I go to the ‘Values Voter Summit’ so you don’t have to

October 27, 2007

Guest Post by Morbo

The Carpetbagger did a great job writing about the “Values Voter Summit” last weekend. Since I live in the D.C. area, I decided to stop by in person. I didn’t attend every session, and I missed some of the speeches (including Mitt Romney). But I did sit through a banquet honoring Focus on the Family Founder James C. Dobson. Yes, I am a glutton for punishment.

I’d like to make a few observations about the following individuals:

Mike Huckabee: I’ve never cared much for Huckabee, but I do acknowledge that he used to at least pretend to be a different kind of conservative. He would speak out against legal abortion, but then gently chide conservative Christians for not being concerned about the plight of the poor. He even flirted with the nanny state, talking about his weight loss and urging government to do more to help people eat healthier.

No more. The Huckabee on display at this event did not nothing but toss out huge chunks of raw meat. When I hear a presidential candidate advocating things like abolishing the IRS, slapping around the United Nations and impeaching federal judges who cite foreign law, I know we’re on a one-way road to Pandertown. It was embarrassing.

Danae Dobson: Dobson’s daughter delivered a tribute to him during the banquet — kind of. She seemed to damn him with faint praise. She mentioned seeing the popular YouTube video of actor David Hasselhoff, drunk out of his mind, trying to eat a hamburger off the floor. She said she was glad her dad was not like that. I think we’re all glad not to have “The Hoff” for a dad, but isn’t that setting the bar awfully low?

Danae also said she’s glad Ted Haggard is not her dad. She mentioned seeing a photo of Haggard’s wife looking devastated. I guess it never occurred to her to reach out to the woman or offer Christian compassion. All she could think was, “I’m glad my dad didn’t have a gay affair with a prostitute!” Again, the bar here is low. (And remember, her dad was too busy to help Ted become “completely heterosexual” — yet these folks are the “compassionate conservatives”?)

Judge Robert Bork: Remember this madman? He’s still around, still extremely scary and still very, very bitter about that business 20 years ago. He assured everyone that if U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton gets in, it’s going to be 24-hour free abortions and same-sex marriage for everyone. (I wonder if we can get them combined under one roof for maximum convenience?) Listening to Bork rant and seeing his face distorted into a twisted mask of rage, I could only conclude that Halloween had come early. I wish Nelson Muntz had walked in, pointed at him and said, “Ha, ha! Your effort to get on the high court was rejected!” To all who had a hand in that in bringing about that rejection, I can only say, “THANK YOU!”

William Bennett: The former Education Secretary and “drug czar” attacked U.S. Sen. Barack Obama for not wearing a flag pin on his lapel. At the time he unleashed this attack, Bennett himself was not wearing a flag pin on his lapel.

Fred Thompson: I had heard he was not so good on the stump, but I was unprepared for how much Thompson reeked. A guy behind me actually groaned when Thompson finished speaking. At one point, I had to wonder if Thompson was on cold medication or something. Thompson insisted on dragging his trophy wife and young kids on stage with him. This only made it worse, as Thompson looked like he should be the kids’ grandpa. I imagined Thompson getting down on the floor to play with the kids — and being unable to get back up. I sure hope he has one of those bracelets you can use to summon help. I’d like to think that Thompson stinks so much that we don’t have to worry about him getting the GOP nomination and the presidency – but one look at who’s sitting in the White House now should dispel that.

Alan Keyes: The human dynamo that is Alan Keyes was not invited to speak at this event, which annoyed me. It’s like they don’t believe he’s a serious candidate!

Gil Mertz: This guy is an employee of the Family Research Council. He acted as emcee during the conference. At one point, Paul Weyrich spoke. Weyrich had some serious medical problems a few years ago, and both of his legs have been amputated. He uses a motorized wheelchair to get around. As Weyrich left the stage, Mertz noted that he was tired from standing all day and wondered if he could catch a ride. You know, that did not strike me as funny.

Ron Paul: Wow! I had never heard Ron Paul speak before. I was really impressed. His maverick views and bold vision inspired me and made me realize that Paul is the only candidate in this race with even a shred of integrity. Just kidding! Ron Paul is a caveman whose very existence is an insult to modern ideas of governance. To the members of his cult, I can only say this: Please understand that Ron Paul is a certifiable lunatic who will never, ever be elected to any office higher than the House seat he currently holds. (I apologize in advance to the Carpetbagger for stirring up Paul’s trolls. I just can’t help myself. They get so angry and send such amusing messages — until their moms make them get off the internet.)

Lee Greenwood: Lee Greenwood performed during the tribute to Dobson, offering up six or seven numbers ranging from schmaltzy pop to jingoistic militarism. (Can you guess what song he closed with?) I have a request for help. For the past week, I’ve had Greenwood’s putrid rendition of “Please Come to Boston” stuck in my head and am considering drastic measures. Short of trepanation, does anyone have a cure for this?

One final thought: I’d like to give a shout-out to Lambda Rising, an iconic gay bookstore not far from the Hilton Washington, where the Values Voter Summit took place. Walking by the store during a break Saturday afternoon, I was amused to see a sign in the window reading, “Attention, Values Voters! Show your badge and get 20 percent off.” It’s good to know that the entrepreneurial spirit lives, and my guess is that most of the guys from the “ex-gay” ministry booth were down there the minute the conference ended.

People who voted for the Patriot Act are “certifiable lunatics.” But they need all the Democratic support they can get.

  • Dear Morbo,

    I am giving you what you want. I am a Ron Paul supporter (troll) and we are going to own this message board. Here is why: There are more of us than there are of you. Every time Ron Paul speaks our movement grow in numbers because the truth is addictive. Every time Ron Paul speaks there become less cynical people such as yourself. Thank you for further energizing our cause.

    Peter

  • I’ve heard Bork speak before; he’s like a really demented Borg who freebases on steroids and the stuff they scrape from the Sani-Flush mixing vats on clean-out day. Yeah—he’s THAT vile a person. It takes a very special kind of human to just invite him to an event, let alone to speak at that event. Dr. Mengele comes to mind….

    UnAware Fred is clearly unaware that the longer he spends trolling with his pathetic performance on the campaign trail, the less likely he’ll ever work again in the acting business. Well—unless someone makes one of those apocalyptic, post-nuclear, Road-Warrior-genre movies. He could portray all the incinerated corpes….

    As for the Ron Paul cult, maybe they could just all get together in one place, hunker down, and wait for a fiery annihilation-event. Death Valley would be nice. We could even fence them in—they have sort of a “fence fetish,” I’m told….

  • Your blog is proof that anyone with at least moron mentality and $3 a month for hosting can have an e-pinion.

    You qualify on both counts. Congrats, moron. I’ll donate $3 so you can keep it going another month.

  • Good post, Morbo. Don’t let the trolls get you down.

    I think that you were a bit tough on Ron Paul, though. Sounds like he was one of the saner people speaking at the Value Voters Summit. But of course that isn’t saying much.

