No Nanny State - Molon Labe!

The freedom to share one’s insights and judgments verbally or in writing is, just like the freedom to think, a holy and inalienable right of humanity that, as a universal human right, is above all the rights of princes.
--Carl Friedrich Bahrdt

Like so many bloggers I frequent, we're getting discouraged by what we see happening to our country. So many bad things are happening so quickly, it gets a bit overwhelming.

I have considered, "hanging up my spikes" and just taking what comes. It all seems so futile.

But that is exactly what they want. They want us to be so overwhelmed with the insanity that we just roll over.

What gets me back into the game is when I read comments like those made by the Speaker Of The House, portraying people who disagree with her socialist agenda as Nazi's -

"They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."

I just can't let that lie go unchallenged. Not just about the ad hominen attacks, but about this unprecedented desire to expand government.

I have a senator that follows a similar vein of thought by saying that this must all be staged, because the protesters are too well dressed. WTF?




Apparently, your opinion is only valid if you're wearing rags, are in a purple SEIU t-shirt, or are carrying a red ACORN sign.

So I do what I still can. I try to keep people informed, and I make my voice heard with my federal representatives -

Jerry McNerney
11th Congressional District

Since it appears from your site that you will not be doing any public appearances during your congressional recess, I want to make sure you are aware of my feelings on the health care bill.

At it's most basic level, it is unconstitutional at the federal level. Since it is not specifically enumerated in the constitution or an amendment, the 10th amendment disallows it.

Aside from that paramount point, there is the following: (1) There is not a single person in this country that cannot get health care if they so choose. Just walk into any hospital. (2) If this plan is so wonderful, why don't YOU MEMBERS OF CONGRESS have to accept it as YOUR health plan? (3) Haven't we seen enough destruction of the "dependent class" in our country? - Don't you in congress understand that handing out goodies makes people helpless? (4) We can't even come close to paying for what has been proposed. It would be criminal to place this financial burden on our future generations.

Your vote on this issue is my personal "line in the sand." If you vote for this, you will have turned me into a political activist, and whomever you are running against will get all of my political financial contributions and volunteer services.

Do what is right, not what is politically correct.

----------

Don't quit.
----------

Something I need to verify: I read that for a congressman to get the full federal pension (for life), they need to have served for 5 years. My guy is in year 3 right now. If he is not re-elected in the next election, he'll be SOL.

This might be a great hammer to use against this pinhead, PLUS it might be a motivator to other folks in my district to get this bum out.

We need to hurt these bastards where they're hurting us - in the pocketbook.

Labels: American Spirit, communism, Constitution, Corruption, democrats, Ethics, Fascism, McNerney, nanny state, Political Correctness, Self-Reliance, Taxes, welfare state

The policy is the only thing that counts.
--Ron Paul, commenting on testimony from Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke

I'm in one of those connect-the-dots moods. I don't have them all connected yet, but I thought I'd share some of what I've found. I've got my head all cluttered up with all of these dots - too much doesn't make any sense.

A friend of mine sent me an email from an organization about how the various national governments are supposedly suppressing the price of gold (the organization is called Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee - GATA). Here is the specific article he sent to me.

Anyways, it got me thinking again about inflation. We're "producing" money like crazy to fund the ever-growing socialist policies, but inflation seems in check. Hell, there might even be a bit of deflation going on.

How can this be?

You guys know how the Fed increases the money supply, right?

Here's how [This is very simplified, but you'll get the idea]: Barry says he needs a billion dollars. The Treasury Department issues a Treasury bill/note/bond (depending upon the maturity date). Through intermediaries, a bank buys the Treasury. Barry now has his billion to spend to his heart's content.

But what if the bank needs that cash OR if the Fed wants to lower rates? They need to increase the money supply. They go to the bank and buy it. The Fed is handed the Treasury. They then walk over to a computer screen and credit the bank's reserve account with a billion dollars.

They didn't sell assets. They didn't borrow the money. They literally created it out of thin air.

The initial TARP bill now allows the Federal Reserve to buy Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) directly from banks. What is scary, it this number WILL NOT SHOW UP on the National Debt number - they didn't buy the Treasuries, so no national debt is incurred.

