Death of the Oath and Republic

Posted By Bonnie Alba On March 24, 2010 (6:33 am) In Top Page News

“I swear … to support and defend the Constitution of the United States … so help me God.”  Our President, Congress, and Supreme Court Justices do so solemnly swear upon entering their offices. The oath of government officials has become one of mere formality, nothing more. The Constitution is just an outdated document to most of them, holding no meaning or knowledge of the original intent of the founders.

U.S. Constitution 

There was a time when a man’s word was as good as gold; a handshake meant a promise to be kept. Remember what we as children swore by: “Cross my heart and hope to die?” Did we believe we would die if we weren’t telling the truth? Yet today’s adults swear and make promises which they have no intention of upholding.

 The Republic envisioned by our founding fathers has been scrapped; our Constitution has been dumped on, spit on, trampled beneath the calloused footpads of elected and appointed officials. It’s not about labels of conservative or liberal, republican or democrat. The limitations on government have been arrogantly ignored and the Republic fails from lack of protest from the people — until now.

 We the people are the other half of the equation of the failing Republic. From the 60s the cries of “freedom from responsibility” and “I’m a victim” have persuaded many citizens that Big Brother is Sugar Daddy — he’ll take care of you from birth to death. Educationally dumbed down, several generations have been indoctrinated to expect the redistribution of wealth. Ignorant of their own nation’s governing documents, the people  compel government growth of social programs centralizing more power and control over we the peoples’ lives.

 In some courts, the oath is no longer used to swear in witnesses. Why? Because many Americans have rejected belief in God. Over 175 years ago, French historian Alexis de Tocqueville observed a court case in Chester County, New York. The witness declared he didn’t believe in the existence of God or in the immortality of the soul. The judge refused to admit his evidence on the ground that the witness had destroyed beforehand all confidence of the court in what he was about to say. As reported in The New York Spectator,” the presiding judge remarked, “…that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of justice; and that he knew of no case in a Christian country where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief.”

 That judge would be called intolerant by today’s politically correct standards. Today the oath means nothing which leaves no way to judge the truth of any matter. According to moral relativism, there are no standards. In the same way the Constitution’s truth has been treated, left with no standards. There is no accountability.

 The U.S. Constitution, dusty and unread, sits in silence while the governing bodies go their own way and the people cede their liberty. Tocqueville also observed, “In the United States the sovereign authority is religious (Christianity)…,” whereas in France he almost always saw, “…the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions.”

 Such a small thing is an oath, but when taken, it defines the person who swears by the words — the promise. Is there still hope for our fading Republic? Is hope possible when oaths no longer hold to truth and the words “…so help me God” have no meaning to those swearing?

 Belief in God, a future accounting for the lies and actions of today, heaven or hell, hangs  just below the promise, the oath. When the people no longer believe in God, then the truth no longer exists in the peoples’ minds, and the oath has no meaning and becomes  unnecessary to public life.

 We appear to be in a transitional period, having departed from Republic governance, now well into a Socialist Democracy, we are on the road to fascism. To quote Benjamin Franklin, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

 Is there hope for a return to governance under the Constitution, to oaths under God? Saving the Republic? Is it possible to return to a government…. of the people, by the people, for the people?

 There are signs; the people have awakened from their apathy. Let’s hope it’s not too late.

 Other articles that you may enjoy

• September 4, 2009 — Van Jones mystery solved? (0)
• January 23, 2009 — Obama press aide gets bashed in debut (0)
• February 6, 2009 — CBO: Obama plan damages our economy (0)
• August 14, 2009 — Is Ron Paul the last relevant Republican in Washington? (0)
• November 10, 2009 — The Health Care bill Americans don’t want (1)

Article taken from SmallGovTimes.com – http://www.smallgovtimes.com
URL to article: http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2010/03/death-of-the-oath-and-republic/

 

Using “reconciliation” to smash through unpopular legislation

Posted By Neal Boortz On March 4, 2010 (6:28 am) In Voices and Choices

While Barack Obama didn’t explicitly say it, he opened the door for Democrats to use reconciliation to pass healthcare reform. And that is exactly what they intend to do. Obama says:

“[N]o matter which approach you favor, I believe the United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. We have debated this issue thoroughly, not just for a year, but for decades. Reform has already passed the House with a majority. It has already passed the Senate with a supermajority of sixty votes. And now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that was cast on welfare reform, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, COBRA health coverage for the unemployed, and both Bush tax cuts — all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple majority … I have therefore asked leaders in both of Houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks.”