  • Yep, Ron Paul is lunatic! Listen to these crazy ideas:

    – Eliminate wasteful gov’t spending
    – Balance the budget
    – Institute sound money policies that will reel in inflation and return value to the dollar
    – Secure our borders
    – Not bow to lobbyists or special interest groups
    – End the needless war in Iraq and focus our defense at home and in Afghanistan (you know, where the actual perpetrators of 9/11 are located, that’s insane!)
    – Implement a noninterventionist foreign policy that will 1. Save us oodles of money (newsflash, we’re bankrupt!) and 2. actually address the root of the problem with radical islam’s hatred for us (the fact that we occupy their soil and holy lands. How do I know this? They’ve said so!)

    These ideas are so far out there that it makes my head want to explode. I’d much rather maintain the status quo, go further and further into debt, spend trillions of dollar that we don’t have to fight in Iraq because…..well I don’t know why but I’m sure there’s a good reason!, and watch the value of the dollar continue to plummet. I thoroughly enjoy the fact that today it takes $1.53 to buy what only cost $1 in 2002. Isn’t that great!

  • William Bennett: The former Education Secretary and “drug czar” attacked U.S. Sen. Barack Obama for not wearing a flag pin on his lapel. At the time he unleashed this attack, Bennett himself was not wearing a flag pin on his lapel.

    I understand that Bennett once has a diamond, ruby and sapphire flag lapel pin. Unfortunately, he had to sell it to pay off a gambling debt.

    BTW, this was an hilarious post. Thanks.

  • Pingback: race42008.com » Blog Archive » Race 4 2008 Evening Essential Reads

  • He assured everyone that if U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton gets in, it’s going to be 24-hour free abortions and same-sex marriage for everyone

    But with all the gay marriage, who’s getting pregnant? I suppose as a liberal the best solution is to artificially inseminate all the lesbian couples, so they can get that abortion all liberal women really crave. Hey! Maybe we can implant uteruses (uterii?) into all the men, and artificially inseminate us, and then we can get abortions too! What a wonderful world awaits us under President Clinton.

    Oh, and Paulites? Your guy has a wide stance, and plays foot-tapping games with the patriot movement. If elected President, he would do more damage to our country than even George Bush, and he would embolden a nakedly racist and retrograde faction of our country. You’re a bunch of idiots for supporting him. I only thank goodness that Paul has a 0% chance of winning.

  • TF said:

    Yep, Ron Paul is lunatic! Listen to these crazy ideas:

    – Eliminate wasteful gov’t spending
    – Balance the budget
    – Institute sound money policies that will reel in inflation and return value to the dollar
    – Secure our borders
    – Not bow to lobbyists or special interest groups
    – End the needless war in Iraq and focus our defense at home and in Afghanistan (you know, where the actual perpetrators of 9/11 are located, that’s insane!)
    – Implement a noninterventionist foreign policy that will 1. Save us oodles of money (newsflash, we’re bankrupt!) and 2. actually address the root of the problem with radical islam’s hatred for us (the fact that we occupy their soil and holy lands. How do I know this? They’ve said so!)

    These examples make so much sense. Thanks for giving me a taste of Ron Paul’s political stance. I did some research and found that Ron is the only individual running for President that seems to understand the Constitution. With Mr. Paul we will be following the rule of Law the founders established instead of an individual with their own agendas which is what all of the other candidates have to offer. It only makes sense to follow a set of rules established for the rights of all individuals instead of the policy of individual human beings who each have their own personal goals. Democracy means rule by the people and the Constitution is the best document to allow us to rule ourselves.

    Thanks TF for opening my eyes.

    SR

  • TF’s spot on. I used to have absolutely zero interest in politics, all the candidates spew the same old junk about more spending for more stuff that we don’t need. They’d all flip their positions just to get applause. Ron Paul’s been standing on things for as long as I can remember. I used to support getting rid of Saddam, because someone had to do it, but as I realized the rest of the world was just going to let us foot the bill and call us belligerent jackasses, it was a stupid thing to assume we can just get rid of every dictator in the world. We can’t afford it.

    You guys just call him a ‘moonbat’ and a lunatic because you’re going with the flow. How’s Romney going to solve the debt? He’s going to bomb Iran, and /Ron Paul/ is the nutcase? Wide-stance? Foot-tapping games? He’s been solid on his positions for 30 years. All of the candidates are going to plunge us further than Bush has. They’re not going to fix crap, and you all know it. Paul’s the only possible candidate that’ll save our asses. Romney’s going to ruin us, as will every Republican candidate that isn’t Paul. Hillary’s pretty much a Republican running on a Democratic ticket, they think she’s anti-war when she’s for going after Iran, too!

    We aren’t the moonbats. The status-quo-er’s are the fools.

  • You have every right to bash Ron Paul, but here’s some advice on attack points; don’t you think that after 5 million dollars raised, the 2 million in the past three weeks, and well, the rallies with 1,500 – 2,000 people, the whole “they’re just internet spammers in their mom’s basement” thing doesn’t really work anymore? Well, actually, the lame and moronic collectivism didn’t really work at any time in the first place, but you know what I’m saying. Technically, all the top tier supporters are the internet losers on their mom’s computers. After all, why aren’t they voting at straw polls, why aren’t they holding rallies, why aren’t they actively showing support for their candidate? It must be because they have no lives.

    It’s an amazing thing that the youth finally get in politics, that people once apathetic to the political wasteland can get involved in the process, and that people from all sides of the political spectrum can put aside their differences and get involved. After all, probably the biggest problem this country is facing is the lack of civic involvement, if not involvement at all, and when people finally get involved, they have to get pigeonholed with moronic labels by idiotic hack bloggers like yourself who desperately want to get more hitpoints by tagging “Ron Paul”.

  • Mr. Morbo’s comments made me understand Ron Paul is a certifiable lunatic who will never. Morbo’s clear and consise arguments made so much sense to me that I will now vote for Rudolph Guiliani, who is obviously the clear favorite of the American people, and as the old adage goes, if everyone else is jumping off a cliff you had better jump yourself!

    Or maybe in reality Morbo’s comments hold no political discussion besides some out and out name calling. The closest he came to anything with intellectual weight was, “modern ideas of governance.” I would remind Mr. Morbo those so-called modern ideas are actually very ancient. So ancient in fact there is a word for them, “Tyranny.” And Ron Paul’s “caveman” ideas are actually from the Age of Enlightenment, circa 1776.

  • Randy (#13):

    They’re not going to fix crap, and you all know it. Paul’s the only possible candidate that’ll save our asses.

    Let me start with the assumption that Ron Paul is the best candidate on the substance of his positions (which is a huge stretch, because his views on the Federal Reserve and gold standard are impossible to implement in a modern economy without the economy grinding to a horrific halt in the process).

    And let me also start with the assumption that Ron Paul is the only one who really has any fundamental interest in changing the status quo among all of the candidates running.

    And finally let me assume that Ron Paul is the one candidate among the many who rejects the unitary executive, and would engage in the least abuse of Presidential fiat.

    Now, Randy, you say that only Ron Paul will make the needed changes. But that would require extraordinary leadership – presumably you would agree that the intertia in DC for the status quo is a powerful force. Good intentions and wishful thinking are not enough – can the Paulites show me examples of Paul’s successful leadership in Congress? What major legislative accomplishments has he driven through? What major changes has he led in moving his own party aware from corruption, stagnation and gridlock? What leadership positions has he risen to? What broad, successful governing coalitions has he managed to assemble?

