DallasDave's Blog

545 People

By Charlie Reese --

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against
inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on
appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, The Federal Reserve Bank
does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the
domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress.

In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.

They have no legal authority.

They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.

I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash.
The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what
the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to
determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.

No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget.

He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole
responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and
approving appropriations and taxes.

Who is the speaker of the House?

She is the leader of the majority party.

She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want.

If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they
agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not
replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of
incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable
directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the
power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement
plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists
disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy, 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

--Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper

Received this in an Email:

 

THE YEAR'S BEST HEADLINES OF 2007: 

(Yes, they were really printed as seen here.)

 

 

Something Went Wrong in Jet Crash, Expert Says

 

      No, really?

 

 

 

Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers 

 

       Now that's taking  things a bit far!

 

 

 

Panda Mating Fails; Veterinarian Takes Over 

 

       What a guy!

 

 

 

Miners Refuse to Work after Death

 

       No-good-for-nothing' lazy so-and-sos!

 

 

 

Juvenile Court to Try Shooting Defendant 

 

       See if that works any better than a fair trial!

 

 

 

 

War Dims Hope for Peace 

 

       I can see where it might have that effect!

 

 

 

 

 

If Strike Isn't Settled Quickly, It May Last Awhile     Ya think?!

 

 

 

 

Cold Wave Linked to Temperatures 

 

      Who would have thought!

 

 

Enfield ( London ) Couple Slain; Police   Suspect Homicide 

 

       They may be on to something!

 

 

Red Tape Holds Up New Bridges 

 

      You mean there's something stronger than duct tape?! 

Oklahoma's construction program! 

 

 

 

Man Struck By Lightning: Faces Battery Charge 

 

     He probably IS the battery charge

 

 

New Study of Obesity Looks for Larger  Test Group 

 

       Weren't they fat enough?!

 

 

 

Astronaut Takes Blame for Gas in Spacecraft 

 

       That's what he gets for eating those beans!

 

 

Kids Make Nutritious Snacks 

       Do they taste like chicken?

 

 

 

  Local High School Dropouts Cut in Half 

       Chainsaw Massacre all over again!

 

 

 

Hospitals are Sued by 7 Foot Doctors 

 

       Boy, are they tall!

 

 

And the winner is.... 

 

Typhoon Rips Through Cemetery; Hundreds Dead 

 

     Did I read that right?

 

These are the pro-freedom (pro-US Constitution) positions, with brief explanations:

1. The constitutional amendment providing for the continuation of the constitutional appropriation for facilities and other capital items at Angelo State University on a change in the governance of the university.

 No position aside from government meddling in education, but that isn't part of this amendment.

2. The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of $500 million in general obligation bonds to finance educational loans to students and authorizing bond enhancement agreements with respect to general obligation bonds issued for that purpose.

AGAINST: Bonds cause future tax increases. Government subsidies to students enable university bureacrats to keep raising tuitions and fees. Student debt upon graduation has skyrocketed in the past ten years, and we shouldn't encourage that trend with more tax dollars.

3. The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide that the maximum appraised value of a residence homestead for ad valorem taxation is limited to the lesser of the most recent market value of the residence homestead as determined by the appraisal entity or 110 percent, or a greater percentage, of the appraised value of the residence homestead for the preceding tax year.

No position, aside from it being a government theft program, but that isn't part of this amendment.

4. The constitutional amendment authorizing the issuance of up to $1 billion in bonds payable from the general revenues of the state for maintenance, improvement, repair, and construction projects and for the purchase of needed equipment.

 
AGAINST: Freedom requires less spending on state facilities, not more.

 5. The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit the voters of a municipality having a population of less than 10,000 to authorize the governing body of the municipality to enter into an agreement with an owner of real property in or adjacent to an area in the municipality that has been approved for funding under certain programs administered by the Texas Department of Agriculture under which the parties agree that all ad valorem taxes imposed on the owner’s property may not be increased for the first five tax years after the tax year in which the agreement is entered into.

AGAINST: This would shift the tax burden onto non-downtown property owners. Freedom opposes giving privileged status to politically popular sectors, although it strongly support reducing taxes across the board.

 6. The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation one motor vehicle owned by an individual and used in the course of the owner’s occupation or profession and also for personal activities of the owner.

No position, less taxation is always good, but this is applied in a discriminatory fashion.

 7. The constitutional amendment to allow governmental entities to sell property acquired through eminent domain back to the previous owners at the price the entities paid to acquire the property.

FOR: This would provide a small amount of protection in some cases. However, the 2007 legislature failed to pass stronger protections against eminent domain, and this is a perfect case where politicians are likely to mislead voters by claiming they support eminent domain reform more than they really do.

