H.R. 459, Audit The Fed, Passes House

Today, July 25, 2012, years of hard work by Doctor Ron Paul and his liberty colleagues paid off. The House of Representatives voted today to pass H.R. 459, Ron Paul's Audit The Fed bill. The bill passed with 327 Yea votes to 98 Nays. The bill requires a full audit of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, who is responsible for controlling the monetary supply of the country. I have a lot of business to address today.


1) Why it is good: I could write a several page paper on why an audit of the Federal Reserve is a good thing, but let me briefly highlight several reasons. First of all, the Federal Reserve prevents competition in the markets. They are able to hand out bailouts to companies, and they sometimes do that under the radar. Bailouts choose winners and losers among companies in the market, which is not capitalism, but rather government intervention. Second of all, there is a possibility that the Federal Reserve is giving freshly printed money never in use to friends, which is cronyism. We wouldn't know about this because the Fed doesn't need to disclose things like this, which is the point of an audit. A third reason is that it devalues the currency of the United States. The more money that is printed, the less each dollar is worth. We have seen this through skyrocketing prices, financial bubbles, and a slow collapse of the dollar. Finally, the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional. The Constitution gives monetary policy to the Congress, not a separate institution.


2) Who to call: 98 Congressmen voted against this bill. It is important that you know who these individuals are so that you can voice your disappointment in them and vote them out if they are your representative. Here is a list of the 98 Congressmen that voted against H.R. 459: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1935079/pg1.


3) Where we go: So, where do we go from here? Although today's vote is a landmark for the movement, there is a lot of work from here. The House voted with 75% at "Yea," which means it is veto proof as of now and we don't have to worry about the President. It also means that it cannot be amended, so we don't have to worry about that. The big battle, however, is in the Senate. House Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has vowed not to bring the bill up for a vote in that chamber, despite his support for the bill in the past (he is very partisan). This is obviously a major obstacle. The Senate version of the bill, S. 202, is currently in committee, which is an additional obstacle. It is stuck in the Senate Banking Committee. The head of this committee is Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD). These two people need to hear the Ron Paul r3VOLution loudly and clearly over the next few weeks. We need to let them know that the "People's House" wants this passed, polls show that the people want this passed, and the Senate owes it to the Constitution and the people to at least put this up for a vote. Here is the contact info for these two leaders. Contact them politely and frequently. You can also contact your Senators and let them know that you support this bill.


Senator Harry Reid
(202) 224-3542
@SenatorReid
http://www.reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm


Senator Tim Johnson
(202) 224-5842
@SenJohnsonSD
http://www.johnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactForm


4) A "Thank You" note: I want to give a shout out to the people who made this happen. The first person is obviously Representative Ron Paul. He has worked hard on this issue for many years. He has put this bill in front of the Congress and seen it fail, and he deserves so much credit for this. Despite being ignored for years, he pressed on and now he has finally convinced a majority of the House that an audit of the Fed is needed. I am so grateful that he has worked so hard. Others that deserve credit for this success are Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who have been leaders in Washington in support of this bill. I also want to thank Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX), Rep. Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT), Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS), Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), and others for their support through speeches on the house floor. I also would like to thank each and every one of the representatives that voted in favor of this legislation. I will not list all of them by name, but each and every one of them has helped this bill on it's way to becoming a law.


5) In conclusion: This bill is absolutely necessary for our nation. I don't care what party you are, what your social class is, or what occupation you hold. This bill is necessary. If you are a liberal, it helps your cause to even out the playing field and take away money from corporations. If you are a conservative, it helps your cause to get the government out of the economy. And regardless of your political beliefs, you can agree that every branch of government is to be held accountable by the people, and you can agree that the devaluation of your money is a very bad thing. Join me in continuing to fight for this bill.

Ron Paul's Final Clash With Bernanke, Bill Up For Vote Soon

On Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke visited Congress to once again give an update on the status of the bank and fulfill Congress's oversight function. This, of course, means once again that he clashed with Ron Paul over the role of the Fed in our system as well as the very existence of such a bank. Since Ron Paul is retiring this year, it is likely the final time that the respected, liberty-minded, leader of a r3VOLution will meet with Bernanke in a public, formal setting.

In the video above, Ron Paul once again explained to the chairman that the destruction of the currency is very harmful to our nation. He explained that printing more money is not a cure to our problems and that the devaluation of the currency is hurting the already-disappearing middle class. Bernanke responded by saying that Congressman Paul's sentiments should not be directed at the chairman's policies, but rather at the Congress for setting up the system in the first place. Doctor Paul replied that he is focusing anger at Congress and has proposed bills to so something about the system, but that does not take away from the fact that Bernanke's policies when it comes to printing money have been awful.