If you go here, and scroll down to #9, you'll see the Fed's Statement of Condition. You'll see that, in the 12 months, the Fed's assets have more than doubled (you'll have to do some math - going from $889,693,000,000 [eight eighty nine billion] to $2,068,149,000,000 [two trillion] - a 132% increase).

The two biggest contributors to this increase are $694 billion of newly purchased securities (of which $366 billion are MBS - off the National Debt books) and a $303 increase in Term Auction Credits (started in 12/07 to save the banks, and is also off the National Debt books).
----------

So, how do we not have inflation right now?

It seems that Ron Paul is looking to stir the pot a bit. In this clip, he is grilling Fed Head Ben Bernanke about Monetary Policy. At the beginning of the clip, he touches on inflation, but it doesn't seem to answer my questions.



Paul does indicate that the price spike is coming (due to the doubling of the monetary base). Bernanke also talks about how, if inflation does start to spike, he'll have to, "take away the punchbowl" - cheap money from the Fed. That will clamp down on loans, and damage or destroy a lot of businesses.

It seems like "they" are trying to delay this. If they can hold off inflation until people get re-employed, the economy can take the hit, and keep on chugging. If inflation hits without employment rising, we are well and truly screwed.
----------

Perhaps the article from my friend has more going for it than I gave it credit. If they are able to keep the true tangible asset from spiking, it might just work. The Masses equate inflation with price increases. Maybe this is one of the missing dots I'm trying to put together.
----------

Paul mentions HR 1207. It is a bill that will require the Fed to pull the covers back on their monetary policy. He's got over 120 co-sponsors for the bill. Check here to see if your representative is one of the sponsors (shockingly, my communist representative is not a co-sponsor).

Send a message that you want Barry and Ben to live up to their promise of transparency.
----------

Last thing: I ran across an article that mentioned the some arm of the Federal government being able to directly buy the stock of companies (sorry, I can't find the article any more). It may have been about how the Treasury has bought preferred stock in the big banks, and the auto makers.

Look what happened today: The news about the Stress Test has been leaked. It seems that 16 of the 19 big banks will need to come up with some mind-boggling amounts of new capital.

The banks have two options for fixing this: They can go out and raise new capital, or they can convert the non-voting Preferred shares that Nanny holds, into common VOTING shares.

Either of the options should have trashed the stock market. If you're capital-poor, you're more likely to fail, so your stock price goes down. If you convert the Preferred shares, you dilute the value of the existing shares, so your stock price goes down.

What happened? The stock market surged over 100 points (1.2%) MAINLY because of the bank news.

WTF?

Labels: communism, Constitution, Corruption, democrats, Ethics, Fascism, McNerney, nanny state, Taxes, welfare state

Much appreciated reply; Disgustingly vague answers

Much to my surprise and delight, my Congressman, Jerry McNerney responded to my letter/email of May 8th (see blog entry, More Hate Crimes). Below is Congressman McNerney's response to my original letter, followed by my rebuttal reply. Democracy in action! Let's see if it works!

Dear Mr. NoNannyState,

Thank you for sharing your opposition to H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. I appreciate learning your views, and I value your input.

Under current law, a hate crime is defined as intentionally committing a crime against a person or property because of their actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.

U.S. law limits governmental involvement in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes and federal law enforcement can only pursue hate crimes that occur during a specified federally-protected activity, such as serving on a jury, traveling on the interstate highway system, or attending public school. Additionally, federal law enforcement officers cannot assist when a hate crime is motivated by gender, sexual orientation, or disability biases. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 adds these classes of protections to current law.

It is important to note that H.R. 1592 bill does not prohibit thought, speech, or expression protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. In fact, Section 11 of the bill expressly states that "[n]othing in this Act . . . shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct . . . or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution." This legislation seeks to curb the occurrence of hate violence, not restrict thoughts or words. H.R. 1592 passed the House by a vote of 237 to 180. It remains to be seen whether this bill will be considered by the U.S. Senate.

Thank you again for sharing your views. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance. For more information on other issues that I am working on in Congress, please visit my website at www.mcnerney.house.gov.

Sincerely,

Jerry McNerney
Member of Congress

My follow up questions:

Congressman McNerney,

I want to genuinely thank you for your response. It is clear that you or one of your staffers actually took the time to read my email and make a response. Based upon the replies to letters I’ve sent to other federal representatives, it has been clear that the letter was not read, and a simple form letter sent in reply. Thank you again.