 8. The constitutional amendment to clarify certain provisions relating to the making of a home equity loan and use of  home equity loan proceeds.

  No position aside from government meddling in private affairs, but that isn't part of this amendment.

 9. The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt all or part of the residence homesteads of certain totally disabled veterans from ad valorem taxation and authorizing a change in the manner of determining the amount of the existing exemption from ad valorem taxation to which a disabled veteran is entitled.

No position, less taxation is always good, but this is applied in a discriminatory fashion.

10. The constitutional amendment to abolish the constitutional authority for the office of inspector of hides and animals.

FOR: Freedom supports eliminating government waste. We wish this amendment would also eliminate the State Board of Education and many other branches, which would represent a real cut in government.

11. The constitutional amendment to require that a record vote be taken by a house of the legislature on final passage of any bill, other than certain local bills, of a resolution proposing or ratifying a constitutional amendment, or of any other nonceremonial resolution, and to provide for public access on the Internet to those record votes.

FOR: This would allow voters to actually find out how their representatives voted on final passage of a bill. More accountability is good.

12. The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds by the Texas Transportation Commission in an amount not to exceed $5 billion to provide funding for highway improvement projects.

AGAINST: The government already does a terrible job of spending transportation tax dollars, and we should not provide new revenue sources.

13. The constitutional amendment authorizing the denial of bail to a person who violates certain court orders or conditions of release in a felony or family violence case.

No position

14. The constitutional amendment permitting a justice or judge who reaches the mandatory retirement age while in office to serve the remainder of the justice’s or judge’s current term.

FOR: Let elderly judges work if they want to. Freedom requires that there be no forced retirement by government rendering the whole "mandatory retirement age" unconstitutional.

15. The constitutional amendment requiring the creation of the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas and authorizing the issuance of up to $3 billion in bonds payable from the general revenues of the state for research in Texas to find the causes of and cures for cancer.

AGAINST: Medical research is not a legitimate function of government. Funding for medical research should stay in the private sector. There is plenty of profit motive in seeking patents for drugs and medical devices, and if that weren't enough, there is also a great deal of funding provided by voluntary charitable donations.

16. The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount not to exceed $250 million to provide assistance to economically distressed areas.

AGAINST: Developers build neighborhoods without providing and paying for infrastructure like water, then want other taxpayers to pay for water and wastewater services for their developments. Wrong. Development should pay for itself without outside tax subsidies.

Early voting starts October 22 and ends November 2. Election day is Tuesday, November 6.

Adapted from a Libertarian Email.

Quote of the Day:

"Frankly, it is too easy to pass bills. Bills flow through this body like water."
-- Sen. Jeff Sessions

In our system of government, Senators have longer terms than Representatives. In theory, this gives them freedom to be more far-sighted and more statesmanlike than Representatives, who are constantly seeking re-election. Sometimes, democratic passions cause the House to pass popular but seriously flawed bills, and the framers of the Constitution created the Senate so that cooler heads would prevail. It seemed to work: for generations the Senate was considered the "world's greatest deliberative body."

But today, the Senate passes most bills unread and without any deliberation. In fact, bills are often rushed through without Senators even knowing about them. Their "consent" to a bill is assumed, and this leads  to bills being passed by "unanimous consent." It is a process called "hotlining." Paul Jacob has a good column on it this week.

A Senator's office is notified by phone of a bill that both the majority leader and minority leader would like to see passed without debate. The Senator's staff is given a deadline to place a "hold" on the bill. A hold can be placed for any number of reasons - the Senator may want to obstruct passage of the bill, as Sen. Stevens famously tried to obstruct the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act last year. Or, a Senator may place a hold if he or she wants to introduce an amendment. Or maybe the Senator just wants time to read and consider the bill. But there are many occasions when Senators aren't even given a fair chance to place a hold. As Sen. Sessions of Alabama tells it:

"In each Senate office there are three telephones with hotline buttons on them. Most evenings, sometimes after business hours, these phones begin to ring. The calls are from the Republican and the Democratic leaders to each of their Members, asking consent to pass this or that bill--not consider the bill or have debate on the bill but to pass it. Those calls will normally give a deadline. If the staff do not call back in 30 minutes, the bill passes. Boom. It can be 500 pages. In many offices, when staffers do not know anything about the bill, they usually ignore the hotline and let the bill pass without even informing their Senators. If the staff miss the hotline, or do not know about it or were not around, the Senator is deemed to have consented to the passage of some bill which might be quite an important piece of information." Source: Sessions' website

Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma elaborates:
"During the 109th Congress (2005-2006), 341 bills and joint resolutions were passed by the Senate. According to the Congressional Research Service, only 21 of those bills received a roll call vote on the Senate floor. That means 94 percent of law making measures that were passed through the Senate were passed by UC or by voice vote. A large majority of these were hotlined and therefore excluded from full and open debate and the amendment process. In the 109th Congress, 1,408 bills, resolutions, or nominations were attempted to be hotlined, with as many as 40 measures being hotlined in a single day." Source: Coburn's website

No wonder government grows so quickly. A Senator may have a headache and call it a night, and when he returns to his office the next day he finds out he "consented" to several bills he knew nothing about. Calling the Senate a "rubber stamp" is an insult to rubber stamps.