Never mind the .. dare I say it .. hypocrisy surrounding this approach. Here is not one but four different examples of Obama demagoguing the use of reconciliation.

CBS Interview 11/2/04
My understanding of the Senate is that you need 60 votes to get something significant to happen, which means that Democrats and Republicans have to ask the question, do we have the will to move an American agenda forward, not a Democratic or Republican agenda forward?

Change to Win Convention 9/25/07
The bottom line is that our healthcare plans are similar, the question once again is, who can get it done? Who can build a movement for change? This is an area where we’re going to have to have a 60% majority in the Senate and the House in order to actually get a bill to my desk. We’re going to have to have a majority to get a bill to my desk. That is not just a fifty plus one majority.

Obama Interview with the Concord Monitor 10/9/07
You’ve got to break out of what I call the sort of fifty plus one pattern of presidential politics. Maybe you eke out a victory of fifty plus one. Then you can’t govern. You know, you get Air Force One, there are a lot of nice perks, but you can’t deliver on healthcare. We are not going to pass universal health care with a fifty plus one strategy.

Center for American Progress Conference 7/12/06
Those big-ticket items: fixing our health care system. You know, one of the arguments that sometimes I get with my fellow progressives, and some of these have flashed up in the blog communities on occasion, is this notion that we should function sort of like Karl Rove where we identify our core base, we throw ‘em red meat, we get a fifty plus one victory. See, Karl Rove doesn’t need a broad consensus because he doesn’t believe in government. If we want to transform the country, though, that requires a sizeable majority.

And then lest we forget this from Robert Byrd in 2005. When Republicans wanted to use reconciliation to stop the Democrat filibuster of Bush judicial nominees, Robert Byrd compared the strategy to Nazi tactics. Seriously!Here’s what he had to say back then:

Many times in our history we have taken up arms to protect a minority against the tyrannical majority in other lands. We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini’s Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men.

But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends. Historian Alan Bullock writes that Hitler’s dictatorship rested on the constitutional foundation of a single law, the Enabling Law. Hitler needed a two-thirds vote to pass that law, and he cajoled his opposition in the Reichstag to support it. Bullock writes that “Hitler was prepared to promise anything to get his bill through, with the appearances of legality preserved intact.” And he succeeded.

Hitler’s originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions, in modern conditions, are carried out with, and not against, the power of the State: the correct order of events was first to secure access to that power and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal.

Please, folks; if you won’t fight for your liberty, how about fighting for the future of your children and grandchildren.

Other articles that you may enjoy

• June 5, 2009 — Blame America’s parents for this mess (0)
• September 5, 2009 — Labor Day celebrated across the US (1)
• November 2, 2009 — AP sources: House health bill totals $1.2 trillion (0)
• January 5, 2010 — US revoking Visas after Detroit airliner incident (0)
• May 18, 2007 — Why are they lying about Ron Paul? (2)

Article taken from SmallGovTimes.com – http://www.smallgovtimes.com
URL to article: http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2010/03/using-reconciliation-to-smash-through-unpopular-legislation/

 

Congress freezes its own pay

Posted By Ron Paul On May 3, 2010 (10:13 am) In Voices and Choices

Last week Congress did something fiscally responsible. It’s not very often I can say that. Granted, it was small in the grand scheme of things, but I was glad to be an original cosponsor, along with Congressman Harry Mitchell of Arizona, of a bill to block the automatic pay raise that Congress otherwise receives every year. Every Member of Congress gets this raise unless it is expressly voted down. For the second year in a row Congress has voted to freeze its own pay, which, in a time of skyrocketing deficits and high unemployment, is the very least Congress can do.

The country is in a serious recession, bordering on depression. Unemployment is grossly underreported, and not likely to get better anytime soon. American citizens and businesses are overtaxed, yet tax revenues still fall far short of our government’s voracious appetite for spending. This is no time to raise taxes. And since congressional salaries come from tax revenue, allowing ourselves a raise would fly in the face of economic reality.

Of course, Congress ignores economic reality all the time. But if Congress can freeze salaries as a first step towards fiscal sanity, it can freeze- if not drastically cut- a vast array of federal expenditures.