    If he can’t do it there, why should we believe he can do it as President — particularly if he is the least likely to use “executive force”? His ideas are the most radical – the biggest threat to the status quo. So how will he get those who are invested in the inertia (i.e. Congress, the Courts, the civil service, the military brass, the semi-autonomous governmental entities, the major donors and economic operators) to play ball?

    There was another Presidential candidate who swore to do things differently than how Washington did business. He would solve the budget problems by zero-basing every line item every year (sounds great!) He would ignore the entrenched old-boy network and bring in technocrats in a strict meritocracy (oughta work wonders!) He would be above ethical reproach (we need that in DC!) Amazingly, Jimmy Carter got elected, brought in his own team of outsiders. . . and totally floundered in large part because neither party in Congress was willing to work on his terms. How will Ron Paul avoid the same fate?

    Absent answers to these questions, even with the benefit of my very generous opening assumptions, Ron Paul and his supporters are either (a) naively p*ssing into the wind or (b) knowingly selling the disaffected a nonsensical bill of goods.

    I’m all ears for some real answers, not just slogans and giddy optimism.

  • Just another RP troll here.

    I beg to differ on your innacurate observations of who his supporters are, they are as diverse as our country’s population.

    I smell fear.

    I don’t live in parent’s basement, I actually bought the house my parents live in. Thats right, I am wealthy and would like to stay that way. I would rather not work for the criminal federal government till July every year. I am near the point of revoking my consent!

    I guess we will see who the crazies are come primary…lol

    Death to the Empire, Long Live the Republic!

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

  • One thing is pretty certain – the people want a change from what they have been subjected to for the last 7 years; a 24% approval rating is not an endorsement for more of the same.

    But Zeitgeist is right – where is Ron Paul’s leadership on these issues? With the Democratic contenders, at least those in the Congress during the Bush presidency have been in the minority for much of that time, and effectively prevented from being heard or being any kind of force for change (and lest anyone think I am giving them a pass for the last year – I’m not. I think CLinton and Obama particularly have failed to take advantage of their positions in the Senate to be the leaders they claim they are). But Ron Paul was in the majority party for all but the last year – where has he been? Why hasn’t he been able to corral his fellow representatives to advance his positions?

    I think most of his plans for this country are, well, just this side of insane. Taken as a whole, I think they would reduce the country to a collection of gun-toting, home-schooled, pro-life vigilantes, totally isolated from the world.

    Sorry – not the America I’m looking to be a part of. And I suspect this is the reason his plans have not gained much traction in his years in Congress – we have more sense than that.

  • I apologize in advance to the Carpetbagger for stirring up Paul’s trolls. I just can’t help myself. They get so angry and send such amusing messages — until their moms make them get off the internet.

    Morbo, you are prescient. Perhaps we should worship you for you soothsaying powers.

  • I have come from cyberspace to punish you. I am not worried about my mom getting me of the internet (she’s back in the USA with my family). I’m with our Navy. Where are you?

    There is a reason Dr. Ron Paul has received more money from the military than any other candidate–and it’s not because he’s nuts. Its because he makes sense. Our current situation, where we are deployed in over 130 countries with no intent to leave and are waging a war in which there is no one to surrender to us, is untenable in the long term. Ron Paul’s other messages make sense too–he says he wants to let freedom ring and return to following our Constitution and the advice of our Founding Fathers. If this makes him crazy and his followers cultists, I guess I’m a crazy cultist too.

    Let me be clear. I am a patriot. Being a patriot means you love your country and what is best for it–not that you support war without end, or the status quo of our governing system.

    I am a career Naval officer who has been politically neutral for my entire life, but voting for Ron Paul is about voting for America and our Constitution, which I took an oath to preserve! I am now supporting Dr. Ron Paul with my wallet—and my heart.

  • You and your ilk are why this nation is turning sour. Your opinion of Ron Paul is just that. an opinion. I am not in a cult, I’m an American. I’m 35, and I changed my D status to R just so I could vote for RP. I pay taxes & own my own home just barely. As for living in a basement – yes. I rent out the 3 bedrooms on the top half of my house so I can pay my bills since the government taxes me to the point I want to throw up. Give me a bag Morbo, I’m about to hurl.

  • So Theresa, your government taxes you what. . . 25% at the federal level (which is what is relevant to Paul)? And that is, oh, half of what the federal government taxed your parents when you were born?

    It seems that as the nominal individual marginal income rate drops (like a rock, since the 1950s) all it does is feeds the mentality of entitlement to make no contribution to the good of the community, of the country as a whole. It is encouraging selfishness.

    But when that marginal tax rate was much higher we had miniscule federal debt. College tuition was affordable. We didn’t suffer speculative real estate booms and busts. Hmmm. . . . what are you so sick to your stomach about again?

    (Sorry to hear about that throwing up, by the way, but I sure hope you have private insurance for it. A hyper-expensive health care system that is accessibly affordable to all requires more taxes than we currently pay.)

  • zeitgeist,

    Thank you for your well-reasoned concern. Actually, Congressional Quarterly selected Ron Paul for their list of the _50 Most Effective Members of Congress_. It is difficult to introduce bills and get them passed as a lowly House member; it’s much easier as a Senator (there are only 100 senators vs. 435 House members; for that and other reasons as well, Senators are just more powerful). However, Rep. Paul has sponsored bills that actually got out of committee, received votes, and made it all the way through the legislative process, finally getting signed into law. This is even more remarkable considering he has no official leadership position in the House, and, even more importantly, his philosophy disagrees drastically with that of virtually every other member of Congress!

    Ron Paul has, for example, succeeded in getting a bill passed that stopped HUD from seizing a church in New York, and another that transferred ownership of the Lake Texana dam from the feds to Texas.

    Mr. Paul is also very effective in forming alliances with those who hold like views on particular issues. He has the ability of getting congresspeople from both parties to rally together and fight for issues important to liberty. He founded the congressional Liberty Caucus which consists of several congressmen now and is a force for good in the Congress. He is not just a lone voice who doesn’t know how to cooperate and get things done. On the contrary, what is remarkable is that he has been able to cooperate, give real leadership, and make significant achievements in his time as a congressman *without resorting to corruption, cronyism, and abandonment of principle*. Corruption, cronyism, and lack of principles, is gnerally the *only* way to get things done and further your career in Congress. So the fact that Congressman Paul has blazed an entirely different path, and been successful in doing so, is noteworthy.

    I hope that answers your questions at least somewhat, zeitgeist, and if you are interested in more, please research the matter to see for yourself what it is that Mr. Paul has done during his time in Congress.

    I personally think he would make a great president.

  • Zeitgeist said:

    “If he can’t do it there, why should we believe he can do it as President — particularly if he is the least likely to use “executive force”? His ideas are the most radical – the biggest threat to the status quo. So how will he get those who are invested in the inertia (i.e. Congress, the Courts, the civil service, the military brass, the semi-autonomous governmental entities, the major donors and economic operators) to play ball?”