And it is we the people who suffer. We are the ones who must pay for the government's wasteful programs and obey its unnecessary laws. The least we should expect is that our representatatives in Congress read and understand the bills they pass. The least we should expect is that all bills actually come to a floor vote, and are not "passed" via telephone messages. That is why we must pressure Congress to pass the Read the Bills Act.

Tell Congress you are disgusted by procedures such as the Senate's hotlining process. Tell them that they should read and understand every bill they want passed, and that bills should actually be voted on in both chambers. Tell them to pass the Read the Bills Act.

Also, please help spread the word about the Read the Bills Act. One way to do this is through the Read the Bills Act Coalition. By adding your blog or website to the Coalition, you will direct your readers to the RTBA. In return, your site will be linked to on our blog. Go here for details.

Finally, last week the Senate passed 8 bills amounting to 462 pages of legislation. The House passed 17 bills and 295 pages. Almost all of them are worthy of comment, but we just don't have the time. The list of bills can be found at the bottom of the blog version of this Dispatch.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

Sincerely,

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

Do you think the media is going to do their job and report on the other candidates...

 

Paul Campaign Raises Over $5,000,000 In Third Quarter

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - The Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign raised $5,080,000 during the third quarter of 2007. That is an impressive 114 percent increase from the second quarter.

Cash on hand for the Paul campaign is $5,300,000.

"Dr. Paul's message is freedom, peace and prosperity," said Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "As these fundraising numbers show, more Americans each day are embracing Dr. Paul's message."

Ron Paul's 114 percent increase is in stark contrast to the decrease suffered by Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain. Romney's fundraising was down 29 percent. Giuliani was down 40 percent. McCain was down 55 percent.

 

S. 3930 passed just before Congress adjourned to campaign for re-election. They passed it to show they were tough on terrorism. But it effectively repeals the Bill of Rights. It permits the federal government to . . .

• "Disappear" anyone (including American citizens)


• Detain them indefinitely without recourse to legal defense


• Torture them


• Try them without due process


• Punish them, also without due process

The entire law is bad, but Section 950j part (b) is the killer passage. It removes the right of detainees to challenge the legality of their detention. If you cannot challenge your detention in court, then you cannot use your U.S. citizenship as grounds to end your detention. Neither can you exercise any of your other Constitutional rights. U.S. citizens could be caught-up in this meat grinder, despite Congressional claims to the contrary.

Please be clear about what this all means . . .

You could be disappeared at anytime, detained and tortured, forever, and no one need ever know what became of you.

You were told this law would only apply to non-citizens. You were told a deal was being struck to make the bill less oppressive. Congress lied on both counts. The deal they struck actually made the law worse.

You were informed by the mainstream media that you could trust Senator McCain to protect you because he had once been tortured in Vietnam, but Senator McCain did not protect you. He betrayed you. He agreed to make this law worse, not better.

The final version of this law actually repeals the entire Bill of Rights for everyone; citizens and non-citizens alike. The only right you still retain is the protection against being forced to quarter troops in your home.

The true effect of this law is so bad that it seems unbelievable. Some, therefore, may respond with apathy. Politicians count on this. But can your children count on you to leave them the same rights you've enjoyed?

We agree with Richard Epstein, "Truth must count. Innocence must matter." We need due process to learn the truth, punish only the guilty, and protect the innocent.

What more needs be said (well, many relevant facts, true stories, and replies to objections to our campaign can be found on our Background page).

Some will embrace this law and some will oppose it. Which decision will you make? If you take the side of traditional American principles then please send a message to Congress now, demanding that they repeal this law. You can do so using this form.

All hail free health care!!!!

************************

Quote of the Day:

"One death is a tragedy. Six million is a statistic."
-- attributed to Joseph Stalin
Subject: Death by government

When real market prices are unavailable to balance supply and demand in the health care sector -- when prices are set by government decree, or distorted by government funding -- the consequence can be death.

It's easy to miss this truth if we only focus on anecdotal personal testimony. Talk to people from Canada and the U.K. and you're likely to hear glowing praise for their national health services. Alas, there are fundamental problems with this kind of testimony . . .