At the very least, Congress could freeze current spending levels, instead of constantly increasing them. We could stop increasing the debt ceiling every few months, as has become our habit. We could freeze regulations that add to the burden on our struggling small businesses. We could freeze intrusive bailouts that upset the balance of the market and cost us billions – billions we could instead use to eliminate the oppressive income tax! We could freeze the money supply and stave off the tsunami of inflation the Fed has been generating for years.

Furthermore, we could address the mismanagement and waste in foreign affairs which adds immensely to our budget. Like entitlements, militarism is expensive. We need to reject sanctions as a precursor to military action, and embrace free trade as the most effective method for spreading liberty. After all, as the great economist Frederic Bastiat said – when goods don’t cross borders, armies will. It is time to bring our troops home, instead of instigating expensive new wars when we’re already hopelessly mired in several conflicts already. We need to rethink the whole idea of pre-emptive war- not only because it’s wrong and counterproductive, but because we literally cannot afford it!

We could do much to restore fiscal sanity to this country simply by stopping the madness and bringing our troops home – from Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Japan, Germany, and so many other places. This costly global empire does not serve the interests of the American people and we should end it peacefully and voluntarily now, lest it end in chaos later.

Though it may be wishful thinking on my part, I’m encouraged by the small step taken by Congress last week. Fiscal sanity can begin with a small step, and I want to encourage Congress to move in this direction.

Other articles that you may enjoy

• July 14, 2009 — US budget deficit tops $1 trillion (0)
• January 23, 2009 — Geithner accused of lying about tax cheating (0)
• March 19, 2010 — White House pushing amnesty and national ID cards (0)
• February 16, 2010 — Are US taxpayers bailing out Greece? (0)
• January 17, 2010 — Not exactly Mother Teresa (0)

Article taken from SmallGovTimes.com – http://www.smallgovtimes.com
URL to article: http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2010/05/congress-freezes-its-own-pay/

 

Ron Paul leads charge to halt Congressional pay raise

Posted By Steve Adcock On May 3, 2010 (6:33 am) In Voices and Choices

For the third consecutive year, Congressional pay raises have been halted due in part to a charge lead by Representative Ron Paul and Arizona Rep. Harry Mitchell, arguing that Congressional pay raises are not appropriate while Americans continue to struggle.

Texas Representative Ron Paul 

“We should not be padding our pocketbooks when our constituents are still tightening their belts and losing their jobs,” stated Ron Paul. “As well, we could continue with this symbolic first step and stop increasing taxes, expanding the federal budget, and spreading our military so thin. These additional measures would do much to begin our economic recovery.”

The move will save American taxpayers $850,000 next year. The base pay for members of Congress stands at $174,000 with Congressional leaders earning more. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi earns $223,500.

Pay raises for Congress in the midst of economic uncertainty are clearly unpopular, and some members of Congress are taking the pay raise halt one step further. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona wants to cut Congressional pay next year by $8,700.  Former Rep. Nathan Deal proposed a plan that will slash pay for members of Congress each year the government runs a deficit.  Rep. Darrell Issa supports getting rid of the automatic pay increase entirely and instead opting for an “independent commission” that manages Congressional salaries, including raises.

In Congress, pay raises are automatically applied unless voted down by members of the Senate and House. This year, the Senate was first to vote down their pay raise, followed by the House.  The measure still needs to be signed by President Obama.

Other articles that you may enjoy

• October 12, 2009 — $96 million to move horses from west to east (0)
• January 1, 2009 — Israeli troops mass near Gaza border (0)
• December 21, 2009 — Health care reform: All it takes is borrowed money (1)
• July 30, 2009 — Conyers wants to make health care a Constitutional right (0)
• May 6, 2009 — Large banks continue asking for taxpayer money (0)

Article taken from SmallGovTimes.com – http://www.smallgovtimes.com
URL to article: http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2010/05/ron-paul-leads-charge-to-halt-congressional-pay-raise/

 

Cap-and-Trade treason

Posted By Alan Caruba On April 27, 2010 (6:30 am) In Voices and Choices

If you thought that the way the Obama administration and its cohort of Democrats in Congress rammed through the takeover of the nation’s healthcare system was appalling, prepare to watch the same process applied to Cap-and-Trade. Your government no longer represents you, the voter, the citizen.
 
Cap-and-Trade (H.R. 2454) allegedly is about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but there is no scientific justification for this because there is no “global warming” that requires it, nor is manmade, anthropogenic, generation of carbon dioxide (CO2) a threat to the planet. Just the opposite, everything dies without it; all vegetation and all animal life. Life on Earth would thrive if there was even more CO2.
 