All of this comes just days before Paul's H.R. 459, the Audit The Fed bill, is up for a vote. This bill would call for a total auditing of Federal Reserve activities, which would expose corruption in the bank and could expose funneling of money to foreign banks, thereby making foreign countries richer while making our country, and most  notably our middle class, poorer by the devaluation of our currency. This bill has garnered a lot of support from both sides in the house. Doctor Paul has been saying for awhile now that the issue that he has changed the highest number of minds on is the issue of the Federal Reserve. Mitt Romney, establishment candidate for the GOP in 2012, even Tweeted his support for the bill.

Nonetheless, it is still important that we work hard to get this passed in both chambers. I strongly suggest that you join me in contacting your representatives in the House and Senate and you may even go beyond that and contact other representatives. Go to http://www.opencongress.org/ and enter your zip code in the spot allotted (scroll down) to find out who represents you in Congress and to get their contact information. I recommend you call them (e-mail usually gets no response/automated response) and politely inform them that you are a constituent and you would like to see them vote for H.R. 459, the Audit The Fed bill. This can have an impact on their vote, especially for representatives that give special emphasis to constituent needs. 


It is vital that we get this bill passed, and it would be a fantastic way to end Doctor Paul's tenure in Congress. 

My First Endorsement: Justin Amash (R-MI)

Over the next couple of months, I will be making endorsements for the 2012 General Election. As I have already stated, Ron Paul was my pick for the 2012 primary, but I will not be publishing an endorsement for President in the General. I am not going to endorse a write-in, and I am not going to endorse a splinter party. All I will say is do not vote for Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. My endorsements will be primarily for the House and Senate. There is a record number of liberty candidates and Ron Paul Republicans running this year and I want to let everyone know about them.

For my first endorsement, I picked a bit of an easy one to get it out of the way (and for practice). I am endorsing incumbent Representative Justin Amash, a Republican from Michigan's 3rd District. Most of you probably know of Justin already. He is, in most libertarian and paleo-conservative circles, considered to be the most liberty-oriented representative in the House other than Ron Paul. He ran two years ago on the tide of the Tea Party and won in his moderately conservative Grand Rapids district. He was endorsed by Ron Paul in his first campaign for U.S. Congress and returned an endorsement of Ron for President in 2012.

Justin is perhaps known best for leading the resistance to NDAA in the House. He is also known for almost never missing a vote in Congress and for explaining every one of his votes on his Facebook page. He has been a crusader for accountability in the Fast and Furious case without showing the hypocrisy of other Republicans. He has been called "the next Ron Paul" by several Ron Paul and non-Ron Paul organizations. He and Rand Paul have been looked toward to carry on the revolution, and Rand is beginning to lose much of that.

In conclusion, I endorse Rep. Justin Amash for Congress this November of the year 2012. He is a principled libertarian conservative with a now proven record of liberty-oriented voting. If re-elected, he will continue the fight against NDAA and take over Ron Paul's libertarian leadership in that chamber. I highly recommend that MI-3 re-elects Justin Amash.

Could Gary Johnson Debate?

I've been getting a lot of updates from the Johnson campaign recently about getting Gary on the debates this election season. For those who do not know, Gary Johnson is the Presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party in 2012. He served as Governor of New Mexico as a Republican and governed successfully under a libertarian philosophy. He is currently polling very high for a third party, showing around 6% nationally and as high as 12% in his home state of New Mexico. The reason that he is talking about participating in debates is because the debate rules show that a candidate must be polling at 15% nationally to be able to participate. Now, while it is unlikely that Governor Johnson will get to 15%, it is an interesting possibility. Imagine a third option on the stage in the months before the General Election. The chances of a third party winning the election are near none, but having a libertarian voice on stage is key. This is why I am encouraging all of you to answer "Gary Johnson" to any poll that you participate in, even if they don't offer him as an option and even if you are not planning on voting for him. It will be enough of a victory to simply get him on stage this fall.


Now, let me assure you, this is not an endorsement. I do not plan on making a Presidential endorsement this November. This is because there is not a candidate on the ballot that identifies with my goals, being to make libertarianism part of mainstream political thought. This is not possible through Mitt Romney because he is not a libertarian, and it is not possible through Gary Johnson because he is splintering off, which will not make the philosophy mainstream. I will also not endorse a write-in choice unless that individual starts a formal write-in campaign. However, my purpose for this post is clear. I do not agree with Gary Johnson's route of going after the presidency, but it is absolutely essential that we have a libertarian voice on stage at the debates this year. That is why I am bringing this to your attention and that is why I encourage you to tell pollsters that you support Gary Johnson for President of the United States.