• People living under national health services have little or nothing to compare them to.
• Small medical problems, easily fixed, are far more common than those that are life threatening -- thus, most personal testimony tells us little about how well major procedures are handled.
• Patients that survive major medical problems in such systems tend to assume the system works.
• While those who die because of the system's failure are unavailable to testify.
• This is the familiar economic problem of the "seen and the unseen" -- the successes are seen, walking among us, while the failures lie buried, unseen and silent.

Michael Moore, in his film "Sicko," makes dramatic use of horrifying anecdotes of failure in the American system. We say, "Good for him!" We too reject America's current system, precisely because it is already half-way to the type of system Moore advocates. We applaud him for exposing the failures of America's half-socialized system, but . . .

We must criticize him for not telling the whole story. If you watch another movie, "Dead Meat," you'll hear equally horrifying anecdotes about the fully socialized Canadian system, which is the kind of system Moore wants for America. Though Moore favors the French socialist system, future messages will show that there is really no fundamental difference between France and Canada. For now we just want to compare movie-anecdote to move-anecdote, and "Dead Meat" is about Canada . . .

• A Canadian woman waited TWO YEARS for "free" cancer surgery, only to have her appointments canceled, twice. Death came before her surgery did.

• A Calgary woman was in excruciating pain from worn-out knee cartilage. She had to wait 16 months for her "free" surgery. It took so long that she became addicted to "free" Oxycontin. The result? More time on another long list, waiting for "free" drug rehab.

• Another man needed urgent neck surgery. His "free" doctor told him there was a TWO-YEAR WAIT for a FREE INITIAL CONSULTATION!

Moore doesn't really cover the anecdotal horrors of the various socialist systems, even though there are plenty of such stories available.

But if both sides in a controversy can each produce horrifying anecdotes, then what have we really learned? How can we choose between the competing stories to arrive at an optimal policy? We would submit that anecdotes can tell us little more than this . . .

• The American system of half-socialized medicine has big problems
• Foreign systems of fully-socialized medicine also have big problems

But what the anecdotes can't tell us is how the half-socialized American system compares to the fully socialized foreign systems, or how either approach would compare to a totally free market system.

What we need instead of anecdotes is statistical information that can give us a well-rounded picture. Statistics may lack the emotional impact to get your blood pumping, but they could provide the crucial evidence you need to KEEP your blood pumping. We're talking about statistics likes these . . .

• British colon cancer patients had to wait so long for medical attention that 20 percent of the cases considered curable at the time of diagnosis, were incurable by the time of treatment. (Source: Anthony Browne, London Observer, December 16, 2001)

• 71 patients in Ontario, Canada died while waiting for bypass surgery, and another 121 had to wait so long there was no longer any point in operating. (Richard F. Davis, Canadian Medical Association Journal 160, no. 10, May 18, 1999)

• In Britain, on an annual basis, waiting lists cause a denial of treatment to 9,000 people for renal dialysis, 15,000 for cancer chemotherapy, and 17,000 for coronary artery surgery. (Source: Henry J. Aaron and William B. Schwartz, "The Painful Prescription: Rationing Hospital Care," the Brookings Institution, 1984).

This is death by waiting list. Death by rationing. Death by government.

But how does the U.S. system of half-socialized medicine compare? The available statistics are so abundant, and so in favor of America's half-messed-up system that it's hard to pick what to show in this short message, but for just a taste of the available data, consider these comparisons of where we have been in comparison to Britain and Canada, and where we still are . . .

• Back in 1978 the U.S. rate for pacemaker implants was more than four times higher than that of Britain, and 20 times that of Canada, plus the U.S. has three times more CAT scanners available per capita than Canada, and six times more than Britain. (Source: Mary-Ann Rozbicki, "Rationing British Health Care: The Cost/Benefit Approach,) Executive Seminar in National and International Affairs (U.S. Department of State, April 1978)

But have things changed over the years? Are government systems responsive to their deficiencies? The answer is no.

• Today, Britain still has only half as many CT and MRI scanners per capita as the U.S., and the disparity with Canada is similar, not only with regard to scanners but numerous other treatments and diagnostic tools. Things really haven't changed much over the years -- national health services continue to lag behind in almost every category. (I've provide more detail and sources below my signature.)

Or how about this . . .

In 2001, how many patients had to wait more than 4 months for surgery? The answer is . . .

• 36% in Britain's fully socialized system
• 27% in Canada's fully socialized system
• 26% in New Zealand's fully socialized system
• 23% in Australia's fully socialized system
• And . . . drum roll . . . only 5% in America's half-socialized system

(Source: "Comparison of Health Care System Views and Experiences in Five Nations," Commonwealth Fund Issue Brief, May, 2002)

What a difference just half as much socialism can make.