To what end would Congress impose such emission limits when they do not exist throughout China, India, third world “developing” nations, and are being abandoned by European Union nations where the Kyoto Protocol limits have harmed their economies?
 
Global warming has been exposed as a massive hoax and fraud. Why would the United States Senate proceed to enact a bill based on it? In essence, it will make some corporations, utilities, and people very rich and impoverish the rest of us.
 
Having passed the House, the Senate will be handed a huge bill that, like healthcare, few will have read before they vote. It will impose the largest tax the nation has ever seen.
 
The act will bless the various “exchanges” created for the sale and trade of “carbon credits” that have no value whatever. It creates a bubble comparable to the sub-prime mortgage debacle that triggered the 2008 financial crisis and resulting recession.
 
The amount of CO2 will not be reduced because the Earth produces 97% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere. Even then, that amount is the smallest part of the atmosphere that consists of more than 95 percent water vapor!
 
Cap-and-Trade is an act of betrayal because it will destroy the U.S. economy, destroy jobs, and further impoverish Americans in a variety of ways. 
 
The Cap-and-Trade Act that has already passed the House will be put in play by Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, and Joseph Lieberman. It was created in the House by Rep. Henry Waxman and Rep. Edward Markey. They know the bill will set in motion the destruction of the nation whose life’s blood is affordable and abundant energy use.
 
Just as the Obama administration moved swiftly to acquire ownership of General Motors and Chrysler, to take over insurance giant AIG, control one sixth of the nation’s economy through the healthcare act, and is now seeking to expand the regulation of Wall Street, Cap-and-Trade will ensure the destruction of the nation as manufacturing flees to other parts of the world.
 
Beginning one year after enactment, homeowners will not be able to sell their homes without complying with onerous and unnecessary energy and water “efficiency” standards. These standards, moreover, will increase annually. Within five years, 90 percent of the residential market will be controlled by the government.
 
On April 19, the Environmental Protection Agency announced new guidelines for “Energy Star” homes requiring them to increase “efficiency” by 20 percent more than those built to the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code. Home ownership, already the largest expense for Americans, will be further increased by required upgrades.
 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, in a few years the average cost of energy use to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one will be exempt from energy taxes and you can expect the cost of a gallon of gasoline to rise beyond $4 to European levels.
 
In Europe, industrial carbon quotas have enriched the continent’s biggest energy users such as steel and cement makers. Their surplus carbon permits, often provided for free, are estimated to be worth more than $4 billion at current market rates by 2012. There is no scientific justification for them.
 
It will be the U.S. government that will determine who receives the initial free “carbon credits”, thus giving corporations that have supported Cap-and-Trade a huge advantage over those who do not. Not only will the government rake in billions from the taxes to be imposed, but utilities will raise their prices and pass it along to consumers. 
 
There is no need whatever to reduce use of so-called “fossil fuels.” There is no need for the “efficiency” and “conservation” measures that will be imposed. If the government would permit access to the nation’s vast reserves of coal, oil and natural gas, none of this would be needed, but it will not.
 
The nation is under attack from within by a consortium of fanatical environmentalists and rent-seeking corporations and utilities seeking to profit from these government mandates and limits.
 
It is the perfect storm. It is treason.
 
Editor’s Note:  Politico.com: (4/24/10) The planned Monday unveiling of a bipartisan climate bill was postponed after one of its three authors, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), said that he couldn’t support the legislation if Democrats moved it to the backburner to focus first on immigration reform. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) announced the postponement Saturday evening, saying that “external issues have arisen that force us to postpone only temporarily.”

 

The FCIC: Passing the buck

Posted By Ron Paul On April 13, 2010 (6:50 am) In Voices and Choices

Last week the federal government’s Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission held hearings as part of their continuing investigation into the causes of the acute economic meltdown which occurred in late summer 2008. This bipartisan commission, partly inspired by the Pecora Commission- which investigated the causes of the Great Depression- is expected to report back to Congress before the end of the year.

Things don’t seem to be going well. The individuals questioned by the commission mostly seem to be diverting blame for the whole fiasco to someone else. Nobody is offering any tangible insights into the causes of the financial crisis.

