The Awful Eight: Environment Bill Passes Thanks To 8 Republicans

Yesterday H.R. 2454 passed by a final vote of 219-212 passed the House of Representatives. Only eight Republicans voted in favor of this bill. If these eight Republicans had voted against the bill, this massive tax increase would have been shot down. But sure enough, it passed the House and is headed to the Senate. With the large majority Democrats boast in the Senate, I just don’t see this bill being voted out.

What is possibly the most disturbing part of this bill is the fact that nobody could have possibly read the 300 plus page amendment that was added to the bill at 3 a.m. Friday morning. House minority Leader John Boehner pointed out the many ludicrous additions found in this amendment.

The energy bill will surely join the Patriot Act and the recent stimulus bill as the most recent member of a not-so-exclusive club. This club is made up of massive measures passed in a hurry before it was physically possible for the members to have read and understood the bill.

We have got to start holding our elected representatives to a higher standard. If not just for the flawed reasoning among many other serious problems with this bill, then at least reading the bill should have been a required prerequisite before voting a bill into law. I would applaud representatives from both sides of the aisle who state they can’t consciously and honestly vote for a bill that they have not had enough time to read and fully understand. All the implications of a bill should be taken into consideration before a representative can vote in favor of it; otherwise a no vote should be the standard.

This cap and trade “clean energy” bill is simply going to burden our economy in a time when over regulation and government policies have already tanked our economy. China, India, and all other developed countries surely applaud yesterday’s passage, as they gain yet another leg up on the United States in the global economy. Worse yet, this bill does NOTHING to fight global warming, not even bringing down the global temperature by half a percent Fahrenheit by 2050! Surely you would need to review the science and reasoning of such a massive proposition if you were going to vote it into law? Apparently this common sense does not apply to over two hundred elected representatives who passed the measure.

There is no excuse for the eight Republicans to have voted for passage. There is simply none! Any argument they can present in favor of the bill ultimately is trumped by the fact they surely could not have a grasp of the full implications of the bill since they did not read it, let alone process the information.

Here is what I like to call the “awful eight.” Their vote yesterday should result in nothing short of the end of their political career

Bono Mack (CA)
Castle (DE)
Kirk (IL)
Lance (NJ)
Lobiondo (NJ)
McHugh (NY)
Reichert (WA)
Chris Smith (NJ)

Fall From Grace: Mark Sanford

My personal favorite choice for the Republican Presidential candidate for 2012 was none other than South Carolina's Mark Sanford. As most of you know, he admitted to an extra-marital affair with a woman from Argentina. He even disappeared for a few days last weekend to meet up with her.

I was all set to do anything I could to get this guy in office, starting with the Republican nomination. Now I truly have no idea who I will get behind. Granted it is early, but I would hate to go through another Presidential election cycle where I can't get behind the Republican "conservative party" nominee.

Just look at our last nominee, McCain. Clueless on economics, a strong believer in our imperialistic foreign policy, supportive of the war on drugs, and probably incapable of explaining why the Federal Reserve should be abolished. Heck, he voted for the bailout! The economic policies that he supports are literally destroying America. In The little book of bull moves in bear markets Peter Schiff explains that if McCain had won the election, the same economic policies would have been implemented, and the media would crucify capitalism as an utter failure, despite the fact McCain is FAR from a free market supporter. Now at least we can fully blame the failure of the President's economic policies as interventionist.

Sanford was as free market as the GOP had (not counting Ron Paul, of course). Now his entire career is tainted and it would be a mistake to run him against Obama. Who do we run? I can compromise on issues (I'm a big supporter of Michele Bachmann, despite the fact she would probably never vote for bills legalizing marijuana or online poker, for example) and Sanford I was willing to compromise on some issues because he was such a free market supporter. We'll have to see what field of candidates run for the GOP nomination, and go from there.

Disturbing Stories - ABC working for Obama and “TeddyCare”

So there are two very disturbing new stories I came across today, and I just have to share them.

