ledeagenda.com

I think main-stream institutions are having a hard time understanding exactly what is going on it voters heads these days. Rep. Joe Wilson is just another example in how far faith in congress has fallen, and how deep the undertones of hostility are to this brave new world.

From the Washington Post:

As President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night, the nation’s rapidly deteriorating discourse hit yet another low.

It happened at 8:40 pm, just after the president vowed to lawmakers that his health-care reform proposals would not provide benefits to illegal immigrants. As millions of Americans watched from home, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted at the president from his fifth-row seat: “You lie!”

Murmurs of “ooh” filled the stunned chamber. Nancy Pelosi’s chin dropped. Obama moved on to the next sentence in his speech, about how no federal money would be used to fund abortion. “Not true!” came another shout.

We have reached that moment of desperation. The moment of desperation where all protocol, manners and civility are thrown out and nothing, no matter the sacristy or grandeur, stand in the way.

Rep. Joe Wilson was absolutely right to call Obama out- such forceful displays of contempt and patriotism are needed in an era were muttering opposition to socialism makes you a racist because of the race of our President. Why is the administration and representatives holding speeches, townhalls, and congressional address’s if they cannot face the voters? Why the fuss over these comments if the national health plan plan is as good as you say it is?

Probably because they know critics of  HR.3200 are at least partially right- this bill does appear to force taxpayer funded abortions and will take away free-market choices (IE only “plan approved” policies). Yes, there is language in the bill to restrict services to illegal immigrants, but given the current enforcement level of our immigration laws this provision might as well be entirely and wholly removed from the bill as it will, in time, disappear down the memory hole.

“You Lie”, “Not True”.

These are words for our times.

I’m wading into this party late, but what the hell I am sure I am already on a red-list somewhere.

On a hat tip from Redstate:

HR 3200, Section 102:

Private, non-government carriers will not be able to write new applications after Obamacare goes into effect (Sec a, 1, A).

Private carriers will be unable to alter the policies after Obamacare goes into effect (Sec a, 2).

Private carriers will be unable to change the premium after Obamacare goes into effect (Sec a, 3).

Private group plans will only be authorized for five years after the passage of Obamacare (Sec b, 1, A).

After the passage of Obamacare, only private “Exchange-participating” plans will be allowed (Sec c, 1, a).

Do you see what is happening? Yes, what Obama is saying is technically correct, you will be able to keep your existing coverage. However, after Obamacare passes your current carrier will be unable to alter the policy in any way, slowly starving it off will be inflation, lawsuits, new coverage needs and the Exchange-plans themselves.

You will be forced onto Obamacare, given time. Your current carrier will not be able to write new customers and after the passage of Obamacare, only “Exchange” authorized plans (i.e. government insurance) will be permitted to be sold. Even employer-sponsored health plans will only be given five years to continue their operation before they will be required to seek “Exchange” authorization status.

I leave today will two definitions:

Socialism- 1837 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2a- system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Tyranny- 14th century 1: oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>  2 a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state b: the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant 3: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force

Don’t let the media back you down. This bill IS as bad as feared. Go to the Town Halls, protest, make Congress listen to the American people. Don’t let your doctor’s office become another post office, Department of Motor Vehicles or the IRS. We can stop this..

While your at it, don’t forget to check out the Campaign For Liberty and it’s Stop Obamacare petition!

In an effort to re-secure another six-year term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve and ward off efforts to open the books of the Central Bank to Congressional oversight, Mr. Bernanke has spent a great deal of time over the last two month’s meeting with and discussing the role that the Fed has in United States monetary policy.

Tonight Mr. Bernanke has agreed to do a sit-down Town Hall with a hand-selected PBS audience. The crowd, per the Wall Street Journal, was well-crafted:

The room for the taping will have 190 people, 40 of whom will have the opportunity to ask questions. They were selected by The NewsHour, local PBS affiliate KCPT and ConsensusKC, a community organization that helps select diverse audiences for events. A list of participants includes people from local chambers of commerce, unions, Kansas and Missouri universities and numerous nonprofit groups.

