Two to watch for in 2010 Senate race

 Schiff

The U.S. government’s dramatic, corporate welfare response to the economic crisis has brought many Americans to the following conclusion: my Senator (regardless of party) is a big-government, special-interest-controlled goon who does not give a damn about me.  In an America spiraling further and further into the hellish abyss of corporate fascism, there are a couple of freedom-loving luminaries expected to run for Senate in 2010: Dr. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Peter Schiff of Connecticut.

Paul is a surgeon who brings a unique and insightful perspective to healthcare reform. His seat is particularly important to the cause of liberty, because the man he would replace is among the Senate’s staunchest supporters of free markets, Republican and baseball Hall of Famer Jim Bunning.  Bunning voted against all of the debt-propelling bills designed to fix the economy, which remains broken.  If either a Democrat or Paul’s Republican opposition, Harvard alum Trey Grayson, were to fill Bunning’s seat, the reliable vote against federal government interference in our personal lives will assuredly be lost.

Paul is expected to announce that he will seek the open seat on August 20th.  On that day, which is a planned “money-bomb,” I expect him to raise somewhere in the range of $250,000.  His total for the month of August will likely be somewhere in the range of $300,000, which despite national efforts, will leave his total far behind that of his Ivy League manufactured primary opponent, who has already raised more than $600,000, and boasts the support of the much maligned GOP leadership.

Peter Schiff hopes to replace Democrat Chris Dodd of Connecticut in 2010.  Senator Dodd has seen much face time in the media lately for three reasons: he chairs the Senate Banking Committee, which is overactive during economic downturns such as the present one; he was recently diagnosed with early and non-life-threatening prostate cancer; and he is strongly suspected of benefiting from improper mortgage practices–perhaps a political bribe.

Schiff is best-known for his remarkably accurate economic forecasts.  Several youtube videos, entitled “Peter Schiff Was Right”, have gone viral across the Internet, and have shown Schiff to be an economic genius.  On the other hand, Dodd has been an economic dunce over the past decade, defending policies and entities that economists across the political spectrum agree invited the economic crisis.  From an economic standpoint, the choice is a no-brainer: Schiff wins.  But in politics, being right does not guarantee victory, and Schiff knows he has a very tough fight ahead of him.

Like Dr. Paul, Schiff is expected to have a big fundraising day.  His is on August 7th, on which he hopes to raise $1 million.  In my opinion, that’s a pipe dream.  He will be lucky to raise half of that.

Despite fundraising concerns, both Paul and Schiff are forces to be reckoned with in the 2010 Senatorial elections for one reason: their message of limited government, free people, and free markets resonates with an American citizenry that is fed up with the federal government’s never-ending interventions into a society that never seemed very broken to begin with.

For further information or to lend your support to their campaigns, Paul’s and Schiff’s websites are: http://www.randpaul2010.com/ and http://www.schiffforsenate.com/ 

Advertisements

No liquidity problems for Lawson campaign

Lawson

While every other entity in America is crying about its inability to access cash, BJ Lawson’s Congressional campaign just received a huge injection of liquidity.  Lawson, who is running for a U.S. House seat in North Carolina’s 4th district, raised over $150,000 from thousands of donors on Tuesday alone.

Many citizens across the nation feel betrayed by a Congress that recently passed an unconstitutional $700 billion Wall Street bailout, which has evidently done nothing for market confidence or financial stabilization.  North Carolina’s 4th district voters share in the dissatisfaction.  Their House member, David Price, voted for the record taxpayer bailout, after his office failed to answer phone calls from constituents trying to convince him to vote against it.  It appears that, in David Price’s 4th district, representative government has taken a back seat to other interests.  Since the bailout’s passage, U.S. markets have closed down considerably every day, as Americans are quickly abandoning a system that they feel has thrown them–and their freedom-loving values–overboard.

Despite what we’re told is a vacancy of cash in the U.S. financial system, some Americans are still investing what they have left in a brighter future, and many believe the best way to invest is to contribute money to representatives who will vote to replace an overtly corrupt banking system.  They recognize that free market capitalism has disappeared under the weight of an inflationary system of unrecoverable public and private debt–a corrupt and bankrupt system that continues to garner the support of Rep. Price, despite its detriment to North Carolina’s working citizens.