The Jobs Numbers And Why They Will Remain

Last week, the unemployment numbers were released for the month of June. They included a very meek 80,000 jobs created in the month of June and unemployment percentages at 8.2%, which is not a change from the previous month. This is one of the most dismal reports we have seen in several months, prompting both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama to come out firing at the other candidate, saying that it will change if they are elected in November. Romney said we have to invest in manufacturing, Obama said we have to invest in the public sector. In the end, though, these numbers will not change regardless of whether our next President is Obama or Romney, and I'll tell you why.

I will start with our President. Obama will often tout his stimulus as a job creator, saying that he saved hundreds of thousands of jobs. Then he will say that we are no longer in a recession because of his policies. Indeed, the economy has improved greatly since he entered office. The stock market has recovered and unemployment has decreased (somewhat). This is true, and that is why Americans are ready to get the vote out for him in November. However, only intelligent Americans can see through this and understand that this is not a reason to vote for him. You see, if you pump enough money into the economy, it will improve. It will be used toward infrastructure, creating thousands of jobs. However, eventually that money is going to run out, and the huge bubble that has been created (and touted as an economic success) is going to burst and we will fall back into recession. This is basic economic thought that anyone could understand, but too many Americans this November will not look past the state of our economy right now. So if Obama is re-elected this November, expect his policies to continue to create gigantic bubbles, only to burst a few years later, and that is why jobs numbers will remain under him.

So, Mitt Romney must have the answer, right? Not so much. For years, the Republican Party has talked a good game when it comes to Austrian Economics. Mitt Romney goes around the country talking about how he will roll back taxes and encourage growth. In reality, his campaign promise is only to roll the income tax back by an average of 10%. That is pretty small considering the big changes that need to be made to improve the economy. In terms of encouraging growth, he is talking about government investment. He wants to "invest in manufacturing," which means more bailouts and government subsidies. So basically, Romney isn't talking as conservative of a game as George W. Bush did before his elections, and Republicans always move left of center when elected. If Bush was considered a strong conservative and he wound up paying millions to bail out companies, how far left will Romney move if he is elected? The answer is right around where Barack Obama is. There really won't be much of a difference between an Obama second term and a Romney Presidency, and that is why jobs numbers will remain under him.

In conclusion, the bubbles are raging. Our politicians love the idea that they can throw money into the economies to get part-time growth so that they can use it to get elected. This will not change in November because we have a one-party system posed as two parties, and the one party is a Keynesian one. It's time that Obama supporters study economics, and Romney supporters envision a Romney Presidency. If both sides did this, they would see that both "choices" are a bad choice. They would see that the jobs numbers are awful, and they aren't going anywhere soon.

Taxation Is The New Regulation

The strategy used by Congress and the rest of the Federal Government is changing, but not for the better. The Supreme Court ruled last week that the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, was Constitutional under the taxation clause, which allows Congress to tax American citizens. Originally, many thought that the law would be found Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, which allows Congress to regulate any interstate commerce. This clause has been long abused by Congress, justifying nearly any bill, no matter what the content, as dealing with commerce between the states. Thankfully, the Supreme Court struck down that notion, but there was a much more hazardous precedent put into place.

The Court justified the law under the taxation clause, saying that the penalty that is applied if one chooses not to purchase healthcare is a tax. The main reason that this ruling is incorrect is that the penalty is not a tax. As Peter Schiff explained, "Just because money flows from [a citizen] to the Federal Government doesn't make it a tax." The reason it isn't a tax is because it isn't applied to everyone, nor is it applied to a purchase. It is applied only to people who have decided not to comply with the mandate. That is not what a tax is. In fact, the Constitution clearly says that Congress is not allowed to use taxation to legislate, which is exactly what this is doing. They are taxing someone into buying something because they would not be able to simply mandate it. Call it "legislating by the tax."

The worst part of this ruling is the precedent that it sets. The Court has now set a precedent that Congress can make any law, no matter the Constitutionality, as long as it applies a tax. You see, it used to be that Congress could force Americans to do anything it wanted by saying that the law affects interstate commerce. That precedent has changed now, but for the worse. Now, Congress can still make any law it wants, but now they are required to raise taxes to pass it. So now we have the same laws forcing Americans to comply, but now our taxes are going up along with the force.

This was a very dissapointing ruling in my eyes. The founders would be ashamed of the state that the Court is at, both because of the political lines that have been drawn and because of the Constitution-stretching that has taken place. Now, in this upcoming election, the American electorate is being shown two options: the author of the ACA, and the author of the structure that was used in writing the ACA. Mitt Romney has come out strong in saying that he will "repeal and replace" Obamacare, but what does that mean? Replace it with Romneycare? Unfortunately, I think that is so. It is time that the American people wake up and realize what is going on, or the overreach of the Federal Government will continue.