Additionally, it is noted:

Discussions to do the forum began in March after the “60 Minutes” program featuring Mr. Bernanke, said Robert Flynn, a spokesman for The NewsHour. Why Kansas City? “We wanted to be somewhere in the middle of the country, away from the coasts and away from Washington,” he said. The only two cities under serious consideration were Kansas City and St. Louis, and The NewsHour wanted to use a Federal Reserve bank given security considerations.

Mr. Bernanke re-affirmed implicitly that the Federal Reserve is in fact a private central bank whose charter is the regulate the Nations monetary supply in monopoly status:

Jim Lehrer, after explaining the mechanics of the event to the audience, opened the taped part of the program by calling on Gwen Bailey, a social worker with the Visiting Nurse Association.

Her question: “Exactly what is the Federal Reserve? I don’t have a clue what they do, how they impact our lives” and how it makes decisions.

Mr. Bernanke got the opportunity to explain not just financial stability, monetary policy and bank supervision, but that the Fed is responsible (through consumer protection) for the structure of disclosures on credit-card statements.

The explanation led Mr. Lehrer to ask for a definition of an “independent” central bank. “There’s a lot of evidence that when politicians make monetary policy, you don’t have a good result,” Mr. Bernanke said. It’ll lead to inflation, he says. “We’re very very sensitive to this issue,” he says.

Asked about the Fed being referred to as the fourth branch of government, Mr. Bernanke says “that’s a tremendous exaggeration.” He says he’s accountable to Congress and is subject to the appointments process by lawmakers. “Our independence has to be won everyday.”

Mr. Bernanke also implicitly confirmed fears from Austrian Economists that the drastic increase in the monetary supply could lead to inflation down the road and that the Stimulus package will do nothing to create “shovel-ready” jobs:

Bob Litan, a well-known economist at the Kauffman Foundation, asks about employment growth falling short with slow GDP growth. Bernanke says “economic forecasting makes weather forecasting look like physics.”

He sees the unemployment rate peaking in 2010, with 1% annualized growth in the second half of this year. Even when the economy begins growing again, he says “it’ll be a while before the job market gets back to where we want it to be.”

Responding to a question about inflation, Mr. Bernanke says inflation will be “quite low” for the next couple of years given slack from “the softness in the global economy.” But he says once the economy is growing again, he says it’ll be “very important” to unwind the money the Fed has put into the system.

The importance of these frank discussions however will be missed due to the allusion of journalistic objectivism.

This audience was not impartial, nor was the setting, a branch office of the Fed, intended to be. The questions that Mr. Bernanke faced were not, “from the man on the street”, but rather from specific interest  groups who have a strong desire to keep the current regulatory system in place. The questions were admittedly pre-screened and security considerations tight to avoid the suggestion of any alternative system to the Federal Reserve.

This tour is an allusion, designed by community organizers to craft a specific result: public backing for expanded regulatory powers for the private, central Federal Reserve bank. Fortunately we have Ron Paul’s HR1207 and the efforts of the Campaign For Liberty to fight off this well designed public-relations campaign.

Will we open the books and examine the evidence that this central bank has created the boom and bust cycle that has largely served as a control mechanism by government since 1913? Will we expand the powers of the Federal Reserve to every institution that presents a “systemic risk” to the financial system, even though the Fed has never been audited? We will pass HR1207, which has the support of 64% of the House, and S604, which has 18% support in the Senate, and Audit The Federal Reserve? 

Audacity it seems, is owned by fiat.

What does a Socialist America mean for the future of capitalism? How concerned do we need to be with government largesse with these bailouts? For case study, let’s dissect some recent news as related to Chrysler and GM.