    Zeitgeist you are working on an false premise. You seem to believe that the government should act. As libertarian/constitutionalists we believe that the less the government does the better for everyone. Ron Paul could do nothing in eight years because of an obstinate congress and that would be fine. If he was able to get elected and change the make-up of the House after two years maybe he could get though one good piece of legislation and that would be enough. We are trying to undue hundreds of years of willful misinterpretation of the constitution. We wont be able to do it overnight.

    Here is the important point: Ron Paul, if elected, could immediately recall all of our soldiers from Iraq and elsewhere thus saving countless lives and fortune. This is reason enough to elect the man.

    Peter

  • You seem to believe that the government should act.

    Yep. Because I don’t know about you, but I have never seen a bridge rebuild itself, or a port protect itself, a god knows i wouldn’t want to see an armed population try to police itself, or self-interested airlines try to manage the limited skies safely by themselves. I’ve never known a pharmaceutical company to willingly and honestly disclose its own negative side effects, or a citizen in the middle of a polluted watershed clean up at their own expense the toxins from someone upstream to protect someone downstream. Over millennia, random groups on disorganized but charitable people have had little luck combating poverty and hunger, and it is a little tough for 200 million people to all negotiate with the Belgian ambassador.

    It is a nation and a world with serious, complicated, problems that are expensive to solve and will not necessarily result in a commercial profits for one or more persons or enterprise. Libertarianism presents no serious-minded solutions, just selfish avoidance of the issues.

  • Re: Steve @ #3
    As for the Ron Paul cult, maybe they could just all get together in one place, hunker down, and wait for a fiery annihilation-event.

    With that kind of bigoted remark, you’d fit right in over at redstate. Flush Rimjaughb’s phone lines are open!

  • By the way, Peter, this should cause you some concern about Dr. Paul, given your philosophical inclinations – from CQ (you know, those same folks who rated Paul as effective. . . back in 1999):

    There isn’t much that Rep. Ron Paul of Texas thinks the federal government should do. A self-avowed libertarian, “Dr. No” says he votes against any program he believes is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. As a longshot 2008 Republican presidential candidate, he has promised to get rid of the income tax his first week in the White House.

    Apparently, though, earmarks are okay. According to new disclosure forms the House has just started using, Paul is the sponsor of no fewer than 10 earmarks in the water resources bill that passed the House last month. All would benefit his district, which stretches along the Gulf Coast between Galveston and Corpus Christi.

    His wish list includes two projects to improve the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, at a combined federal cost of roughly $32 million. There’s also the sunken ship Paul wants the feds to remove from Freeport Harbor. And he wants the feds to take charge of maintaining the Pix Bayou Navigation Channel. There’s also a feasibility study for flood, hurricane and storm damage control projects along the coast. And there’s the mysterious “project in the vicinity of Galveston Bay.” (The bill provided no other details.)

    Maybe Paul isn’t so different after all?

  • “Now, Randy, you say that only Ron Paul will make the needed changes. But that would require extraordinary leadership – presumably you would agree that the intertia in DC for the status quo is a powerful force. Good intentions and wishful thinking are not enough – can the Paulites show me examples of Paul’s successful leadership in Congress? What major legislative accomplishments has he driven through? What major changes has he led in moving his own party aware from corruption, stagnation and gridlock? What leadership positions has he risen to? What broad, successful governing coalitions has he managed to assemble?”

    All of the above questions are important, but you are forgetting a VERY important detail. Ron Paul is also known as Dr. No. He has demonstrated time and time again that he has the conviction and the cajones to vote his conscience. A congressman from Texas has only one vote in the House of Representatives. The President of the United States effectively has more than 2/3 of ALL votes in the House of Representatives. Why? The answer is one word: VETO.

    Ron Paul would use the power of the VETO to force Congress to pass legislation that will be in the interests of ALL of the people, not just the special interests. Every piece of legislation that is passed by Congress would have to be done in the context of knowing that at least 2/3 of all of the votes are there sufficient to overide Dr. No’s VETO. In other words, every vote that comes out of Congress will be something that truly represents what nearly the entire Congress wants, not what the special interests want.

    George W. Bush ran on the promise that he would work together with all of the parties because he had demonstrated so-called good leadership in Texas when he was governor. That argument doesn’t go very far any more. Bush has essentially turned his back on the will of the people. He ignores those who disagree with him.

    If you really want change that is good for this country, then it is time to vote for Ron Paul. All of the others running in this race will more or less continue the status quo which seems to be running this county down the tubes. Vote for change. Vote for RON PAUL.

  • Zeitgeist:

    The income tax is actually less than half what it was when my parents were born. Unfortunately the dollar has lost 7/8ths of its value since then (thanks federal reserve, you printing money to fund our seemingly endless wars has inundated the “economy” with so much cash that mine isn’t worth anything anymore) and inflation since 1950 of 761.34% (http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Calculators/). So really, we’re paying a lot more than our parents were. And look what good its done for us! All of the things you mysteriously point out as problems are the very things Ron Paul wants to address. Voting for him sends a message to politicians that the issues he has been fight for all this many years are important to us. And the idea that he wouldn’t be interested in fixing bridges, etc. is so phony you should be ashamed of yourself for even bringing such an idea into the “debate”. He wants the smallest federal government possible, not “no federal government”. Further, saving watersheds would most effectively and economically be handled on the state and local level, and airlines have more interest in making air travel safe than anyone else possibly could. And this comment,

    “Over millennia, random groups on disorganized but charitable people have had little luck combating poverty and hunger…”

    is just hilarious. Sounds like a BS statement to me. Again, let local and state entities decide how important funding poverty and hunger reduction is to them. I live in Ann Arbor, where the taxes are high, but people like it that way, and we’ve got the shiniest new homeless shelter you ever did see. And no protests, and no federal funding! Amazing what like-minded members of a community can do when given a chance. Think what they could do if they had all that income tax money back!

  • I know I’m going to regret jumping into this, but I can’t help myself.

    There is a reason Dr. Ron Paul has received more money from the military than any other candidate

    Here’s a possibility. Military folks have to take orders all day long. They may be responding at a visceral level to a libertarian candidate whose message is get get off my back.

  • You know, I may have been all wrong about this. I mean, Ron Paul as President would be very very good for me. I have much of my 401(k) in a gold and precious metals fund, so if Paul tried to reinstitute “hard money,” why virtually overnight I’d be as rich as. . . George Soros! And then I could put that money into things like political involvement, and maybe health care in Florida that I could later sell. . . and I would end up getting irrationally attacked by hate-mongering Republican talking heads. . . hmmm. . . maybe that’s not such a good outcome. Guess I’ll stick with my current position on Ron Paul.

  • Anne said: “I think most of his plans for this country are, well, just this side of insane. Taken as a whole, I think they would reduce the country to a collection of gun-toting, home-schooled, pro-life vigilantes, totally isolated from the world.”

    I wonder how Japan is going to survive, being so isolated from the world. Or Denmark. Or Germany. Or France. Or Spain. Or Brazil. Or pick anybody that isn’t playing world’s policeman. Yet, if we pursue Paul’s non-interventionist policy (not isolationism), we’ll be totally isolated from the world? Yeah because all those other countries in the world that aren’t running around being the world’s policeman (everyone besides us) are so isolated. Seriously, think about how dumb that statement sounds. There is no limit to the number of countries that we can use as an example to show that we don’t have to meddle in everyone else’s business and we won’t be isolated from the world. Good lord.

