by: Dr. Ron Paul
This week the House is expected to pass an $825 billion economic stimulus package. In reality, this bill is just an escalation of a government-created economic mess. As before, a sense of urgency and impending doom is being used to extract mountains of money from Congress with minimal debate. So much for change. This is déjà vu. We are again being promised that its passage will help employment, help homeowners, help the environment, etc. These promises are worthless. This time around especially, Congress should know better than to pass anything of this magnitude without first reading the fine print. There a many red flags that I have found in this bill.
At least $4 billion is allocated to expanding the police state and the war on drugs through Byrne grants, which even the Bush administration opposed, and the COPS program, both of which are corrupt and largely ineffective programs.
To help Big Brother keep a better eye on us and our children, $20 billion would go towards health information technology, which would create a national system of electronic medical records without adequate privacy protection. These records would instead be subject to the misnamed federal “medical privacy” rule, which allows government and state-favored special interests to see medical records at will. An additional $250 million is allocated for states to nationalize individual student data, expanding Federal control of education and eroding privacy.
$79 billion bails out states that haphazardly expanded their budgets during the bubble years, but refuse to retrench and cut back, as their taxpayers have had to, during recession years.
$200 million expands Americorps. $100 million goes to “faith-and-community” based organizations for social services, which will further insinuate the government into charity and community service. Private charities are much more efficient and effective because they are directly accountable to donors, while public programs tend to get rewarded for failure. With its money, the Federal Government brings its incompetence and its whims, while creating foolish dependence. This is sad to see.
Of course the bill is rife with central planning projects. $4 billion for job training, much of which will be used to direct workers into “green jobs”. $200 million to “encourage” electric cars, $2 billion to support US manufacturers of advanced batteries and battery systems, which is yet another function of government I can’t find in the Constitution. Not to mention $500 million for energy efficient manufacturing demonstration projects, $70 million for a Technology Innovation Program for “research in potentially revolutionary technologies” in which government, not supply and demand, will pick winners and losers. $746 million for afterschool snacks, $6.75 billion for the Department of Commerce, including $1 billion for a census.
This bill delivers an additional debt burden of $6,700 to every American man, woman and child.
There is a lot of stimulus and growth in this bill – that is, of government. Nothing in this bill stimulates the freedom and prosperity of the American people. Politician-directed spending is never as successful as market-driven investment. Instead of passing this bill, Congress should get out of the way by cutting taxes, cutting spending, and reining in the reckless monetary policy of the Federal Reserve.
http://www.house.gov/apps/blog/tx14_paul/090126_2631.shtml
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
The creeping of the police state...
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police officers have leeway to frisk a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation even if nothing indicates the passenger has committed a crime or is about to do so.
The court on Monday unanimously overruled an Arizona appeals court that threw out evidence found during such an encounter.
The case involved a 2002 pat-down search of an Eloy, Ariz., man by an Oro Valley police officer, who found a gun and marijuana.
The justices accepted Arizona's argument that traffic stops are inherently dangerous for police and that pat-downs are permissible when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the passenger may be armed and dangerous.
The pat-down is allowed if the police "harbor reasonable suspicion that a person subjected to the frisk is armed, and therefore dangerous to the safety of the police and public," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.
------
The case is Arizona v. Johnson, 07-1122.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/01/26/us_supreme_court_says_passenger_can_be_frisked/
The court on Monday unanimously overruled an Arizona appeals court that threw out evidence found during such an encounter.
The case involved a 2002 pat-down search of an Eloy, Ariz., man by an Oro Valley police officer, who found a gun and marijuana.
The justices accepted Arizona's argument that traffic stops are inherently dangerous for police and that pat-downs are permissible when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the passenger may be armed and dangerous.
The pat-down is allowed if the police "harbor reasonable suspicion that a person subjected to the frisk is armed, and therefore dangerous to the safety of the police and public," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.
------
The case is Arizona v. Johnson, 07-1122.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/01/26/us_supreme_court_says_passenger_can_be_frisked/
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Time to End the Second Prohibition
America’s First Prohibition, on alcohol, ended in 1933, not because it failed—although it most certainly had. Not because the murder rate in America’s cities doubled during 13 years of the “noble experiment.” Not because the enforcement of a law that attempted to prevent people from doing what they went on doing anyway had corrupted the police, courts, legislatures and businesses of the nation. Not because Prohibition handed a share of the economy to a criminal underworld that grew richer than U.S. Steel without paying a penny in tax. Nor because the federal prison population swelled by more than five hundred per cent to accommodate all those who were caught (a small percentage of the offending total) producing, importing, selling and drinking the devil’s liquid.