1) The Government will choose the management team, acquisitions and product development

From ABC News:

“We are acting as reluctant shareholders,” President Obama said today, announcing the federal government’s unprecedented 60 percent stake in General Motors, a company that will ultimately receive almost $50 billion from the U.S. taxpayer. “That is the only way to help G.M. succeed.”

Attempting to reassure Americans skeptical of this step, the president said, “What we are not doing — what I have no interest in doing — is running G.M.”

General Motors “will be run by a private board of directors and management team,” he said. “They, and not the government, will call the shots and make the decisions about how to turn this company around. The federal government will refrain from exercising its rights as a shareholder in all but the most fundamental corporate decisions.”

A senior administration official said “the government will not interfere with or exert control over day-to-day company operations and very much will ensure that no government employees will serve on board or be employed by the company it makes investments in. As a shareholder, the government will limit what it votes on to core governance issues, particularly the selection of the company’s board of directors; major corporate events or transactions.”

2) Shareholders will be cast out (not bought out) and the Government will assume ownership; union labor contracts supplemented with Government funds while retirees will be pushed into Government programs.

He described the restructuring plan as tough but fair, requiring the “United Auto Workers to make further cuts in compensation and retiree health care benefits, painful sacrifices on top of all that they’ve already done” as well as GM “shareholders to give up the remaining value of their shares.”

The plan for the new GM will “require a substantial amount of money that only a government can provide,” Mr. Obama said, thus the “government will be making a significant additional investment of about $30 billion in G.M., an investment that will entitle American taxpayers to ownership of about 60 percent of the new G.M.”

3) Political, economic and foreign policy agendas, not the free market, will shape the new direction of said company.

“I recognize that this may give some Americans pause,” he said. “Understand, we’re making these investments not because I want to spend the American people’s tax dollars, but because I want to protect them. Instead of taking so much stock in G.M., we could have simply offered the company more loans. But for years, G.M. has been buried under an unsustainable mountain of debt. And piling an irresponsibly large debt on top of the new G.M. would mean simply repeating the mistakes of the past.”

He said this would mean the “beginning of a new G.M., a new G.M. that can produce the high quality, safe and fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow, that can lead American toward an energy-independent future, and that is once more a symbol of America’s success.” This future G.M. will be different from the one of yore, he said, but he said he’s “absolutely confident that if well managed, a new G.M. will emerge that can provide a new generation of Americans with the chance to live out their dreams, that can out-compete automakers around the world, and that can once again be an integral part of America’s economic future.”

4) Long term market control, corruption and trade protectionism can be expected out of these bailouts.

From the Wall St. Journal:

The Administration’s concessions to the UAW also restrict the company’s ability to import smaller, more fuel-efficient cars that it already makes overseas. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger boasted on PBS’s “NewsHour” last week that “we, quite frankly, put pressure on the White House, the [auto] task force, the corporation” to bar small-car imports from overseas. GM is also selling its Opel operation in Europe as part of this restructuring, and the Washington Post reports that one of Treasury’s sale conditions is that Opel’s new owners must stay out of the U.S., and even out of China, where GM’s business is strong.

This is raw trade protectionism. It is also textbook cartel behavior and would be an antitrust violation if practiced by a business. But the benefits for GM are illusory because the import limits mean the company will have to spend even more to retool its domestic plants to make the little green cars that President Obama and Congress are demanding. No one knows if Americans will buy such cars, even if GM can make them competitively in the U.S.

The Administration promises to wield a light ownership hand, but it’s only a matter of time before Congress starts to micromanage GM’s business judgments. Every decision to close a plant will be second-guessed, much like a military base-closing. And what about buying parts from foreign suppliers? Will those also be banned when Mr. Gettelfinger demands it, even if the costs are lower? GM’s managers and directors will have one eye on enhancing shareholder value, but the other on pleasing their political minders in Washington.

The Obama Administration has been whispering to the press that it could start selling its stake within a year to 18 months, and that it hopes to be out of the business entirely in five years. But even assuming that the taxpayer investment stops at $50 billion, GM would have to be worth a cool $80 billion for taxpayers to break even on their 60% stake. By way of comparison, GM’s market capitalization at its recent peak in 2000 was only $56 billion.