That being said, you still did not respond to the core issues raised in my letter:

1. What Constitutional powers

2. Establishing different classes of citizens

3. Thought/speech crimes

Constitutional Powers. You did not address my question about where in the Constitution the Congress has been authorized to prosecute or assist in local crimes. There is simply no Constitutional provision that allows the Federal Government the authority to meddle in local affairs. This law – in particular Section 249 (a) (1) - appears to now grant the Federal Government the power to prosecute these crimes even without state lines being crossed or commerce being interrupted. This is very disturbing.

Legislating Different Classes of Citizens. You also did not address my questions about setting up special classes of citizens. Why should someone get more protections under the law simply because they are of a different color, gender or race? I ask you to refer to the Fourteenth amendment. Equal protection is pretty clearly laid out. Perhaps it only applies to the individual states, and not the Federal Government? Is that your justification for voting for this?

Thought/Speech Crimes. Finally, you side-stepped the Thought Crimes portion. In my letter, I specifically stated, “You have voted for a law based upon motivation or words, not upon deed.” The law itself states [Sec. 249 (b)(1)],

“such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; “

This law will more severely punish someone for what they are thinking (or for what they say during the commission of the crime) – their motivation – than someone that simply commits the same crime out of greed or any other reason. How can you support that? How is the “hate crime” victim more injured than the “greed crime” victim?

I’ll say it again: I think you voted for this legislation because it would win you “brownie points”. This law simply exemplifies what is wrong with government: More must be better. I want a congressman that is going to base his or her votes on the Constitution, not on political expediency.

How are you going to rectify this?

Sincerely,

Mr. NoNannyState

I wait breathlessly for his reply.....

Labels: Constitution, Hate Crimes, McNerney, Thought Crimes

I've written in the past about the "slippery slope" of so-called "Hate Crimes" ('Speak The Truth?' and 'Special Circumstances'). They are horrible laws that add additional punishment for Thought Crimes.

That's the problem with these “Hate Crime” laws. They hinge on the motivation of the perpetrator. Is that really relevant? Aren't I just as dead if I'm killed for being white or being killed because I have a nice watch on my wrist?

Well, the House of Representatives just passed HR 1592. It offers federal assistance and grant money for the prosecution of Hate Crimes. In fact, it directs the US Attorney General to give priority to these crimes. My brain wants to explode when I read crap like this. More Nanny State, now for Thought Crimes. As usual, I sent a letter to my House member, Jerry McNerney.

I would like an explanation of your recent vote on HR 1592, the so called Hate Crimes legislation.

In 2006, I voted for you, albeit with reservations, because I wanted a change in Congress. I wanted someone that would not simply follow the herd, but someone that might actually lead. Most importantly, I was looking for someone that would base their votes, not necessarily upon what it would do for his or her district, but for the country. Someone that would base their votes upon the powers vested by the US Constitution. Special Interests be damned.

Under what possible Congressional Constitutional powers could you have based your vote? I'll tell you: There are none. Perhaps as important, under what common sense considerations could it have been based upon?

How can you agree with making one person less worthy of justice because they were robbed due to their location, as opposed to the person that is robbed because they are of a particular race or religion? Have they not both been equally deprived of their property? Where is the equal protection under the law? Why are you voting to set up special classes of citizens within our society?

And where does legislation like this end? You have voted for a law based upon motivation or words, not upon deed. Do I not have the right, via my first amendment protections, to express my opinion about anything I wish, even if someone else believes it to be hateful? Unless my words, in and of themselves cause harm (as in libel), the answer is “yes”. You've taken part in the early steps of making something you say a crime.

Lastly, I want to expand on my first point: You (and 236 other members of Congress) based your vote not upon the Constitution (going against the First and Tenth amendments), but upon political “brownie points”. After all, who could disagree with a law against mean people, right?

You should have. Consider your Constitutional powers when voting (or voting to over ride the promised Presidential veto). Otherwise, you'll get to spend your old-age, telling those that will listen, what it was like to be a one-term Congressman.

I look forward to your reply.

Jerry is my only federal representative that has not responded to one of my letters. Not a good idea should he expect my vote in 2008.

Labels: Hate Crimes, McNerney