like general welfare clauses are an example as compared to clauses such as:

“To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”

If the purpose of the document is to limit the power of the federal government then the constitution should be interpreted without making any assumptions regarding meaning.

For example, if the federal government wants to create a new department to regulate water then there had better be a clause in the constitution explicitly giving the government the legal authority to regulate water. If there isn’t then they do not have the authority and only via an amendment to the constitution can they gain it. Amendments are difficult to make and that is precisely what the authors of the constitution wanted: to make it difficult for the government to increase its power. Again, the amendment process is meaningless if the clause “general welfare” means anything they want. No need to amend the constitution we’ll just say it’s providing for the general welfare.

Any clause that could be interpreted to mean many things therefore means nothing.

July 30, 2009

Don Cooper [send him mail] is a Florida native, Navy veteran and economist living and working in the Midwest.

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Don Cooper Archives

What Are They Up To Now? July 25, 2009

July 25, 2009

Nanny government doesn’t want you and your local or state government to be self-governing.

You need to understand that the lies, fear tactics and contrived scenarios presented by our non-representative government at the federal level are there to acclimate you into total compliance of a system that is hell-bent on a totalitarian-tyrannical governance and the death of our Constitutional Republic.

Freedom is the enemy of big government. Check out FEMA’s news release below.

www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=49140

Why Rep. Wamp and Mayor Haslam can NOT be Governor of TN! [or who I’m (NOT) supporting for TN Governor] by Matt Collins July 13, 2009

July 14, 2009

The following is contributed by Matt Collins. His credentials follow the article below.

Definitely a must read for folks who strive for accountability in government!

You’re kidding me. Our elected officials are supposed to actually keep their oath to uphold the Constitution? The supreme law of the land?

Yup, that’s it. It’s so simple; but these folks are hard to find due to “Special Interest Influence” and arm-twisting from the “Dark Side”.

—————————————————–

<<I HAVE POSTED THE FOLLOWING AT: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=21733 FEEL FREE TO COPY AND REDISTRIBUTE – citizens of TN should know about their candidates>>

DISCLAIMER:
Nothing I communicate is to be considered an official statement representative of any organization I belong to or am an officer of, including the Campaign for Liberty, Republican Liberty Caucus, WTN, Liberty on the Rocks, America’s Future Foundation, The Tennessee Liberty Alliance, Rand Paul for Senate, or the Davidson County (Nashville) Republican Party. My opinions are my own.


Why Rep. Wamp and Mayor Haslam can NOT be

Governor of TN!
[or who I’m (NOT) supporting for TN Governor]

The Davidson County (Nashville) Republican Party held our annual summer picnic Saturday (7/11); all of the Republican gubernatorial candidates were present. After speaking with each candidate individually I am still unsure who I am going to support, however there are definitely two of the candidates who have not only disqualified themselves, but should never hold and elected office again!

I‘ll start with Bill Haslam the Mayor of Knoxville.

In case you are unaware Mayor Haslam joined NYC Mayor Bloomberg’s anti-gun coalition in an effort to curb crime in Knoxville. However Mayor Haslam then says that upon joining the coalition the leadership took a different direction and he withdrew from the organization. Fair enough and at the DCRP picnic Saturday 2nd Vice Chair Dan Davis and myself asked him about this issue. I wanted to hear the straight scoop directly from him in order to give him a chance to explain his actions before I decided.

Mayor Haslam discussed the story as I explained and he said his intention in the entire situation was simply to “stop the wrong people from having guns”.

I asked him “what kind of people are you referring to that you say shouldn’t have guns?”
And he responded with “felons, criminals, and those without a permit”.

Then I asked “so you believe we need a permit or permission to exercise a right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment?
Mayor Haslam said “well, for handguns yes

That told me everything I needed to know; I thanked him for his time then I ended the conversation and Dan and I walked away.

What Mayor Haslam does not understand is that ONE DOES NOT NEED A PERMIT TO EXERCISE A RIGHT!!!
We have a right to bear arms that both the US and TN Constitutions guarantee shall not be infringed. Do we need a permit for free speech? Do we need a permit to print a newspaper? Do we need a permit to have a trial by jury? Do we need a permit to birth children? NO, of course not. Why? Because these activities are fundamental individual RIGHTS which cannot be taken away without due process (obviously those convicted of violent crimes should be denied their right to posses firearms). We do not need permission from the government to exercise our rights. If we have to ask permission, then it isn’t a right, it’s a privilege! Rights and privileges are opposites.

The idea that our right to self-defense, our right to bear arms, and that our right to buy/sell/own personal property is first contingent upon a governmental grant of approval is insulting to the very ideals of freedom on which the American Republic was founded. I suggest Mayor Haslam read the US and TN Constitutions because ignorance of both that magnitude and of that authoritarian mindset is dangerous to individual rights and to a free society. He is obviously unfit to govern if he cannot understand the simple and basic difference between rights and privileges.

(Upon edit apparently I am not the only one who takes issue with Mayor Haslam in this regard)

Continuing on to the other gubernatorial candidate, Zach Wamp, the US Congressman from Tennessee’s 3rd District.

Representative Wamp voted for the October ’09 bailout. Representative Wamp calls himself a conservative but one has to ask what is conservative about spending billions of nonexistent dollars, increasing the size/scope of the federal government, and voting against the US Constitution? As an aside it is worth noting that the bailout Representative Wamp voted for also included an audit of carbon emissions which laid the foundation for the coming cap-and-trade / carbon tax; next time you see him be sure to thank him for that.