The larger corruption will be when government tries to vindicate its ownership by favoring GM over Ford and the other auto makers that aren’t wards of the state. The TARP legislation contained one blatant example in the form of a $7,500 tax credit for consumers who buy GM’s new electric car, the Chevy Volt. Expect more such favoritism, including huge new subsidies for green cars if consumers prove resistant to their charms.

Well, this is going to end well. By the way, how is your economic self-sufficiency preparedness going?

We would be at war in Iraq, bailing out the bankers and enacting Patriot-style legislation no matter who was President.

It has long been my belief that there is very little change from Administration to Administration. Outside of the ‘token’ issues (i.e. abortion or stem cell research) there is very little wiggle room for a President to operate with. The Bush-to-Obama transition is a perfect case study for those seeking standards of consistency in government.

As my long held belief goes, as one President steps down, the new one has the legal, moral and social obligation to continue the prior administration’s agenda until his ‘tweaks’ are added to this massive ball of social, political and economic regulation. A president’s agenda from 40, 50 or even 100 years ago has just as much relevance to this rolling mass of government as does the current one. A new President is simply obligated to take the mantle of this ever increasing tyranny, imposing his own minor ‘legacy’ tweaks and enacting legislation to promulgate the ‘Cycle Of Perpetuality’.

In essence, every President’s agenda since inception is continually and constantly in perpetual motion. This will continue to be the case until such a time as 1) the regulatory affairs run their course and naturally die out or 2) the growth of regulation and governmental power becomes so large that the constitution is amended or a political revolution occurs.

But as this cycle goes on, government continues to grow and regulations increase.

This crisis occurred largely out of the growth of the “living Constitution” ideal. Namely, that the written words of the Constitution are merely guideposts along the way to successful governing. For example, the “general welfare” clause, as such a living theory goes, does no more to limit the growth of government in its constitutionally limited and enumerated areas as does a more “sophisticated understanding” of the text. Namely that the “general welfare” clause can be summed up as follows: if it protects the general health and safety of the American public and does not infringe on the rights in the amendments of the Constitution, then it is a permissible action of government, no matter the direct enumerated power.

 This, of course, is in a natural conflict with the Framers’ view of the Constitution who held that our rights precede government and that we enter into a social contract with each other to preserve, protect and defend these said liberties. Such a view of civil rights demands that amendments to the Constitution are not to limit government or to give new rights, but rather to expand the proper scope and authority of government.

For those who follow the latter of the two views, there is a real and present crises of legitimacy to the United States Government. It has far exceeded its enumerated and constitutionally appropriate legislative powers in favor of  bold regulatory action. In areas where government cannot act or is constitutionally prohibited, it has established quasi-private entities (Fannie Mae/Mac, FINRA, et al) to further the agenda of this rolling mass of historical legacy. It has acted with the broadest definitions of the powers given to it, often ignoring the historical or common sense understanding of the Constitution in favor of more modern definitions. Worse yet, at times it has blatantly violated the Constitution to further the agenda of the agenda setters.

It is understandable how we came to this point. After all, we are told politics is a game of compromise. It starts very early in the legislative process when a legislator has to come to agreement with at least a majority of his fellow peers to enact legislation. A “I will scratch your back if you scratch mine” mentality has often ruled this process and deals are made. One bill, for instance, will pass with a simple majority because the legislators who sponsored said bill agree to vote for another. After a bill becomes law, it becomes politically unfavorable to enact legislation to repeal bad ones for fear of upsetting this arrangement.

And so this cycle goes on, and government continues to grow and regulations increase.

Perhaps this helps explain this, this, this, or this.

What is clear is that Libertarians and Constitutionalists need to be rock solid in their resolve to return the Republic to the Constitution if Liberty and Freedom shall prevail. Constitutionalists will have to work these deals to shrink government and limit executive power.