Predictably, the commission will avoid calling any witnesses who might unequivocally indict the federal government for its role in the crisis, or suggest solutions which take away government power. Government commissions have a remarkable tendency to recommend granting even more power to the same useless government agencies that so utterly fail to prevent crises in the first place. We saw this with the Pecora Commission, we saw it after 9-11, and we’re seeing it again today with regard to financial regulations. For example, this latest commission almost certainly will suggest granting more power to the SEC, when in fact the SEC should be abolished as an embarrassing farce. Rest assured that this recommendation will be made without apology or sense of irony.

The reality is that the Federal Reserve relentlessly expanded the money supply through artificially low interest rates for over two decades, and this expansion of easy money caused a wholly predictable bubble. To a myopic Keynesian regulator, the bubble may appear to be caused by greed, but in truth it is completely predictable that humans will act in their own perceived self interest. If the Fed wants to dole out artificially cheap money, people and businesses- including Wall Street businesses- will line up to take it. We can condemn this as greed, but the fundamental problem is Fed policy itself. There will always be demand for cheap money, but we should not allow the Fed to debase our currency and create bubbles of false prosperity to satisfy that demand.

What the commission really needs are experts who understand free market economics rather than big government Keynesian fantasies. The commission has none of these, and has called no true free market witnesses. That perspective would only distract from their predetermined goals.

The commission will bemoan the complexity and inscrutability of our economic problems, but the solution is simple: allow freedom to operate in our markets. Allow U.S. financial, labor, and housing markets to normalize without political interference. Though solution is simple, and rather obvious, it would not be easy or painless, but we’d be so much better off for it in the long run. It would require admitting fiat money is a tangled web of monetary deception prone to catastrophic failure. It would require allowing Americans to choose a system of sound money, where the money supply and interest rates are set by market forces rather than centralized economic planners. Unfortunately, fiat money is like a drug to a Congress hopelessly addicted to spending vastly more than the Treasury collects in revenues. Because of this, our problems can only get worse and more complex before they get better.

 

4 of 5 Americans distrustful of D.C. government

Posted By Steve Adcock On April 19, 2010 (6:53 am) In Top Page News

SOUTHERN ARIZONA – Although the American people continue to re-elect largely the same Congress every election cycle, a Pew Research Center survey found that 4 out of 5 Americans, or 80%, do not trust Washington D.C.

“Trust in government rarely gets this low,” said Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center. “Some of it’s backlash against Obama. But there are a lot of other things going on.”

“The survey illustrates the ominous situation President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party face as they struggle to maintain their comfortable congressional majorities in this fall’s elections,” wrote the Associated Press.  ”This anti-government feeling has driven the tea party movement, reflected in fierce protests this past week.”

Democrats and Republicans alike are growing increasingly frustrated with Washington D.C. and career politicians.  ”The government’s been lying to people for years. Politicians make promises to get elected, and when they get elected, they don’t follow through,” a Democrat voter who joined the Tea Party rally on “Tax Day”, April 15th.  She wants government out of her business, and concedes Obama is doing nothing to help fix the problem.

 

The land of diminishing returns

Posted By Steve Adcock On April 5, 2010 (11:45 am) In Top Page News

Michael Barone wrote an excellent piece in the Washington Examiner yesterday that indicates young people, who had previously thrown their support behind Barack Obama in fairly large numbers, may be realizing the magnitude of their mistake.

When people actually begin to pay attention, you know it is bad.

“The Pew Research Center’s poll of the millennial generation, which voted 66 to 32 percent for Obama in 2008, found that they identify with Democrats over Republicans by only a 54 to 40 percent margin this year,” he wrote.

“Perhaps they are coming to realize that the burdens the Obama policies are placing on the private sector economy are reducing their choices for the future.”

As Obama and Congress continue to pound home the idea that success in this country is something to be punished, so goes the desire to strive for bigger and better things among our younger population – heck, among our entire population.

There is a quite significant reason why unemployment continues to flirt with double digits.  The policies from Washington that punish success and reward underachievement are archaic job killers.  They fundamentally destroy the natural desire to work hard and succeed.  They remove the very motivation that most people need to make their societies and communities a great place to live – for better or worse.

I reported recently that the public sector is alive and well, while the private sector continues to struggle.  The government is systematically developing an environment where government is the entity that provides for the livelihood of Americans.  This includes the recent passage of nationalized health care, and certainly includes the collective implementation of an environment that strangles private sector investment and enhances areas for government bureaucracy.  This is accomplished through excessive taxation, scores of rules and mountains of bureaucracy that do nothing but cost businesses money – costs that those businesses ultimately pass on to the consumer.