If the statistics show the fully socialized systems to be so much worse than America's half-socialized system, isn't it at least worth considering that we might solve many of America's remaining health care problems by going even more in the direction of the free market?

These are just a few snap-shots of what the statistical studies show, in comparison to mere anecdotes. There are many more such studies, tending strongly toward the same conclusion . . .

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. TANSTAFL!"

TANSTAFL is a pithy way of saying that if you don't pay a real free market price for health care, supply will fall short of demand, and so you will pay in another way . . . with waiting lists that could kill you.

Plus, you'll also pay BIG TAXES for your supposedly FREE system, on top of the potentially deadly waiting lists, and you'll lose the power of free market competition to keep prices down (all of these things are already big problems in America).

But the prospect of what we face in America is even worse than the harm countries like Britain and Canada have done to themselves with socialized medicine. Our country, if the trend continues, is much more likely to adopt a fascist, rather than socialist model of state health care.

This will involve a lot of corporate welfare, monopoly partnerships between corporations and the state, with prices and terms of treatment set in consultation with corporate lobbyists. Or, in a word, fascism.

Please, please, please, let us not do this. Because once it happens it will be nearly impossible to reverse.

What should we do instead? It's a big subject, and we will get to it, but the right place to start is where the physicians start, "First, do no harm." Even if you think some kind of increased government involvement is needed in American health care, do not let it come at the federal level.

Please send a message to Congress opposing any further funding of personal health care expenses at the federal level. Please cut and paste some of the above statistics (or those below) into your personal comments to Congress. If you've already sent a message on this issue, using the statistics justifies sending another one.

And please, please, please, help us spread the word about the above facts, stories, and arguments, to counter the current drumbeat for federally funded health care. Please forward this message to other people. And if you received this message because someone forwarded it to you, please do the same and forward it to someone else. Spread the word!

Thank you for your time and attention. Thank you to those of you who are DC Downsizers.

Perry Willis
Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

PS: Our thanks to the Cato Institute and the Independent Institute for accumulating the studies used in this message.

Additional stats and sources . . .

• Britain has only half the number of CT scanners as the U.S. Source: Anderson, Reinhardt, Hussey, and Petrosyan, "It's the Prices Stupid," pages 89-105

• Britain also has half as many MRI scanners per capita as the U.S. Source: "National Service Framework for Health," UK Department of Health, London, 2000

• For an extensive list of Canadian deficiencies in treatments and diagnostic tools see "Canada's System Lacks Many Bells and Whistles," by Tom Arnold, National Post, November 17, 2001

• Also, see the Canadian Medical Association Journal 165, no. 4, August 21, 2001, 421-25

Quote of the Day:

“Government cripples you, then hands you a crutch and says, 'See, if it wasn't for us, you couldn't walk.'”
-- Harry Browne

Subject: Reviving American Health Care

Step by step we are moving toward a system in which the federal government will pay for all health care, and regulate it from the top down. You will have no choice . . .

• You will have to pay for this monopolistic system, whether you like it or not.
• The price you pay, and the kind of care you receive, will be determined by government dictates, crafted behind closed doors, in consultation with powerful corporate interests.

This is a recipe for health care fascism. One of the hallmarks of fascism is the use of partnerships between government and corporations, controlled by regulatory boards. Benito Mussolini described the theoretical framework, as follows . . .
“The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organization of production is a function of national concern, the organizer of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production. State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management.” (pp. 135-136)
—Benito Mussolini, 1935, Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions, Rome: 'Ardita' Publishers.
In practice, such a system amounts to corporate welfare combined with price fixing and protectionist measures to restrain competition. It is best defined by the concept of “regulatory capture,” by which corporate interests gain partial control of the state.

A good example of how this works in practice is shown in this clip from “60 Minutes” about corporate involvement in the creation of the prescription drug entitlement.

This is the system we are building. This is what we must prevent.

Many things need to be done to fix our health care system, but first we must stop further steps in the direction of corporate fascism.  As the doctors say, “First, do no harm.” Toward this end . . .

Even those who favor further government involvement in health care should strongly oppose . . .

Any additional  funding of personal health care expenses at the federal level.

Federal funding means top-down control with one-size-fits-all policies.  Federal involvement means policies crafted by K Street lobbyists for the benefit of powerful special interests. Federal involvement equals corporate fascism.

If you favor government funding for personal health care expenses, seek it at the state level, and oppose it at the federal level.

Everyone, regardless of their overall position on health care, needs to tell Congress to have a healthy regard for the 10th Amendment, which reads  . . .
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Constitution grants no power for the federal government to either fund or regulate health care.  The fact that the feds are already doing so provides no justification for compounding the wrong by doing more of it. 

Please send a message to Congress asking them to oppose any additional funding of personal health care expenses at the federal level. You can do so here.