Coming soon- Ideas to break the cycle

Our Children will be forced to pay homage to The President, the country under HR1388, the “Serve America Act”. 

From Redstate.com:

And here are just a few of the lowlights in the legislation:

1. The bill will substantially increase the size and reach of an existing federal government program;
2. The bill will burden taxpayers with more than 5 billion tax dollars at a time when we should be cutting back, not spending more;
3. The bill will steer funding and volunteers for public service away from churches, individuals, neighbors, and others who would like to lend a helping hand and toward organizations selected by bureaucrats;
4. The bill is full of vague language and has insufficient safeguards to prevent left-wing special interest groups from using tax dollars to advance their agenda in the name of “community service;”
5. The bill risks politicizing charity and community service by funneling funds and volunteers toward the preferred organizations picked by ideologues;
6. The first 25% of this bill is really education legislation, and should be in an education bill at the state level; and
7. The bill will compound the disincentives created by new limits on federal tax deductions for charitable giving, thereby decreasing the role of families, churches and other local organizations in their communities.

When you look at the details – one realizes that it’s far worse than even that… more along the lines of full-scale indoctrination camps toward Statism. The legislation will, in many circumstances, force our children to participate in charitable activity as part of school – and that activity may well be chosen by or approved by a bureaucrat. The bill causes a federally chartered, Washington-based institution to, essentially, pick priorities and winners and losers in the charitable universe – undoubtedly putting many charities at a significant disadvantage…

None of this even considers the lack of Constitutional basis for such a massive federal intervention into local charities and volunteerism… but when does that ever stop anyone in Washington? And when coupled with the soon-to-be-reduced lower tax deductions for charities, the Obama-Democrat machine is massively shifting the focus of charity from the individual to the State.

As usual, your typical group of unprincipled, spineless Republicans is supporting it – and it’s hard not to forecast swelling numbers given the total eclipse of fortitude among Senate Republicans and the lack of direction from their leadership. Already co-sponsoring the Senate companion (S.277) are Senators Gregg, McCain, Hatch, Cochran, Wicker (MS pork alert!!), and Snowe. And Senator Isakson waxed on about its virtues on the Senate Floor just yesterday… hardly surprising, unfortunately.

This is compulsory national service, a clear advancement of the state and an attempt to legalize politically correct attitudes in free-market service transactions. This isn’t fear-mongering, this bill WILL scrub charities for the goals of societal engineers at the State. Our children will be left will no choice but to succumb to the brainwashing or risk destroying their educational foundation. This bill will all but certainly usher in a thought-police state to narrow us to the social goals mandated by Washington.

The Compulsory National Service is also clearly unconstitutional. Even if parents have to fight the fight, we will win.

This bill is just yet another reason why I consider myself a Libertarian, for as long as the McCain, Rudy, and Arnold types still have a place in the party, our slim ability to block Obama’s socialist legislation in the U.S. Senate is doomed.

Wow.

From the Infowar:

A secret report distributed by the Missouri Information Analysis Center lists Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, people who display bumper stickers, people who own gold, or even people who fly a U.S. flag and equates them with radical race hate groups and terrorists. This is merely the latest example in an alarming trend which confirms that law enforcement across the country is being trained that American citizens are a dangerous enemy.

A copy of the MIAC report was sent to us by two Missouri police officers who were concerned by its content.

Perhaps due to the outlandish and shocking nature of the document, some people are still having difficulty believing it is real. Unfortunately, we have confirmed that it’s 100 per cent genuine. We spoke with Capt Hull at the Missouri State Highway Patrol who told us that the MIAC Strategic Report is a part “normal operation for officers” to receive these periodic reports for “safety purposes and to track trends or changes”. Hull added that the report was for the purposes of training their officers.

Anyone still in doubt as to the veracity of the document can call the MIAC toll free at 866-362-6422 and confirm it for themselves.