    The other thing that bothers me about Anne’s statement is that she, like many people, are completely missing the big picture. Anne, you aren’t going to care about Roe vs Wade if our gov’t continues it’s wild spending and the dollar continues to decline. You’ll be wondering where they hell all your money went and why gas costs $7 a gallon. And homeschooling? Are you serious? Who cares. People need to learn to focus on the actual issues that matter most, the issues that the president will actually be dealing with on a daily basis and will actually impact. Foreign policy and the economy. Those are THE issues. I’ll never understand why someone votes for or against a candidate because of his stance on abortion. The last president didn’t change anything about abortion and neither did the one before that or before that or before that and so on and neither will the next president.

  • zeitgeist, so you want to elect Romney or other republicans because they’ll get more done? Newsflash, the stuff that our gov’t is getting done is NOT GOOD. They’re wildly spending money that we don’t have and we’re all paying the price with the sinking dollar and inflation. Hell, I’d elect Paul if it simply meant that nothing would get done. We’d have a balanced budget, save tons of money, buoy the dollar, and erase debt. To borrow a phrase from a guy on another blog “gridlock is good.” He pointed out that we had a balanced budget and saved money during the clinton years precisely because of gridlock. Clinton tried to spend tons of money on defense and other things but the republican congress and Clinton were always at odds, leading to gridlock. As a result, the dollar soared back up and the economy did great.

    I don’t think people realize how dire of a situation it is with the dollar right now and our national debt. Look at how low the dollar is. It’s directly reponsible for oil being over $90 a barrell. Those high prices at the pump are because our gov’t can’t control it’s spending. Those high prices at the grocery store are for the same reason. If OPEC ever switches the currency for oil from the dollar to the euro, we’re screwed big time.

  • We’d have a balanced budget, save tons of money, buoy the dollar, and erase debt.

    TF, as you note the surer way to acheive this is to repeal the 22nd and vote Bill Clinton in again. It was Democrat Clinton, not any Republican, that accomplished this. And gridlock was not the reason: Clinton’s own initiatives did most of it. There had been split control of Congress and the WH under GHW Bush and I don’t know of many people who thought the results of split control were much to brag about. The difference is Clinton.

    So no, I would not vote for Oven Mitt or any other Rethug, including Dr. Paul.

    Democrats accomplish things in the national interest, not just the Halliburton interest. Progressives actually believe in competent governance. That is where your vote should be to get those good results you seem to espouse.

  • Actually, TF, I should comment on your last paragraph as well. Surely the strength of the dollar is part of the oil price issue, but in the grand scheme not a very big part. Oil, as a true commodity in the economic sense (albeit a special one, for now, because its elasticity is lower than most true commodities), really follws fairly textbook supply and demand.

    The dollar could fall as far is it wanted if Americans didn’t feel somehow required to get their macho on by driving Hummers, Denalis, Escalades and other nonsensical vehicles that 99% of them have no practical need for, if Americans didn’t feel entitled to have their house be precisely the temperature they want it – not one degree more or less – 24/7/365, if Americans would make even the low-hassle choices about walking (or biling) on short distance trips, using compact flourescent bulbs, designing buildings with passive (or active) solar power, etc.

    On the larger scale, I would commend to you the book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, which discusses in detail how corporate-scale agriculture, in moving from a grass-based agrigultural model to a corn-based agricultural model also moved from a solar-energy-capture model to a petroleum-energy-capture model.

    It is our lifestyle choices, sense of entitlement, and refusal to sacrifice the slightest bit for any type of gain that have oil prices high and have us captive to those prices.

    If negative economic externalities were properly accounted, the price we pay at the pump would be much higher — it is lower than almost any other petroleum net-importing country — we whine about it only because we are that out of touch with how the rest of the world lives and how spoiled we really are.

  • I’m going to quote an economist from another board:

    1st quote:

    “With all due respect, I think if you look back, you will see that the federal budget was nearly balanced because of the gridlock between Clinton and Congress, not because Clinton was fiscally conservative. When there’s a Democrat in the White House, Republican Congressmen tend to act more like Republicans. Conversely, when there is a RINO President, GOP Congressmen spend like they are in a contest to see how much of our money they can waste.

    That’s why the next best thing to having a true conservative like Ron Paul in the Oval Office is to have a Democrat President and a Republican Congress.

    Gridlock is a GOOD thing.”

    2nd quote:

    http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/24/pentagon.budget/

    “”Clinton wants biggest boost in defense spending since Reagan”

    This CNN story appeared on January 24, 2000. Clinton was fond of sending our troops into harms way overseas, and he wanted to spend a lot more on the military, but he was a DEMOCRAT. When Democrats want to spend more, it’s wasteful. When a Republican President wants to spend a lot more on the military, it’s essential for our national survival!

    See the difference? Congressional Republicans (the White Hats, thank you very much) tend to obey their own rhetoric concerning restraining militarism when they are dealing with a Democrat administration (the Black Hats). But when a Republican In Name Only, like George W Bush, takes control of the White House, the Congressional White Hats are led like lemmings over the cliff.”

  • Agree that the price of gas could be much higher here and of course demand also drives the price of gas. But let’s be realistic here, demand is something that is never going away. Even if we cut consumption, our population and the world’s population is going up exponentially. Demand will only continue to climb and there is zero we can do about it. Not only that but supply will only go down in the future and again, that’s something that’s out of our control as oil is not a renewable resource. With supply and demand not helping the cause, the value of the dollar is the only thing that we can control that has a direct affect on the price of oil. The dollar is the only currency accepted to purchase oil. In a perfect world, if the supply and demand for oil remain steady (both are only going to work against oil in the future), the value of the dollar will move oil. Simply put, as the dollar plummets, it takes more dollars to buy the same amount of oil.

    “Crude oil prices rocketed to all-time highs Friday on a record-low dollar”
    http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/26/business/oil.php

    It’s certainly not a coincidence that oil continues to go up as the dollar goes down.

  • It amazes me to watch the US elections from a distance, and Ron Paul seems to really be sneaking his way through the primaries with more support than he or anyone thought he could gain. But i guess if you listen to some of the things he says seems to make common sense, not Washington sense, which really makes no sense at all. For example he wants to abolish the Fed Reserve Bank. Shock horror, how many Americans realize the Fed Reserve Bank is privately owned, and prints US Federal Notes which it then lends to the US Government and commercial interest rates. How many Americans realize that the IRS is not an American company, nor part of any US Government Department, its a based in Puerto Rico, and is Puerto Rican registered company. No it makes real sense, common sense to allow the US Treasury to print US Money, not a group of Private Bankers who keep the nation hostage. The US would then once again become a net creditor nation not a net debtor nation I really think Ron Paul will put the wind up the Washington Willys and I hope he can gain enough exposure to make a good run for the Presidency of the US.

  • Um, Pablo, no offense, but do you have enough functioning brain cells to even realize how completely wrong that post was?