No, it ended because the Great Crash of 1929, the banking crisis that followed, the loss of tax revenues from business that had gone bust and millions of workers without jobs made it too expensive. The Great Depression killed Prohibition, because the United States just couldn’t afford it.
When Barack Hussein Obama assumes office on January 20th, he should remember the precedent his party set in 1933 and end the Second Prohibition, on drugs. This will create an immediate tax windfall to give the Treasury back more than it lost on Iraq, the bank bailouts and the annual subsidy to Israel. It would also relieve the American taxpayer of the burden of enforcing laws that Pew Center on the States’ Public Performance Project estimated [pdf] cost federal and state governments $20 billion a year. Not a bad savings, when times are tough, especially when the so-called “war on drugs” is failing as surely as the crusade against alcohol did 80 years ago.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/time_to_end_the_second_prohibition/
No, it ended because the Great Crash of 1929, the banking crisis that followed, the loss of tax revenues from business that had gone bust and millions of workers without jobs made it too expensive. The Great Depression killed Prohibition, because the United States just couldn’t afford it.
When Barack Hussein Obama assumes office on January 20th, he should remember the precedent his party set in 1933 and end the Second Prohibition, on drugs. This will create an immediate tax windfall to give the Treasury back more than it lost on Iraq, the bank bailouts and the annual subsidy to Israel. It would also relieve the American taxpayer of the burden of enforcing laws that Pew Center on the States’ Public Performance Project estimated [pdf] cost federal and state governments $20 billion a year. Not a bad savings, when times are tough, especially when the so-called “war on drugs” is failing as surely as the crusade against alcohol did 80 years ago.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/time_to_end_the_second_prohibition/
Monday, December 22, 2008
Michigan City Bans Being "Annoying" In Public
Ticking someone off could get you a ticket in one Michigan city. The Brighton City Council on Thursday approved an ordinance allowing police in the Livingston County community to ticket and fine anyone who is annoying in public "by word of mouth, sign or motions."The Livingston County Daily Press & Argus of Howell reports the measure is modeled on a similar ordinance in the Detroit suburb of Royal Oak.A city attorney says there could be situations where the measure would violate freedom of speech, but that those cases will be reviewed by the city.The ban takes effect Jan. 2.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/19/ap/strange/main4678936.shtml?tag=main_home_storiesBySection
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/19/ap/strange/main4678936.shtml?tag=main_home_storiesBySection
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Marines at DUI roadblocks
The U.S. Marines have landed…and are apparently manning "sobriety checkpoints" in San Bernardino County in California. Yes, Marines. Yes, civilian DUI roadblocks.
From an official December 10th California Highway Patrol public relations release:
CHP to Conduct Sobriety/Driver’s License Checkpoint
The Morongo office of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) in conjunction with the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department and the USMC military police will conduct a joint sobriety/driver license checkpoint on Friday, December 12, 2008, somewhere in the unincorporated/incorporated area of San Bernardino County.
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 16, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (the Army, Air Force and State national Guard forces (when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) in the former Confederate states.
The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act.
http://www.duiblog.com/2008/12/16/here-come-the-feds-contd-marines-at-dui-roadblocks/
From an official December 10th California Highway Patrol public relations release:
CHP to Conduct Sobriety/Driver’s License Checkpoint
The Morongo office of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) in conjunction with the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department and the USMC military police will conduct a joint sobriety/driver license checkpoint on Friday, December 12, 2008, somewhere in the unincorporated/incorporated area of San Bernardino County.
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 16, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (the Army, Air Force and State national Guard forces (when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) in the former Confederate states.
The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act.
http://www.duiblog.com/2008/12/16/here-come-the-feds-contd-marines-at-dui-roadblocks/
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Sugar May Be Addictive and Effect Behavior
Science is verifying what many overeaters have suspected for a long time: sugar can be addictive.
In fact, the sweetener seems to prompt the same chemical changes in the brain seen in people who abuse drugs such as cocaine and heroin.
The findings were to be presented Wednesday at the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology's annual meeting, in Nashville.
"Our evidence from an animal model suggests that bingeing on sugar can act in the brain in ways very similar to drugs of abuse," lead researcher Bart Hoebel, a professor of psychology at Princeton University, said during a Dec. 4 teleconference.