Also, please consider making a contribution to further our work. You can do so here.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.  

Quotes of the Day:

"A republic, if you can keep it."
-- Ben Franklin

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin

Subject: Who are we?

It seems to us that one of the most important tasks before us may be this . . .

We must teach Americans how to be Americans again.

What does it mean to be an American? It is not an ethnicity. We are made up of all kinds, from all places.

Is it a mere legalism, that we are all either born here or passed a test or swore an oath? Is this how we define ourselves -- by our GPS coordinates at the time of our birth, or by a few magic words easily spoken but poorly lived? 

We hope not.

We hope, instead, that it has something to do with what a few farmers did starting 231 years ago. We're talking about those farmers who became FRAMERS, through the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. We're talking about the ideas behind, and embodied in, those documents.

Those of America's founding generation were unreasonable people. They rebelled and fought a war of independence for what to most Americans today would seem light and transient causes. The burdens and transgressions imposed upon us by our own government today are so much larger than what they faced then, and yet . . .

So many of us meekly consent, or even cheer-lead for the piling on of more and more transgressions and burdens [perpetrated by both parties].

• Our taxes are so much higher than those the Founders opposed.
• We have submitted to "taxation without representation" by permitting our rulers to rig the rules by which they are elected, thereby monopolizing power and hobbling representation.
• Those who claim to represent us do not read their bills, write our laws, or cast individual votes on individual propositions. They give us representation in name only.
• The Bill of Rights is being nibbled into non-existence, or even cut up in huge chunks.
• The principles of the Declaration of Independence are forgotten or ignored.
• The separations and checks and balances of the Constitution have become un-separated, un-checked, and un-balanced.

Are we glad America's Founders did what they did then? If we approve of it for them in their time, why would we not approve of it for ourselves, now?

Asked what the Founders had given the country, Benjamin Franklin is supposed to have replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." Are we keeping it?

In another context, Franklin is supposed to have written (though he hid his identity): "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Are we trading liberty for security? Are we gaining security?

What do we deserve? Who are we? What do we want to be?

Would you have signed the Declaration of Independence, if given the chance? Would you have voted to ratify the Bill of Rights? The chance to do these things still lives. It lives in what you do when every new government transgression comes into public view.

Do you speak, or are you silent? Do you act, or are you passive? Do you comfort yourself that there is wisdom in apathy, or do you find wisdom where the Founders placed it, in a vigorous defense of fundamental, inalienable principles?

There are many still left who sneer at apathy and who live the ethic of principled action. As for the rest, it seems that we must teach them how to be Americans again.

In a government without representation we must make vigorous use of the one tool still left to us -- the right to petition our government for a redress of grievances. This does not require the use of arms, or frozen Winters in Valley Forge. It only requires a few clicks of your mouse and strokes of your keyboard.

This must be done in a relentless, inescapable, resistance numbing way, until our rulers submit, become representatives again, and return to first principles.

As for those who have forgotten what it means to be an American, or who never knew, it is up to us to teach them, using the most powerful tool of persuasion known to humanity -- mind enlightening repetition. It is up to us to grow to a size where we can make our message seen and heard by everyone, everywhere, every day.

Today, as always, we have the opportunity to be what Americans should be -- aggressive defenders of fundamental, inalienable liberties.

Are you afraid of terrorism? If so, you have handed the terrorists victory. If not, then you can defeat terrorism instantly, by declaring your lack of fear, and telling Congress to not be afraid on your behalf. You can do that here.

Would you trade essential liberty for a false sense of temporary security? Would you trade away the 4th Amendment, and allow the federal government to spy on you in the name of chasing terrorists? If not, please tell your "representatives" to let the FISA modernization bill sunset in six months. If you have not done this yet, you can do so here.

Do you believe it is a fundamental to the act of representation that members of Congress should read the laws they impose on you? If so, and you have not recently asked Congress to pass the "Read the Bills Act," you can do so here.

Yes, we are giving you choices this morning. Liberty is the freedom to choose. Use your liberty or lose it. Use it by choosing a way to petition Congress for a redress of grievances. Be relentless. Be inescapable. Be resistance-numbing. If you don't like these choices you will find others on our home page.

Finally, the key to our future strength is growth driven by financing. If you want our message to be heard by everyone, everywhere, every day, and if you want the pressure we apply to Congress to become relentless, inescapable, and resistance numbing, please make a contribution to our work. You can do so here.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Stop the gang that can't shoot straight

The next few days will be crucial for the preservation of the Bill of Rights.

It is vital that you forward this message to anyone you know who cares about the Constitution, and who distrusts the competence and honesty of the federal government.

We need as many people as possible to help us stop the latest self-destructive federal power grab.