CNN reported recently that even many Democrats, disgruntled with the heavy hand of our government, are beginning to join the much-maligned tea party movement.  When you see people from both ends of the political spectrum banding together to fight back against obscene government encroachments into the lives of the American people, then you know firsthand how serious the situation is.  When people actually begin to pay attention, you know it is bad.

As popular radio talk show host Neal Boortz likes to write, how’s that hopey changey thing working out for you?

 

Supporting the War instead of the troops

Posted By Ron Paul On March 15, 2010 (9:16 am) In Voices and Choices

Last week, Congress debated a resolution directing the President to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan no later than the end of this year.  The Constitution gives the power to declare war to the Congress, so it is clearly appropriate for Congress to assert its voice on matters of armed conflict. In recent decades, however, Congress has defaulted on this most critical duty, essentially granting successive presidents the unilateral (and clearly unconstitutional) power to begin and end wars at will.  This resolution was not expected to pass; however, the ensuing debate and floor vote served some very important purposes.

First, it was important to finally have an actual floor debate on the merits and demerits of continuing our involvement in the conflict in Afghanistan.  Most congressional action regarding Afghanistan has concerned continued funding for the conflict.  Thus, members of Congress have cloaked their support for an increasingly unpopular war in terms of financial support of the troops.  But last week’s resolution had nothing to do with funding or defunding the war, but rather dealt directly with the wisdom of an open-ended commitment of U.S. troops (and hundreds of billions of tax dollars) in Afghanistan.  Members opposing the resolution had to make their case for the ongoing loss of American lives as well as the huge expenditures required for an intractable conflict.

In my opinion, this was an impossible case to make.

Supporters of the war made the same intellectually weak arguments for continuing our occupation of a nation with a long and bloody history of resisting foreign occupation.  Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution.  Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us.  This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.

The War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973 in the aftermath of Vietnam.  It was intended to prevent presidents from slipping this country so easily into unwinnable wars, wars with indistinct enemies and vague goals.  Unfortunately, it has had the opposite effect by literally legalizing undeclared wars for 90 days.  In the case of Afghanistan, 90 days has stretched into nearly a decade.  The original purpose of the initial authorization of force – to pursue those responsible for the attacks on September 11 – is no longer applicable.  Al Qaeda has left Afghanistan; we are now pursuing the Taliban, who never attacked us.  The Taliban certainly are not our friends, but the more of them we kill, the more their ranks grow and the stronger they become.  Meanwhile, we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan and accelerating our plunge toward national bankruptcy.  Whose interests do we serve by continuing this exercise in futility?

Osama Bin Laden has said many times that his strategy was to bankrupt America, by forcing us into protracted fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan.  The Soviet Union learned this lesson the hard way; and ultimately was forced to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan in defeat and humiliation.  This same fate may await us unless we rethink our policy and resist any escalation of our military efforts in Afghanistan.  Our troops should be used for defending our country, making us safer and stronger at home- not for occupying foreign nations with no real strategy or objective.

 

Paul’s Federal Reserve audit under consideration in Senate

Posted By Steve Adcock On March 15, 2010 (6:43 am) In Voices and Choices

In legislation that Texas Representative Ron Paul has attempted to get through Congress for a number of years, his proposal that would require an GAO audit of the nation’s Federal Reserve is pending inclusion into a financial reform bill in the Senate.

Paul’s D.C. office said they are hopeful that the bill will be officially included by the end of next week.

Paul’s “Audit the Fed” legislation has already been approved by the House of Representatives last year and is awaiting passage in the Senate.  The bill would require the audit’s findings to be presented to Congress and be made publicly available.

“With unprecedented turmoil in the financial markets, the people are demanding to know and understand the extent of the Federal Reserve’s involvement in the creation of out-of-control business cycles, who they are helping, and how,” Paul argued shortly before his bill’s passage in the House.

Federal Reserve officials and some legislators, who are used to operating under a cloak of secrecy, are naturally opposed to the move to open up the Fed’s system of accountability.  “Legislators supporting secrecy and more power for the Fed are wildly out of touch with the nation and their constituents, not to mention the Constitution,” wrote Alex Newman for the New American magazine.

“Congress should swiftly audit the Fed. And after the American people find out what has been going on, it should be promptly abolished.”