The first news story originated on The Drudge Report. Basically, on June 24th programming will indirectly (or directly, depending how you look at it) be given over to the Obama Administration for an hour to push the Democratic health care agenda. Charlie Gibson will be airing World News from the White House and it will be talking specifically about health care reform. Problem is, there will be no representation from a free market health care advocate, just the socialized health care side. Yikes! Luckily Lost (the best show on television) will not be back until winter so I can join in the boycott of ABC.

The second news article goes along with the first: Socialized health care. Now being called “TeddyCare” after Ted Kennedy, this scary piece of legislation (not yet an official bill) should make anyone who loves liberty and freedom quite literally freak out. This proposed piece of legislation would include a federal database of medical records. What the author of this article is trying to get at is this health care system would ultimately be mandatory. Besides that, all information shared at a doctor’s meeting would be put into the database. Admitting something like “I smoked marijuana ten years ago” could put you in jeopardy of losing gun rights. Grandpa has Alzheimer’s? His antique gun collection would be taken away. As a libertarian, this type of stuff really makes me cringe.

So there are your two disturbing stories for today. It is unfortunate that we have gone this far in the direction of socialism.

Liberty Candidates Gearing up for Congressional Runs

Last fall I followed the B.J. Lawson campaign daily. Lawson is what I like to call a “liberty candidate.” To me, a liberty candidate is a candidate who promotes such things as free market (Austrian) economics, sound monetary policy, a foreign policy of freedom, and is generally libertarian-leaning. Last fall, Lawson became the first candidate I have ever donated money to. This was the least I could do for someone who is willing to stand up to the liberal and neo-con political machine that runs Washington.

I saw an article on Liberty Maven that said Lawson is gearing up for another run. There is no official announcement, but I hope this is true. The current Representative of North Carolina’s 4th District is Democrat David Price. A quick look at some of the stances Price has on issues should be enough for anyone to become excited about a possible liberty candidate knocking Price out of office.

Next year will be different. There is not just one liberty candidate who is running. Besides Lawson, there are three more that are making runs. Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, will be running for Senator of Kentucky. Adam Kokesh will be running for House of Representatives out in New Mexico. Also, RJ Harris will be running for House of Representatives in Oklahoma. These are three solid liberty candidates whose campaigns I will be following very closely for the next 14 plus months.

In a recent interview with The Motor Home Diaries, Ron Paul makes a statement that a few extra people in Congress will help, but that the mindset of Americans as a whole must be changed. I truly do believe that getting a few extra liberty-minded individuals into Congress will help change the mindset of Americans. If you look at the Libertarian Party, the problem does not necessarily lie with their ideology, but their lack of elected representatives. Ron Paul has made the impact he has by working within the Republican Party. Sure he often is in disagreement with the party line, but the impact he has made is phenomenal. I think that not only will these campaigns bring libertarian ideas into the mainstream, but if these candidates do in fact make it in office it is just the tip of the iceberg for the liberty movement.

Online Poker and Individual Responsibility

Unless you have been paying close attention to the online poker/gambling battle going on in the United States, you might have missed two big events that happened recently.

The first is the freezing of $34 million in assets that belong to online poker players by the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. There was an article relating to this in today’s Wall Street Journal. This made me realize that the attempt by Minnesota to outlaw online gambling is a much smaller concern in retrospect than actual asset freezes. The second event was that Internet Service Providers dropped a federal lawsuit against a senior state law enforcement official Monday after he withdrew requests that the service providers block access to hundreds of online gambling sites. So it seems as though the online gambling issue in Minnesota, at least for now, should die.

Unfortunately this issue has become so messy that its hard to know who is right. On one hand, we have states that “kind of” pursue it but then eventually back down but still maintain that it is “illegal.” Then we have the federal government who do not try to make it cut and dry illegal, but instead go after banks or the middle men when it comes to transactions between the online sites and the consumer.

Though I almost always disagree with Representative Barney Frank, I do applaud him for introducing a bill that would legalize and regulate online poker. He is absolutely correct in his statement that there is a huge market (The Poker Player’s Alliance claims more than 10 million Americans engage in online poker each year) that should not be ignored. If Conservatives are worried about it encouraging gambling, what they should be concerned about is how easy it is for an under aged individual to get money on the site. I was on Pokerstars at age 16 and had no problem immediately getting cash into my account.