$150,000 says North Carolina’s residents will want less interference and more freedom in their financial lives this November.  Congress’ approval rating is 9%, and BJ Lawson is in tune with a lot of angry voters, who seem to understand that David Price voted to take away a chunk of their paychecks and some of their economic freedom.

Want some bad debt? Bailing on America.

Rights wronged

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” – Presidential Oath of Office in its entirety

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face!  It’s just a goddamn piece of paper!” – George W. Bush, (so help us God)

“Go f*** yourselves, America.” – U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson (paraphrased)

“Amen, Mr. Secretary!” -Barney Frank (shockingly not a retard…according to standard definitions), and Christopher Dodd (aka, Oppressive Slimeball)

The unwritten American law: when any financial institution makes any bad loan anywhere, that institution is not accountable for its error: the American taxpayer is.  Actually, for the sake of preserving the market (and when they say “preserving”, they mean “undermining”, the American taxpayer will now prop up any large corporation, assuming it is a complete and total failure.  GM, Ford, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, IndyMac, AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and every other non-competitive corporate loser: do not worry, because the United States no longer believes in capitalism.  Therefore you cannot fail; in fact, as a reward for your magnificently unsuccessful business models, you get free money from the American taxpayer.  The D.C. mafia are perfectly happy to crap all over the average American in order to sustain a politically friendly (albeit criminal) banking system.  What’s the old saying about America’s hospitable nature? Give me your swindling, your greedy, your corporate jet-flying masses?

Guess what, America? Henry Paulson is officially above the law.  $700,000,000,000 is not nearly enough; $2,000,000,000,000 is far from “enough” for the socialist journey upon which your government now embarks.  There will be more to pay, more to print, more to steal from your labor.  This new socialism is insatiable.

America does not have leaders anymore.  It has rulers.  It has owners.  They rule you, they own you, they have spent over a century subverting the supposedly binding agreement between you and them called the U.S. Constitution, and they have the power–through formal taxes and inflation–to take every last real dollar you ever saved, and they will, because their cars aren’t fast enough, their jets aren’t new enough, their diamonds aren’t big enough, and they know you are a bunch of suckers who still think the Presidential election matters.  Wake up and read the Constitution.  You’re getting royally screwed, America, and by a creature many of you still consider friendly: the federal government.  This President, this Congress, these judges and bureaucrats, these candidates–the agents of change–are, for the most part, your masters and your enemies, and if you let them, they will strip you of everything but your soul.

When you ask why or how this could happen–how the freest modern society could fall so far, and become economically depressed and politically oppressed–they will respond as they do now, explaining that they are not accountable, but you are–and sadly, in a way, they will be right.  The further their explanation strays from the truth, the more oppressive they will become, the more dangerous dissent will become to them.  The Constitutionalist will take on the foster name “terrorist”.  The reflective person will be legally termed the dangerous person; the truthful person: an enemy of the state.  As a wise man once said, “truth is treason in the empire of lies.”

Thomas Jefferson on “implied powers” of the Congress

Constitutional Convention

Thomas Jefferson gave his opinion on the Constitutionality of a national bank on February 15, 1791. In that testament, he not only provided a brilliant legal argument against the institution of a national bank; he also explained the intent of the Constitution’s two most controversial phrases. Today’s political analysts exchange differing opinions on the “general welfare” and “necessary and proper” clauses, but Jefferson’s explanations of them are more than a matter of opinion; they reveal the true intent of the American republic’s framers. Here is Jefferson’s historic opinion (verbatim, even the italics were added by Jefferson–not me–for emphasis):

1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.

To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.

It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution.

2. The second general phrase is, “to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers.” But they can all be carried into execution without a bank. A bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase. It has been urged that a bank will give great facility or convenience in the collection of taxes. Suppose this were true: yet the Constitution allows only the means which are “necessary,” not those which are merely “convenient” for effecting the enumerated powers.

Jefferson makes it clear that much of what the Congress does today is not allowed by the Constitution.