"Drinking large amounts of sugar water when hungry can cause behavioral changes and even neurochemical changes in the brain which resemble changes that are produced when animals or people take substances of abuse. These animals show signs of withdrawal and even long-lasting effects that might resemble craving," he said.
http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100228625>1=31036
In fact, the sweetener seems to prompt the same chemical changes in the brain seen in people who abuse drugs such as cocaine and heroin.
The findings were to be presented Wednesday at the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology's annual meeting, in Nashville.
"Our evidence from an animal model suggests that bingeing on sugar can act in the brain in ways very similar to drugs of abuse," lead researcher Bart Hoebel, a professor of psychology at Princeton University, said during a Dec. 4 teleconference.
"Drinking large amounts of sugar water when hungry can cause behavioral changes and even neurochemical changes in the brain which resemble changes that are produced when animals or people take substances of abuse. These animals show signs of withdrawal and even long-lasting effects that might resemble craving," he said.
http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100228625>1=31036
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Supreme Court says legal cannabis is not pre-empted by federal law
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision yesterday in which California state courts found that its medical cannabis law is not preempted by federal law.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Garden Grove v. Superior Court means that federal law does not prevent state and local governments from implementing medical cannabis laws adopted by voters or state legislatures. In short: the group Americans for Safe Access, says federal law does not override state law on medical cannabis.
Yesterday’s decision follows three years of strategic legal work by Americans for Safe Access in a California case involving the return of wrongfully confiscated medicine, says Steph Sherer, the Executive Director of ASA.
"The Court’s decision has broad implications for medical cannabis patients in the 13 states where medical cannabis is legal, and signals a sea change in the impasse between state and federal laws. Better adherence to state medical cannabis laws by local police will result in fewer needless arrests and other problems for patients, allowing for better implementation of medical cannabis laws in all states that have adopted them."
Sherer says medical cannabis advocates should be encouraged by opportunities for change in federal policy with a new Presidential Administration and shift in Congress. But until now, federal pre-emption has haunted patients whose state laws allow for medical cannabis use.
This decision further clears the way for state implementation and Sherer says it also adds new urgency to ASA’s work in the nation’s capitol, where they have been working full-time to change federal policy since 2006.
A clear example of a California law enforcement agency wasting large amounts of time and money trying to bring down a lawful medical marijuana dispensary owner, is found in the story of San Luis Obispo County Sheriff Pat Hedges. (see Tim King's Salem-News.com article: Meet California's Lawless Sheriff)
http://www.pyrabang.com/contenteditor.php?ps=7999&pd=4652&org=4198&target=http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december022008/asa_clarifies_law_12-2-08.php
The Supreme Court’s decision in Garden Grove v. Superior Court means that federal law does not prevent state and local governments from implementing medical cannabis laws adopted by voters or state legislatures. In short: the group Americans for Safe Access, says federal law does not override state law on medical cannabis.
Yesterday’s decision follows three years of strategic legal work by Americans for Safe Access in a California case involving the return of wrongfully confiscated medicine, says Steph Sherer, the Executive Director of ASA.
"The Court’s decision has broad implications for medical cannabis patients in the 13 states where medical cannabis is legal, and signals a sea change in the impasse between state and federal laws. Better adherence to state medical cannabis laws by local police will result in fewer needless arrests and other problems for patients, allowing for better implementation of medical cannabis laws in all states that have adopted them."
Sherer says medical cannabis advocates should be encouraged by opportunities for change in federal policy with a new Presidential Administration and shift in Congress. But until now, federal pre-emption has haunted patients whose state laws allow for medical cannabis use.
This decision further clears the way for state implementation and Sherer says it also adds new urgency to ASA’s work in the nation’s capitol, where they have been working full-time to change federal policy since 2006.
A clear example of a California law enforcement agency wasting large amounts of time and money trying to bring down a lawful medical marijuana dispensary owner, is found in the story of San Luis Obispo County Sheriff Pat Hedges. (see Tim King's Salem-News.com article: Meet California's Lawless Sheriff)
http://www.pyrabang.com/contenteditor.php?ps=7999&pd=4652&org=4198&target=http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december022008/asa_clarifies_law_12-2-08.php
I thought this was actually a quote by the government... guess I was wrong
"I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means—except by getting off his back."
Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910)
Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910)
Ill. governor arrested on corruption charges
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested Tuesday on federal charges that he brazenly conspired to sell or trade the Senate seat left vacant by President-elect Barack Obama to the highest bidder.