Relevant to the present crisis are two new histories of the C.I.A. -- "Legacy of Ashes" by Tim Weiner and "Safe for Democracy" by John Prados. These books paint a grim picture. The American intelligence services are almost completely incompetent, and always have been.

The C.I.A., and U.S. intelligence as a whole, have had an almost perfect record of failure. And even operations that "succeeded," such as the 1953 coup in Iran, have had disastrous long term consequences for American security. Our current problems with Iran began with that "successful" 1953 coup.

Please, Lord, let us have no more successes like that.

We would assert that any citizen of moderate intelligence with the ability to read could do better than the federal government has done in many areas of international intelligence.

Several former agents have pointed out that most of what the U.S. intelligence services know could be learned by reading a handful of newspapers.

We would point to just one example from our own organizational history. We successfully predicted in advance, at TruthAboutWar,org, that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. How did we do this? We read the reports of the weapons inspectors. You would think that the C.I.A. could have done the same.

It is almost impossible to overstate the incompetence of the U.S. intelligence services. They truly are the gang that can't shoot straight.

Worse still, they are being led by President Bush and Vice President Cheney who have themselves assembled an almost perfect record of incompetence and error in the field of national security. We truly are dependent for our security on, forgive the cliche, the "blind leading the blind."

But, as usual, the political solution for every government failure is to give the people who failed more power and more resources. The result from this is predictable -- there will be more and bigger failures.

Prados and Weiner both make it clear that U.S. security has suffered from an over use of technology, and an under use, or incompetent use, of human intelligence. And yet . . .

The President, and many in Congress, want to expand federal powers to use electronic surveillance, in violation of the Bill of Rights. This is the intent of the so-called FISA "modernization" act currently before Congress.

And, as usual, the politicians are manipulating and exploiting fear in order to advance this latest bid for heightened powers of incompetence. The Republicans are threatening to blame the Democrats for the next terror attack if they do not pass this bill. And the Democrats are showing signs of fear that the charge will stick.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration has been making efforts to also instill fear in the American people. They have presented us with Chertoff's "gut feeling" that a new terrorist attack is coming, and also with false reports about ice packs and Wisconsin cheese being used for terrorist "dry runs" in airports.

We must not give in to this manipulation. We must not give in to fear. Instead, we must insist that the federal government do a better job using the powers and resources it already has.

It is a central contention of DownsizeDC.org, in this area and in others, that the federal government could perform better if it DID LESS AND FOCUSED MORE. The federal government does not need new powers or resources. It merely needs to start making competent use of what it already has.

The so-called FISA "modernization" act would empower the federal government to waste its time listening to American phone calls when it should be focused on recruiting Arabic speakers to infiltrate Islamist cells around the world.

We need human intelligence aimed at foreigners, not illegal electronic surveillance of Americans!

The gang that can't shoot straight needs to be taught to aim at the right target! And it is up to us to do the teaching.

It is absolutely essential that the so-called FISA "modernization" bill be stopped dead in its tracks before Congress recesses in a couple of days. Please send Congress a message telling them to kill this bill.

Tell them you will not be manipulated by fear mongering. Tell them instead that they should fear you, the American voter and taxpayer. You can use any of the points made in this message in your personal comments.

You can send your message here.

And then, please follow-up with a phone call issuing the same instructions. You will see the numbers for your elected representatives when you log in (or register for the first time) to send your message.

And then, please, please, please, forward this message to other people who may feel as you do about this issue. We need all the help we can get. The vote will happen soon. This bill must be stopped NOW.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Why doesn't Fox4 report on this? 

 *****************************************
*****************************************

Who Speaks for the American Military on Iraq?

by William Marina
by William Marina

The bias in the way in which the Media has covered the emerging presidential campaign has been evident for some months now.

The implication has been that a hawk like Rudy Giuliani speaks for the American soldiers and other military members, when he, John McCain, Fred Thompson and others, continue to parrot the Bush Administration’s line that the US must "stay the course in Iraq," as withdrawal would be a betrayal of our heroic fighting men and women.

The Media has given short shrift to Ron Paul, the only candidate among the Republicans who argues for withdrawal.

If that logic was correct, then Ron Paul must be the most hated of the candidates among those people associated with the US Military. But, is that true?

Given the means of electronic voting today, if the Bush Administration had the intestinal fortitude to do so, that hypothesis could readily be tested. The GOP was certainly keen to count the Military’s votes in the disputed election in Florida during the 2000 election.

Is there some alternative means of ascertaining the feelings of our Military with respect to the candidates and their views? As it happens, perhaps there is!

Few would argue that in politics, people and interest groups tend to put their money where their mouth is. That is, they give money to those candidates whose views reflect their own interests.

That being the case, the latest information we have about party donations is quite interesting!