    The Fed is not “privately owned” nor does it print anything. I can personally assure you that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing of the United States Department of the Treasury prints all non-coin legal tender. I’m quite sure of this having been there and witnessed it in person oh, two weeks ago. The only thing the Federal Reserve Bank does is scan barcodes representing the serial numbers of “bricks” of bills into their computers, at which time it becomes “legal” money. But just as you prefer, the US Treasury actually prints all of the money. Honest. We don’t need Ron Paul for that.

    The Internal Revenue Service is even less an autonomous entity than the Fed. The IRS is absolutely a government agency, based in DC. A good friend of mine is an agent in the fraud analysis section; his paychecks are issued by the Government, not a company in Puerto Rico.

    As an attorney, I have dealt with both entities. I never once had to go to Puerto Rico. Not quite sure how the Fed became the tin-foil hatties’ boogieman; a central bank is really a rather important part of modern commerce.

    So JKap and the Paulites, is this what your guy’s numbers are made of? You can convince the totally, staggeringly uninformed to support Ron Paul? Not much of an endorsement, really.

  • What really surprises me is that all the “Paulistas” writing here seem to assume that our choices are limited to Romney, Giuliani and Paul. Guys, you’re on a wrong site! I’d sooner chew through both my wrists than vote for any one of them. If we’re talking about outliers, then Kucinich would be my choice. If we’re talking mainstream, then it’s a toss-up but it still doesn’t include any of the above 3. I may be pissed off with with all the Dem candidates for one reason or another but anyone of them would, definitely, be a far lesser evil than any candidate from the right wing. At least Dems don’t scare me rigid, the way Repnuts do.

  • This really isn’t so hard:

    The Federal Reserve System is not “owned” by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

    As the nation’s central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as “independent within the government.”

    It is chartered by Congress, its leadership is appointed by the President, it is subject to Congressional oversight (and what is not added in the above quote is it is funded by interest and appreciation on US securities it obtains or trades on the open market and turns any “profit” on those transactions after self-funding over to the US Treasury). Yes, it has some intentional autonomy, but it is hardly a privately-owned corporation. Fanaticism would work so much better were it paired with even a minimum of facts.

    Some Presidential candidate needs to advocate better civics education.

  • Ron Paul is the least crazy of the rightie presidential loony bin. And by far the most honest. Not that the others set a very high bar for honesty. I believe his recent surge in fundraising has more to do with democrats and independents than Libertarians and republicans. Those on our side would like nothing more than to keep Paul relevant as a way to drive the religious right and the pussie draft dodgers insane.

  • It’s a shame that Paul’s core good ideas–dismantling the American Empire, curtailing the power of the executive, and generally adhering to the Constitution’s exhortations toward modest and consensus-based goverance–are inextricably bound with his nutball proclivities and the willful never-never-land mindset of libertarianism. Zeitgeist captured the main point of this for me earlier:

    It is a nation and a world with serious, complicated, problems that are expensive to solve and will not necessarily result in a commercial profits for one or more persons or enterprise. Libertarianism presents no serious-minded solutions, just selfish avoidance of the issues.

    I view American governance as an ongoing quest to find a happy medium between liberty and community, and the proper role of the public sector as acting upon our shared values for the common good. Pretty clearly, this includes infrastructure, practical regulation, and the strengthening of public institutions.

    I fear that the views of Dr. Paul, while perhaps saving us from the Strangelovean mutants who’ve wrecked our foreign policy and spent us into an unfathomable hole, would throw the door all the way open for those who feel that a few hundred food poisoning deaths, or pharmaceutical poisoning, or environmental disaster, or collapsed bridges, or grossly inequitable schools and communities, are a small price to pay for unfettered pursuit of profit.

  • Dear Dear Zeitgeist
    I am terrible sorry ito nform you, the Fed Reserve is a Privately Owned Bank, The bill was passed in 1913 on 23 or 24 Dec. The 14th Amendment which was never fully ratified allows the imposition of taxes on US Citizens. This is commonly known around the world. your problem is you think world revolves around you. It don’t mate.I can assure you the IRS is a Puerto Rican based company, i have a photo of me in front of the building with Internal Revenue Service of The United States of America on a plaque on th efront wall. Perhaps your mate should ask some more questions and do his research. Because I have and I can assure you my learned friend I am RIGHT. The main reason for the placing of the IRS in a foreign country is to remove the right of the courts in the US to rule on the IRS cases. Most basic economic classes in University teach you the US Fed Reserver is a Privately Owned Bank, and it prints the worlds trade currency the US Dollar. Go read what it actually says on a note US Federal Reserve Note. Same as the bank of England it is also a privately owned reserve bank that prints the currency of the United Kingdom. Perhaps Zeitgeist you should go to the local library and get a basic year 1 economics book, and look up the section on international finance you might learn something. Get your facts correct and happy to continue your education.

    I can only say to this comment The Federal Reserve System is not “owned” by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

    That would have to be the greatest lie ever written about a the Fed Reserver. Stop defending the undefendable and go educate yourself. Even my 15 year old son in Sydney learns about this in his high school economics classes. So please go learn the truth and the facts before posting such inane dribble that the system is an independent entity of the Government. God help some of you people who believe this. Go read the US Congress Libaray section on government legislation and look up US Federal Reserver Banking Bill 1913 and read it. I bet you never did that before scooping up this dribble.

    I will stand corrected on the year but i think it was 2001 but the Fed made an operating profit of nearly $14 Billion USD. Did your mate from the IRS make sure they filled out he tax forms, go have a look. and i think you will see what i am say is correct
    Pablo

  • USA would be better off with more close-minded people such as yourself. The US government has been declining in the past several decades. It’s obvious that your “modern style” hasn’t been working. You need a change.

    That government is best which governs least. Ron Paul is the guy that Americans should be voting for. I love my home country of Germany, and we are about to pass America in almost every statistical catagory (a feat we haven’t been able to reach in over 2 centuries). It’s because of your government. Ron Paul is the only candidate that makes me think that America would be the greatest place in the world to live.

    But hey. Stupid Americans seem to fall for guys like Romney and Guiliana, or a woman? HAHAH! Bye bye America. 🙂

  • Pablo, this is the last post I will bother with, because I dont want you using up the precious computer time your instution allows you on this – you are absof*ckinglutely nuts.

    For starters, I have a bit of a clue on this: I have a degree in econ and am now an admininstrative law attorney and the folks I work for charter several dozen banks a year – yep, by dealing with the Fed. We know a little about them. You may think the IRS is a corporation based in Puerto Rico. You may also think the New World Order spies in black helicopters hover over your house. You may think wallabys talk to you in Spanish, that Halle Barry wants to marry you, or that Britney Spears is a good mom. whatever. you have a photo and there is a plaque. . . guess what, Einstein: I can take that same photo in almost any major city, including Omaha, Nebraska, where the IRS has a field office.

    You make the run-of-the-mill tin-foil-hatties look sane.

    Run along; we we’re all starting to think of JKap as one of our own and now you’re making him look bad by association.

    (Speaking of which, JKap, I briefly wondered if you were in Iowa this afternoon when I pulled out on the freeway and rushing up behind me was a bus/mobile home with “Ron Paul 08!” painted on the windsheild. I thought the Paulies were coming to run me over. 🙂 )

  • One of the tricks learned in the profession of teaching at the university level is that twenty different papers with twenty different names, possessing similar syntax structure, are most likely produced by no more than two or three individuals.