Let’s start promoting individual responsibility in this country and stop the nanny state where this logic that somehow government should decide for us what activities we can or cannot engage. When an individual engages in poker (or drinking, or smoking) they bear the full consequences of that action. Government is not above the individual, and never could be.

The Time to Stop Socialized Medicine is NOW

Dr. Gratzer, a physician and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute wrote a great Editorial for the Wall Street Journal today. This is a short and sweet article that explains how as we rush to socialize our healthcare countries such as Canada and the U.K. are moving in the opposite direction, and for good reason.

One of the most important things to remember when debating whether or not the United States should embrace "universal" health care is the difference between a system that has somewhat private healthcare (our current system, though it is in no way a free market system) and a system that is socialized and government-run. The systems simply are not the same. There will be countless cases in a universal health care system where an individual will literally 'wait to death.' Something that would be treated in the current system will be delayed and delayed in a universal health care system. There is no getting around this fact, as many cases have been documented in Canada and the U.K.

A while back I watched Sicko, Michael Moore's documentary that promotes universal health care. At first it sounded like a great idea! Everyone getting treated, and treated well! But the real picture just isn't that rosy. I can't blame Moore for leaving out different aspects of the debate such as funding, wait lists, government intrusion into patient's choice, etc. since it was in fact a presentation of one side of the argument, as should have been expected. All I ask is that you stop and think about whether this is the right road for America to go down before embracing the idea of a Utopian universal health care system.

The President and War

If you asked the average American whether or not the President of the United States has the power to wage a war against another nation, I truly believe that many would say yes. Can you blame them? Look at the most recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. There was no declaration of war, yet we have been in both of these countries for over 5 years. A declaration of war by the legislature is a necessary check on the executive branch.

Senate candidate Rand Paul (Republican - Kentucky) has stated on his campaign site possibly the best summary of war powers I have seen:

The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to declare war. As James Madison wrote, “The Constitution supposes, what history demonstrates, that the executive is the power most prone to war. The Constitution has, therefore, with studied care vested that power in the legislature."

However, in the face of an imminent nuclear attack or in response to an assault, the executive [Presidential] branch can and should make military responses without Congressional authority. After 911, an immediate raid by 10,000 Special Forces on camps in Afghanistan would have been justified by the executive, even if the decision was made in secrecy.

But, any military action that takes more than a few days or weeks to organize and is directed against a country's government should require a declaration of war. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Congress met and declared war within 24hrs.

Congress has had plenty of time to declare war on Afghanistan and Iraq. As a member of Congress, Dr. Rand Paul would have demanded and voted in the affirmative for a declaration of war with Afghanistan. He would demand and voted against a declaration of war with Iraq.

To the average individual, this may seem like a minor issue, if not irrelevent to their lives. But one must realize the extreme costs, both in human lives and cold hard cash, as well as possibilities of future repercussions due to our actions (see blowback). I urge you to at least keep this in mind and question the actions of both our Presidents and Congress when you get in a debate about whether or not war is just. The question should be: did we even follow the Constitution when we got involved in the war in the first place?

The Fountainhead: A Challenging Philosophy

Last night I finished the book The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. It was kind of a beast of a book, 700 plus pages, but still nothing like her more well-known masterpiece Atlas Shrugged (which I also plan on reading this summer) which is over 1,200 pages.

I first heard about Ayn Rand when she was mentioned in a newsweek article earlier this year (which had a nonsense theory about how libertarians were to blame for the economic crisis). I found out she was apparently one of the blocks that build up the foundation of libertarian thought. So I figured it would be a good thing to read her novels. This thought was even more re-inforced when I read a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed about how they call interns and young employees "virgins" if they have not read Atlas Shrugged...

So I read The Fountainhead. What has reading this book done to me? Challenged my very notion of life. She once summed up her theory of Objectivism like this:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

It's hard to explain how she was able to transform this theory so perfectly into a work of fiction, but in "The Fountainhead" she did just that. Not only that, the book was not tied together until the final 15-20 pages where one could see exactly how this philosophy relates to every single individual and is reflected in government and collectivism.