A 76-page FBI affidavit says the 51-year-old Democrat was intercepted on court-authorized wiretaps over the last month conspiring to use the vacant Senate seat to obtain personal benefits for himself and his wife, Patti.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28139155/?GT1=43001
If Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested for government corruption, than there are 49 other U.S. governor’s who should be arrested today. David Mildenberg and Brian Louis in this Bloomberg.com article point out it was his threat against U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s favored Bank of America to halt business that did him in.
A 76-page FBI affidavit says the 51-year-old Democrat was intercepted on court-authorized wiretaps over the last month conspiring to use the vacant Senate seat to obtain personal benefits for himself and his wife, Patti.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28139155/?GT1=43001
If Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested for government corruption, than there are 49 other U.S. governor’s who should be arrested today. David Mildenberg and Brian Louis in this Bloomberg.com article point out it was his threat against U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s favored Bank of America to halt business that did him in.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Clinton - Ineligible for SOS position
Ineligibility Clause of Constitution Prohibits Clinton Appointment
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
According to the Ineligibility Clause of the United States Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to an office that has benefited from a salary increase during the time that Senator or Representative served in Congress. A January 2008 Executive Order signed by President Bush during Hillary Clinton's current Senate term increased the salary for Secretary of State, thereby rendering Senator Clinton ineligible for the position.
Specifically, Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time." The provision is seen by most as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption.
Former President Richard Nixon circumvented this constitutional provision after appointing former Ohio Senator William Saxbe to the position of Attorney General. The Nixon administration managed to force legislation through Congress to reduce the salary for the position of Attorney General to the level that existed prior to Senator Saxbe's appointment. This scheme, known thereafter as "The Saxbe Fix," was also used to allow Senator Lloyd Bentsen to assume the position of Treasury Secretary under President Clinton.
"The Saxbe Fix" may reduce the salary of Secretary of State to previous levels, but it does not affect what is a clear constitutional prohibition. It cannot change the fact that the salary had been increased while Senator Clinton served in Congress. (President Ronald Reagan reportedly did not appoint Senator Orrin Hatch to the Supreme Court because of this provision.) Simply put, the Constitution does not provide for a legislative remedy for the Ineligibility Clause.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2008/dec/judicial-watch-announces-hillary-clinton-constitutionally-ineligible-serve-secretary-s
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
According to the Ineligibility Clause of the United States Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to an office that has benefited from a salary increase during the time that Senator or Representative served in Congress. A January 2008 Executive Order signed by President Bush during Hillary Clinton's current Senate term increased the salary for Secretary of State, thereby rendering Senator Clinton ineligible for the position.
Specifically, Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time." The provision is seen by most as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption.
Former President Richard Nixon circumvented this constitutional provision after appointing former Ohio Senator William Saxbe to the position of Attorney General. The Nixon administration managed to force legislation through Congress to reduce the salary for the position of Attorney General to the level that existed prior to Senator Saxbe's appointment. This scheme, known thereafter as "The Saxbe Fix," was also used to allow Senator Lloyd Bentsen to assume the position of Treasury Secretary under President Clinton.
"The Saxbe Fix" may reduce the salary of Secretary of State to previous levels, but it does not affect what is a clear constitutional prohibition. It cannot change the fact that the salary had been increased while Senator Clinton served in Congress. (President Ronald Reagan reportedly did not appoint Senator Orrin Hatch to the Supreme Court because of this provision.) Simply put, the Constitution does not provide for a legislative remedy for the Ineligibility Clause.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2008/dec/judicial-watch-announces-hillary-clinton-constitutionally-ineligible-serve-secretary-s
Wonderful Idea! One way to rid of fiat money...
Milwaukee neighborhoods could print own money
2 neighborhoods consider printing own currency for exclusive use in local stores
They may be talking funny money, but it's not funny business.Residents from the Milwaukee neighborhoods of Riverwest and East Side are scheduled to meet Wednesday to discuss printing their own money. The idea is that the local cash could be used at neighborhood stores and businesses, thus encouraging local spending. The result, supporters hope, would be a bustling local economy, even as the rest of the nation deals with a recession.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-talk_moneydec03,0,2902061.story
2 neighborhoods consider printing own currency for exclusive use in local stores
They may be talking funny money, but it's not funny business.Residents from the Milwaukee neighborhoods of Riverwest and East Side are scheduled to meet Wednesday to discuss printing their own money. The idea is that the local cash could be used at neighborhood stores and businesses, thus encouraging local spending. The result, supporters hope, would be a bustling local economy, even as the rest of the nation deals with a recession.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-talk_moneydec03,0,2902061.story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