All US Congressmen upon being seated are administered an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States”. Nowhere in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution (the part that lists Congressional power) is the federal government given the authority to bail out banks, businesses, or mortgages. By voting for and supporting the bailout Congressman Wamp clearly violated his oath to support and defend the US Constitution. On those grounds alone he should be removed from office immediately, and personally I would like to see him, along with most of the rest of the members of Congress, either in jail or forced to perform restitution to those of us who are footing the bill for his unconstitutional action.

When one is entrusted with and given the awesome power to make laws governing the life and property of others, the abuse (or negligence) of that power is not only criminal, but amoral; Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary labels an individual “who betrays another’s trust or who is false to an obligation or duty” as a traitor. Does that denotative description fit Representative Wamp’s blatant violation of his oath?

Several DCRP officers and myself approached him near the conclusion of the Picnic because we wanted to discuss HR1207 (Audit the Federal Reserve Act). Representative Wamp extended his hand to me to shake it and I absolutely refused; I am not interested in being friendly towards those who violate the Constitution. To be fair he said that he was very supportive of HR1207 and that “we ought to do more than just audit the Fed….it’s the cause of a lot of our problems”. While I agree with the Congressman on that specific issue I honestly wanted to vocalize that the other cause of our problems were big-government Republicans acting like big-government Democrats such as himself. However in the spirit of, at minimum, being cordial, I held my tongue. But prior to walking away I did thank him for and told him I appreciated his support on HR1207. I still did not shake his hand.

Regardless of his support for a call of transparency in Auditing the Fed, the fact of the matter is that he broke the trust of the People of the United States by clearly violating his oath to uphold the US Constitution. One or multiple positive actions do not negate the fundamental premise of breaking the highest law in the land, usurping more power to the federal government, and going against one’s sworn oath. Even though Representative Wamp has called his vote for the bailout “a mistake” how can the voters continue to trust him after such a grossly grievous err in judgment especially considering the significance of the consequences resulting from his action?
At this point we have a candidate who has violated his oath, and another who is of the authoritarian mindset that the People need permission from the government before exercising their individual and guaranteed rights. I have 3 more candidates in the TN gubernatorial race to investigate before I decide who to support, hopefully at least 1 of the 3 will not disappoint me because the thought of voting for “none of the above” in the upcoming primary is extremely depressing– I refuse to vote for anyone who is going to increase government, or decrease liberty.

In conclusion it is prudent to ask if we attain smaller, more limited-government, more liberty, more personal freedoms, and less taxes by continuing to vote for elected officials that have broken our trust and ignore the Constitution? Should we reward politicians who take our money, our property, and our freedoms by elevating them to higher office? Should we continue to vote for more of the same? Upon a review of history, I think not. If the Republican Party, and ultimately the country, is going to restrain its government, we must vote for those who adhere to principles, not compromise them.

Matt Collins
principle before politics
Vice Chair Davidson County Republican Party
Vice Chair Republican Liberty Caucus of TN
Coordinator Davidson County Campaign for Liberty
Talk Radio Producer 99.7 WTN Nashville
Member America’s Future Foundation
Member Liberty on the Rocks

DISCLAIMER:
Nothing I communicate is to be considered an official statement representative of any organization I belong to or am an officer of, including the Campaign for Liberty, Republican Liberty Caucus, WTN, Liberty on the Rocks, America’s Future Foundation, The Tennessee Liberty Alliance, Rand Paul for Senate, or the Davidson County (Nashville) Republican Party. My opinions are my own.

Medvedev Debuts “World Currency” at G8 Summit

July 13, 2009

Article and video via link below

www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Story-World_Currency_Coin_Shown_At_G8

Judge Revokes Former DEA Agent’s Bond Even After Being Made Aware of Prosecutorial Misconduct Allegations-July 12, 2009

July 13, 2009

www.narconews.com/en.html

The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It! via Socio-Economics History Blog July 13, 2009

July 13, 2009

“Healthcare” is no more than a “Buzz Word” for insurance, pharmaceutical companies and government to use for corralling citizens into a trap that future generations will be paying the price for. And they don’t want you healthy; they want you dependent on the government approved system that insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists pay for.

Personal responsibility is much cheaper and far-less intrusive.

Check out the link below.

socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/the-truth-about-the-drug-companies-how-they-deceive-us-and-what-to-do-about-it/

Hauntings Of The Jack Kennedy Scenario Revisited

July 12, 2009

The Federal Reserve , a cadre of private bankers (which is no more federal than Federal Express) were under threat by John Kennedy’s determination to get our monetary system back in control of the people. Thus, Kennedy was terminated on November 22, 1963 by the powers that is.

The song remains the same. America’s citizens, taxpayers and property owners are getting wise to the command & control practices of the “Fed”. The Fed cannot tolerate being under the scrutiny of any constitution, law, congress, senate or the people. But that’s about to change.

The insanity of the Federal Reserve’s practices are only justified by our representative government’s necessity to fund all of the un-Constitutional projects that it cannot afford. Even if the projects are constitutional, “We The People” shouldn’t be liable for expenditures that our government can’t afford.

When government “Dreams” take precedence to fiscal and Constitutional responsibility, socialism takes over and the Fed doesn’t care what our government is borrowing money for, as long as future generations pay up.

Check out the link below

www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSN0945907120090709

Headed to National Socialism by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. July 10, 2009

July 12, 2009

Excerpt:

“It was common on the left to intimate that George W. Bush was like Hitler, a remark that would drive the National Review crowd through the roof but which I didn’t find entirely outrageous. Bush’s main method of governance was to stir up fear of foreign enemies and instigate a kind of nationalist hysteria about the need for waging war and giving up liberty through security.”

Read Article Here