    Such appears to be the case with these Paul poodles.

    The posts supporting Paul never seem to come one right after the other; one minute after the next. They are spaced—and too evenly spaced to be mere coincidence.

    Ron Paul’s “legions,” it would seem, are a virtual mirage.

    As is his legitimacy as a viable candidate for the Presidency.

    Oh, and JKap: “bigoted?” Is that the best puch you can throw when I suggest that Paul and his horde of mini-Pauls all go to a given place and await their coming Armageddon? Let’s try a couple more on for size, shall we?

    “Ron Paul and his lemmings are the next WACO—just waiting to happen.”

    “Ron Paul and his batsh*t battalion are destined for the jungle, a thatched hut, and a great big jug of arsenic-laced koolaid.”

    “Ron Paul and his pet rocks are going to all dress in like attire, quaff a few rounds of cyanide tea, and await the arrival of their victory float. It’s currently hovering behind Saturn.”

    Ron Paul and his e-brownshirts are making the exact same promises, foisting the exact same jocular tactics, and wielding the exact same model of scare tactics as did an earlier model of Libertarianism—except in 1933 Germany, such people were not referred to as Libertarians.

    They were referred to as National Socialists—and their “philosophical leader;” their “Fuhrer”—was one Adolf Hitler. He, too, sought fiduciary balance. He, too, sought to protect the borders. He, too, sought greater national integrity—to the point of promoting something called “the master race.” He, too, promoted the ideal of national superiority, and the concept of other nations/peoples being inferior to “the Fatherland,” as a means to removing unwanted peoples—“untermenschen”—from Greater Germany.

    Look at post#45, JKap, and note the “Deutschlander uber alles” mentality supporting Paul. It’s 1933 all over again.

    Proponents of an Amerikannische Reich, one and all—and there’s no way in the Universe that I’ll ever support such crap.

    Period.

  • Pablo:
    You just shot down what is obviously one of the most intelligent beings in the universe. And you did it with common knowlege.

  • Wow, what a thread!

    And I notice that none have the balls or the brains to address our libra’s comment. Except the misogynist fake Kraut, ahem how’s Ms. Merkel working out for you?
    Listen carefully, Paul Guys, voting Democratic does not make you a traitor. I’m sure that is what you home schooling taught you, but it’s not true. You can vote for Kucinich, or Richardson, or Gravel, or some candidate other than a Republican.
    Look, I know that there is guilt there, too. All that blood on your hands (for voting Bush in) is a terrible burden to bear. Yes, you ARE responsible for unleashing that Godforsaken piece of shit upon our world. You SHOULD feel guilty for doing it. But don’t let it drive you crazy.
    Look, Ron Paul has some great ideas, who’s going to argue against paying your bills (balanced budget)? Not me. But many years ago I was sucked into a similar situation. I started listening to a talk show host who had a lot of great sounding ideas. But awhile later I heard him arguing against legalizing marijuana, and I realized that he was not the conservative that I took him to be. He was a religious right authoritarian shill, couching his message in Mom and Apple Pie.
    What I’m saying is that you have to take the whole big picture into account. Balancing the budget is the right thing to do, but how do you go after the tax cheats? The IRS is the tax police, for God’s sake (Pablo, put your tin foil hat on TIN foil, nor aluminum, that blocks the Tri-Lateral brain waves). The gold standard? Putting government into our bedrooms (Roe v. Wade)? No.
    Again, you can vote Democratic, or third party (thanks Ralph Nader, that sure worked out well). Most Republicans don’t deserve your vote, but it is not mandatory to vote R.

  • I am beginning to love the anti-Paul spammers. Such vitriol to preserve the status-quo.

    I mean, if the guy’s “irrelevant,” why so much attention?

    Is it the herd instinct? A sense of threat to the impeccable status quo? Or a sense of envy that this guy is generating enthusiasm where a lot of candidates are not?

    Just curious.

  • Gods I love you guys.

    Especially you, Zeitgeist. This is awesome:

    It is a nation and a world with serious, complicated, problems that are expensive to solve and will not necessarily result in a commercial profits for one or more persons or enterprise. Libertarianism presents no serious-minded solutions, just selfish avoidance of the issues.

    Summed up in two sentences why I haven’t been a Libertarian since I graduated college, got a job and figured out exactly how terrible Libertarianism is as a governing philosophy.

    Speaking of college – I’m starting to get a creepy vibe off the Paul supporters lately. They’re reminding me of the LaRouchies. I can’t put my finger on exactly why, and it isn’t all of them, but it’s certainly there. Creepy.

  • NonyNony – yes! The LaRouchies! I’d bet there is some overlap. Without Lyndon running they needed somewhere to go. . .

    And JustCurious, I agree there is some enjoyable sport to be had when blind believers are involved. 🙂 And, as always, I expressly exempt JKap, who I do not consider a blind believer and who never has claimed the IRS was a private Puerto Rican company (but if you do, JKap, the exemption is revoked!)

    (And Morbo, it looks like your mission was accomplished!)

  • Ah, then, I have the answer: only the “blind” believers cannot “see” what others do, that the status quo is the answer. No change is good. I’m thankful for this insight.

  • Wow—the Paul poodles—I love the “LaRouchies” angle as well—all disappeared early tonight. Out trick-or-treating, perhaps? Better watch out, folks; they’ll be in the midst of a sugar rush sometime later this morning—as if Paul poodles aren’t already high-strung enough.

    Detestable, yammering little yips. Pass the made-in-China puppy chow….

  • Zeitgeist:

    As a lawyer I’d think your research skills would be a bit more honed. You at once claimed Pablo was a fool for thinking the Federal Reserve was a private banking institution and then ironically made a reference to Wikipedia in a later post. If you love Wikipedia, as I do, then look up the Federal Reserve entry. It says it’s a private entity in about the 1st or 2nd sentence. Hilarious…and you never responded to my initial post. The lunatics are the ones who refuse to admit the problems around them are due to the status quo and thus keep asking for more. The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing twice (Bush/Bush) and expecting a different result. Lets not make that mistake with the Clinton’s. Spam-bot out!

  • Li’l Nicky:

    Helps if you read beyond the ‘Cliffs Notes’ introduction to the substance of the article, which clearly describes the Fed as a semi-autonomous entity within the government. The Board of Governors is expressly described by the very Wiki article you cite as an “independent federal government agency.” The Fed Banks themselves are described as having some private characteristics and some characteristics of a public agency. Only the federally chartered member banks (i.e. the national banks like Wells Fargo, Wachovia, etc) are truly private.

    This is too easy. But thanks, anyway, for playing.

  • Li’l Zeity:

    Do you use Wikipedia for all your case law needs? Have you ever heard of Lewis vs. U.S., case #80-5905, 9th Circuit, June 24, 1982? Seems the courts don’t necessarily agree with your assessment of the Federal Reserve’s status.

    Tag, you’re it.

  • Goverment is inevitable. Complex societies need some form of governance.

    I find fundamentalist libertarians just as silly (and potentially dangerous, if they obtain power) in their religion as the fundamentalist theocrats.