What was most challenging about this book is the fact that I know Ayn Rand is an atheist. Before reading the novel, I was aware that Rand was writing from a standpoint that rejected religion. But I also know that there are many who are libertarians who reconcile their faith with this philosophy (Ron Paul being the most notable). The reason I feel a need to reconcile these two views is because it makes so much sense. I am a HUGE believer in the power of the individual, the importance of individual responsibility, and the fact that our nation was founded on the principle of individual freedom. I see the freedom some individuals experience when they can disregard what others think about them, but stick with their convictions. I can picture Ron Paul, the lone voice in the House of Reps for so many years standing alone in his views and convictions.

So, the question comes, how do you reconcile a Christian faith that has stressed the need for submittance to God and man with this philosophy of the individual as a hero? It really is quite the task, and I may never know.

One thing that I know for certain: reading this book and being presented with this philosophy has made me want to learn and understand more about both objectivism and Christianity.

I love the Motor Home Diaries

You gotta love these guys. Basically they are traveling across the United States in a motor home (named M.A.R.V.) with one purpose: searching for freedom in America. They just posted this funny video where they confront a number of our former Presidents. Check it out:



Follow them on their homepage here or their facebook page here.

In a shocking turn of events, Ron Paul endorses son Rand Paul!

Dear Friend,

My son, Rand, has helped me campaign since he was 11. He and his brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews have literally knocked on thousands of doors for me.

At the age of 21, Rand debated Phil Gramm in my US Senate race in my stead. During the Presidential election he traveled to ten states giving speeches for me. He appeared on hundreds of radio programs for me. I am grateful for his contribution and very proud of the thoughtful, principled man Rand has become.

So, it is with great enthusiasm that I endorse my son Rand's venture into electoral politics. Rand has formed an exploratory committee to run for Senate in Kentucky. Sending Rand to Washington would be a tremendous victory for the Freedom Movement.

I hope you will join me in supporting Rand in any way you feel comfortable. You can get more information or make a contribution at www.randpaul2010.com

Rand has also established himself as a significant force in Kentucky politics. For fifteen years he has run Kentucky Taxpayers United, a group that rates the state legislature and promotes the Taxpayer Protection Pledge whereby candidates and office holders take a pledge not to raise taxes.

Like me, Rand is a graduate of Duke Medical School. Rand is an eye surgeon, married for eighteen years, and has three children. In addition to politics, he is the founder of the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic that provides free care for those in need.

I hope you will visit Rand's website, www.randpaul2010.com, and consider supporting him in any way you can.

In Liberty,

Ron Paul

An Unlikely Ally

The title of this blog is somewhat misleading. Yesterday German Chancellor Angela Merkel publicly spoke out against the powers of central banks. She believes they have gone too far in their interventions of the private market in their attempt to fix the economic problems that are prevalent today.

I say that this is misleading because I am not sure if she would ever support such legislation as an audit of the European Central Bank, or the abolition of such entity. But to much of her credit, she is the lone "world leader" who has spoken out against the central banks. Both President Bush and President Obama support the actions taken by the Federal Reserve here in the United States. With this in mind, I would be very happy if we had a President who would stand up and say "enough!" to the Federal Reserve. But we do not, and they continue to support the central bank despite their unconstitutionality.

Thankfully, not just the American Public are realizing the folly of our system of central banking, but also many Representatives. Ron Paul introduced a bill that would force an audit of the Federal Reserve, H.R. 1207. It now has 182 cosponsors. Paul has called this possibly the most important piece of legislation in his career. One thing I am very excited about is the upcoming release of Paul's book End The Fed. Of all the issues out there, usually a few hours of looking into it one is able to have a basic understanding of what each side of an issue believes. With the Federal Reserve and central banking, it is an issue that is not really given much attention. It is not an issue that has carved out party lines giving it constant attention. But I find myself realizing more and more that this is a huge issue. We have un-elected officials who control our monetary policy, the very lifeblood of what allows our nation to function.

Paul has a way of putting a complicated isuse into simple terms. I'm sure that End the Fed will be no different. Instead of spending hours trying to find relevant information online, do yourself (and your country, children, etc.) a favor and buy this book when it comes out. I look forward to interesting discussions about this issue in the future.