…

According to the MIAC website, “MIAC is the mechanism to collect incident reports of suspicious activities to be evaluated and analyzed in an effort to identify potential trends or patterns of terrorist or criminal operations within the state of Missouri.”

The MIAC report specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.

The MIAC report does not concentrate on Muslim terrorists, but rather on the so-called “militia movement” and conflates it with supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order.

Don’t believe it? Click on the link to view the publication from the MIAC itself.

What is shocking is that, for the most part, St. Louis serves as the headquarters for the Campaign For Liberty. One would think that having a organization that focuses on constitutionally limited government in your own backyard you would be a little better educated as to the nature intent of the CFL.

But, sadly, we know the real reason for this- they want to crush any dissent from the devious and nefarious growth of government power and authority. The Police State does not want to be reminded that the Constitution limits the Federal Government to 22 enumerated powers. The Treasury Department does not want to be reminded that it alone, not the Federal Reserve, is charged with the printing of our currency. The President does not want to be reminded that the Declaration Of Independence freed us from rule by a King.  

And certainly, the MIAC does not want to be reminded that the Second Amendment specifically protects the right of the individual to own guns AND serve in a militia.

But the Constitution does protect these things. And many, many more.

For those interested in the Freedom Movement, please join us at the Campaign For Liberty, a political movement dedicated to the principals of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity.

If anything, do it just because it makes the politicians squirm. = )

In a huge turn of events, banks now seem to be fighting back against the stealth nationalization of our financial system.

From NYTimes.com:

The list of demands keeps getting longer.

Financial institutions that are getting government bailout funds have been told to put off evictions and modify mortgages for distressed homeowners. They must let shareholders vote on executive pay packages. They must slash dividends, cancel employee training and morale-building exercises, and withdraw job offers to foreign citizens.

As public outrage swells over the rapidly growing cost of bailing out financial institutions, the Obama administration and lawmakers are attaching more and more strings to rescue funds.

The conditions are necessary to prevent Wall Street executives from paying lavish bonuses and buying corporate jets, some experts say, but others say the conditions go beyond protecting taxpayers and border on social engineering.

Some bankers say the conditions have become so onerous that they want to return the bailout money. The list includes small banks like the TCF Financial Corporation of Wayzata, Minn., and Iberia Bank of Lafayette, La., as well as giants like Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo.

They say they plan to return the money as quickly as possible or as soon as regulators set up a process to accept the refunds. On Tuesday, Signature Bank of New York announced that because of new executive pay restrictions in the economic stimulus package, it notified the Treasury that it intended to return the $120 million it had received from the government only three months ago.

Other institutions like Johnson Bank of Racine, Wis., initially expressed interest in seeking bailout funds but have now changed their minds. Bank executives told The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that one reason they rejected the government money was to avoid any disruption in the bank’s role in the local community, including supporting the zoo or opera company if they chose to.

One of the biggest concerns of the banks is that the program lets Congress and the administration pile on new conditions at any time.

The demands to modify mortgages or forestall evictions are especially onerous, some bank executives and experts say, because they could prompt some institutions to take steps that could lead to greater losses.

I was hoping this would happen. Quite simply, we cannot let the government have ownership interest in nearly every bank in America. Finance, money, is ultimitaly the root of all ownership, of all commerce, of the free market. Once government is allowed to dictate the terms of a loan, it’s only matter of time before the rest of society must follow suit.

That banks, mind you big and small ones, have stepped up and said, “no” is impressive. I have a higher respect for Wells Fargo out of this financial mess than I did before. They fought having to take the bailout monies, and being forced to, are seeking to return it as quickly as possible. It is becoming clear which institution’s in America have outlived their products (GM, Chrysler) and which ones will not resort to mooching and rely instead on their own innovation (Wells Fargo).

This is the audacity of NOPE. This is what I talked about in yesterday’s post. We can restore Liberty, Freedom. We need only say, “thanks, but no thanks” to the tyrannical hand of Uncle Sam. It all starts with opting-out.