    You will have government. It will either be public government, accountable to the people, one-person-one-vote, or it will be private government, by corporations and the wealthy, one-dollar-one-vote, or theocracy, run by the clerics, or a military dictatorship run by a strongman. Or a monarchy if one family takes control for many generations. You cannot “eliminate” the government. You can only shift it to some other form.

    I like the form it is in now, complete with welfare state, regulations and restraints on commerce and business.

    The Libertarian ideal, by the way, I love. I think it’s a great idea. No government! Everyone making decisions for him or herself! Just like Communism– fantastic idea. Everyone sharing! From each according to his ability, to each according to his need! The dictatorship of the proletariat!

    These are simple-minded, kindergarden philosophies of governemnt. That’s why we don’t have them. Our Founders were a lot more pragmatic, and over the years we’ve managed to maintain that pragmatism.

    We need a strong federal government. We need a welfare state. We need at least some redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation. We need regulations on businesses and industry. Not too much, mind you, but without it, we’d be in a world of shit.

    I’m happy with Paul’s anti-war position. I don’t think he’s a lunatic, necessarily. But I’d never vote for the guy. His views on other matters, are, alas, way too extreme.

  • Well, goatchowder, if the point is about “no government,” I don’t know who’s advocating that. Anarchists do advocate that, but I don’t presume to speak for them. I’m sure there are as many diverse views among the “anarchists” as there are among the “libertarians.”

    The problem with an overly strong central/federal government, as evidenced by the last 7 years, is that it goes the way of massive corporations–immobile, unable to change, steeped in a unitary philosophy that caters to the clique at the top of the heap. (Think of how IBM used to be.) Moreover, as the lumbering, central machine becomes more efficient in serving itself, and less efficient in serving the clients, it merely moves away from its intended mission to one that is self-delusional. It creates problems, makes works for itself, strays away from its values, and ignores the sphere of its clients. Some people do benefit–those at the top.

    Well, a strong federal/central government is not like a business–it is worse. The taxpayers/citizens get served less and less as the immobile, deafened bureaucracy creates its own missions and drowns in its owns delusions. It moves away from the “realities” around it and becomes horribly inefficient in the process.

    The central mission of the Constitution, whether espoused in the candidates’ platforms or not, is to strike a balance between the powers of the central/federal government and those of the states. At the state level, and at the local levels, people are more able to control an outcome.

    Given the last 7 years, especially, I see nothing, not one thing, that impresses me about an overly strong federal/central government. That trend must be reversed, for surely the extension of its powers does not bode well for the people that government should serve–unless I’ve gotten it all wrong, and we exist simply to serve it.

  • Nicky, you need to read for comprehension, not just site nonsense you read on whacko tax protester web sites.

    Lewis v. US does you no good at all. Let me count the ways.

    1) To people that have actually studied the law a little, context matters. Lewis is a case about coverage under the Federal Tort Claims Act. A “federal agency” for that purpose is read exceedingly narrowly. Why? Because if something is a “fedreal agency” then the government has waived sovereign immunity – they can be sued in tort. In this context, the issue is who has control over the alleged tortious action (in this case a car accident). Because the Fed is intended to have some independence, the federal governement does not control day to day things like cars and drivers — and day-to-day management is the test for the Fed Tort Claims Act. In this context ONLY, the court found that the bank was not a federal agency, but even then you have another problem in that. . .

    2) The suit was against the regional Federal Reserve Bank, not the Federal Reserve itself. As I explained above – sorry if it was over your head – the banking system gets more “private” as you move down the hierarchy. “The Fed” is a semi-autonomous government agency. The Federal Reserve Banks are more mixed in character. The Federally-chartered National Banks, what most people think of as their bank, are of course private. So a suit involving a regional bank doesn’t help you at all in proving the Federal Reserve is not a government agency.

    3) Indeed, the Lewis case itself notes that “The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes” — yep, the same case you site to say the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies also says that they are. As the 9th Circuit notes, context matters.

    4) Lewis had been widely criticized, distinguished and contradicted by co-equal courts (and the thought of a winger citing to the liberal and often overruled 9th Circuit – you should be ashamed of yourself!) For a much mroe recent case, see Fasano v FRB, 457 F3d 254 (3d Cir 2006). A sample:

    Thus, we question the District Court’s ultimate conclusion that Federal Reserve Banks are, by their nature, wholly private corporations. As we have indicated, however, we are not required to reach the broader, albeit amply supportable, conclusion that the New York Fed is a federal instrumentality. As we discuss below, Fasano’s Complaint must be dismissed as preempted by the Federal Reserve Act where the state grounds for the suit – CEPA and the LAD – impermissibly frustrate Congress’s intent to provide the Federal Reserve Banks with the widest latitude possible in personnel decisions.

    Game, set, match. Run along, now. The adults are trying to have a conversation.

  • Ah, Zeitgeist, what is this legalistic fascination with the Federal Reserve? I mean, whether it is partially controllable by some subset of Congress or serves as a rogue “privatized” organization, what’s the difference? How much say do you have in its affairs? Last time I checked, this hermaphroditic public-private monstrosity does not even tell us how much money it is printing. And that should concern you–that is definitely part of the equation for how much “stuff” your money buys.

    Now, I’m fairly well acquainted with the pseudo-public schemes of government. I won’t even discuss Blackwater, since that’s practically a model for a large part of the government’s machinations with respect to public monies. Yes, regardless of what this or that court rules, the public good is ultimately arbitrated by an executive branch “edict” that makes the public voice, through their representatives, very limited. (Should I cite examples?) And, if the public voice is inconvenient, a convenient court case can always be conjured up.

    So, if you’re thrillled about the rogue Federal Reserve system, and have faith in an elite clique making all the decisions about your livelihood, just say so. For me, it is just one more example of a federal monstrosity that is out of control, secretive, and not acting in the public interest.

  • I hope Ron Paul does really well.
    Even if he isn’t a true Libertarian. A strong showing will help Libertarian causes.
    Then BOTH parties will adopt whatever Libertarian principles don’t alienate too much of their base.

  • Zeitgeist:

    Actually in the ruling they say the following:

    “There are no sharp criteria for determining [**3] whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of federal government control over the “detailed physical performance” and “day to day operation” of that entity…Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.”

    Fact:

    There are no shares of the Washington Fed Board organization; the only “ownership” of the Fed is in shares of each of the 12 regional banks which are entirely owned by the private member banks within their respective districts, according to a formula based on their size. The ownership is highly restricted in that such ownership is mandatory; the shares can’t be sold; and they pay a guaranteed 6% annual dividend.

    – sounds like private ownership to me.

    “I have never yet had anyone who could, through the use of logic and reason, justify the Federal Government borrowing the use of its own money….I believe the time will come when people will demand that this be changed. I believe the time will come in this country when they will actually blame you and me and everyone else connected with the Congress for sitting idly by and permitting such an idiotic system to continue.”

    -Wright Patman, former House Banking and Currency Committee Chairman

    Even if the Federal Reserve were conclusively not “private” (see the Jekyll Island Summit), would you argue that its just? Constitutional? Beneficial to the citizens it is intended to “serve”. This graph pretty much speaks for itself:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USACPI1800.png

    I never really liked tennis. Such an elitist sport…Your hubris is entertaining though.

    • Comments are closed.