Analyzing the latest finance reports, military-support for the Republican candidates, The Spin Factor broke down the donations from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and among Veterans (their figures do not include the Marines, which only slightly alters the results). The results can be easily verified by checking the reports by employer for Ron Paul and the other candidates.

Name          Total $      Army      Navy        AF        Vets

Paul            23,465         6,975      6,765     4,650     5,075
McCain     15,825          6,925      6,305     1,795         800
Romney      3,551          2,051              0     1,500              0
Giuliani        2,320         1,450          370        250          250
Hunter          1,000                 0       1,000            0          --
Huckabee       750            250                0      500             --
Tancredo         350            350                0            0             --
Brownback        71             71                 0            0             --
Thompson            0               0                 0            0             --

*Note: The numbers for the last five candidates have not been thoroughly verified.

52.53%: Ron Paul
35.4%: McCain
7.9%: Romney
5.2%: Giuliani
2.2%: Hunter
2.6%: Others

Thus, more than half of the Military and Veterans donating funds to the Republican Party candidates gave their monies to one candidate, Dr. Ron Paul.

I would suggest this is about a clear an indication of the views of our Military on the positions of the Republican candidates as we are apt to get. Why doesn’t the Media offer this data to the American people?

July 19, 2007

William Marina [send him mail] is Professor Emeritus in History at Florida Atlantic University, a Research Fellow of the Independent Institute, Oakland, CA, and Executive Director of the Marina-Huerta Educational Foundation. He lives in Asheville, NC.

Thankfully, the TX legislature did the right thing (at least this once)....

 

Amid controversy over state legislatures in the U.S. requiring young girls to take Gardasil, Merck's new vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV), severe side effects are being reported.

1,637 adverse reactions have been reported by Judicial Watch, a public interest watchdog, including three girls who died shortly after receiving the immunization. Judicial Watch obtained the reports from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration using the Freedom of Information Act.

In Australia, 25 girls who had just received their first injection of the vaccine experienced headache, nausea, and dizziness. In some cases, the problems were so severe that they were hospitalized. Shares of the vaccine's Australian developer, CSL, fell after the incident was reported in the news.

British Medical Journal June 9, 2007;334:1182-1183

 

 

Another message:

 

Subject: Repealing the REAL ID Act

Oh, those poor Senators. They're really traumatized. They heard from far too many of their constituents over the immigration bill. The news is full of quotes about it. Senators feel assaulted, intimidated.

Don't you feel sorry for them?

Maybe we should give them a break? Go easy on them? Let them catch their breath?

Naugh.

Let's pound them again.

Just when they think the beating is over, and they've let down their guard, here comes another blow . . .

Congress needs to repeal the REAL ID Act. Americans don't want it. It was passed in a dishonest way, by combining it with a completely un-related bill. The states are rejecting it. New Hampshire is the latest to vote not to comply. But . . .

The longer we let this law stay on the books the more likely it is to ensnare us. We dodged a bullet with the immigration bill, which could have made the REAL ID national identification system more entrenched.

Congress thinks they're done with this issue, now that immigration legislation is tabled for a good long while, but we must disabuse them of this notion. They aren't done until we tell them they're done (they work for us remember), and we won't be satisfied until the REAL ID Act is repealed.

Please write Congress today and tell them that. You can do so here.

I just received this great message!

Subject: Victory!

The immigration bill is dead. It fell short by 14 votes. Better yet, the whole issue has become so controversial, in so many different ways, that no further action on immigration is expected any time soon.

Fox News has reported that the Senate phone system crashed yesterday, from so many calls coming in.

We call this overwhelming, inescapable, resistance numbing pressure!

But the media, as usual, is getting the story wrong. The professional reporting class seems unable to contain more than one idea or fact in their heads at any given time, so they're all reporting that the bill's defeat was due to its supposed amnesty provisions.

It is to laugh.

The truth is that nearly everyone, on all sides of the issue, opposed this bill, for every reason imaginable.

The truth is that hundreds of groups like DownsizeDC.org were organizing opposition to this legislation for many different reasons. And one of the biggest objections was the REAL ID provisions.

Congratulations to you for the role you played in killing this horrible bill. Now, we have a prediction to make . . .

THIS IS THE FUTURE.

Increasingly, this is how the United States is going to be governed. Congress will propose, but the people will dispose, by exerting overwhelming, inescapable, resistance numbing pressure.

The Internet has made this possible, just as printing made the Reformation and the Enlightenment possible, and TV enabled the civil rights movement.

This Big Change will mostly mean that Congress will do less, because there will usually be vast interlocking groups of opposition ready to fight, often for conflicting reasons, but usually with the same result -- to say and impose a giant NO on Congressional schemes.

The pressure of the people will become the