galtgulch

What the heck are you smoking? Ba'al Chatzaf Ba'al: He is a Doctor, he gets the designer drugs! Adam Ba'al, Membership doubled and redoubled several times this last year and there is no reason to presume this growth will not continue in the coming year. If anything the rate may increase given the concerns so many people have about our power grabbing president. The number of people who are spreading the word about the existence of the Campaign For Liberty keeps growing so each step becomes feasible. www.campaignforliberty.com 214,887 at the moment. They will have a presence at the 9/12 rally today in Washington, D.C. and will promote the movement. Speeches will be televised and seen by millions. And what is it that you are counting on to restore our republic? gulch

Thanks for the post. One concern is that the Audit of the Fed might become a footnote in some other massive Washington bill. The C4L is urging their representatives to vote the Audit the Fed bill as a standalone bill on its own merits because "full transparency in our nation's monetary system is too important." Three more Congressman have joined the 282 others to cosponsor HR1207 and one more Senator has joined the other 23 to cosponsor S.604. I emailed my Senator today using www.downsizeDC.org urging him to become a cosponsor or to tell me his reason why he will not. After all this administration is supposed to be all about transparency. www.campaignforliberty.com 214,120 gulch

Ted, Watching this speech I had the feeling I was a witness to a gathering of thieves and thugs. For one thing they have no respect for the Constitution and its limits on their power. They take the "necessary and proper" clause of Article 1 Section 8 to an absurd conclusion. They fail to appreciate that the word "aforementioned" limits the Congress to the enumerated powers listed. There is no mention in the Constitution of medical insurance or the like. But the Democratic mob has the votes without regard for the rights of those who will be forced to pay for their fantasy. Some democrats will pay at the midterm elections. But the only real solution is to educate the populace and then to replace those who ignore the Constitution with elected officials who keep the oath to uphold it. www.campaignforliberty.com 213,883 gulch

Ba'al, The answer to your question remains to be seen. I will keep track of the time it takes to add certain increments, perhaps 1000, 5000, 10000, 20000, 50,000, 100,000 to give us an idea of the rate of growth "going forward" as the politicians like to say. In my experience it is not difficult to entice people to check out this phenomenon. Many thank me for simply making them aware of it. Many say it gives them a kind of hope which replaces a sense of foreboding and hopelessness they feel watching the present administration engage in one power grab after another. If anything is likely, the rate of recruitment will increase as more people realize what is at stake is nothing less than their own freedom and that of their children and grandchildren. When I joined the first day I found out about this Campaign For Liberty there were about 6000 members. There have been quite a few doublings and redoublings since then in about a year's time to reach 200,012 today. 6K, 12K, 24K, 48K, 96K, 192K. That is five doublings. 200K, 400K, 800K, 1.6M, 3.2M, 6.4M that would be five more. 6.4M, 12.5M, 25M, 50M that would be five more! So if it takes another year to have five redoublings then in a couple of years there will be 100,000,000 members. The rest of the population will not all be radical, militant leftists either! I plan to go to the Barney Frank town hall meeting on Tuesday. It is supposed to be devoted to the health care reform plan. I think I will remind him that he and all the other congressmen and senators and justices and the president took an oath to uphold the Constitution. As I understand it all the powers the Founders granted to the Congress are enumerated in Article 1 Section 8. Nothing in that section empowers the Congress to be involved in medical care or the relationship between a doctor and a patient. Town Hall meeting members who have raised the question of the Constitutionality of Obama's intrusion in that relationship have been called wing nuts. I will ask Barney Frank if he thinks raising the question of the Constitutionality of government involvement in medicine is crazy. If so, since when is it uncalled for to question the Constitutionality of government actions? What is the meaning of the oath of office to uphold the Constitution? gulch Ba'al, I think more people who find out about the campaign for liberty don't join it even though they are sympathetic with its premises and goals. The premise is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the politicians should uphold it as they take an oath to do. The goal is to replace with those who ignore the oath with those who are ready to adhere to the oath and to restore the Constitutional Republic the Founders had in mind. Today there are 213,562 at the moment and it just keeps growing. I expect the doubling will take less time as time goes by as we gain visibility for this movement. 213,574 an hour later. Five more doublings over the next year would lead to over 6 million members and then another year would enable us to accomplish our goals. This is doable and feasible as well as plausible and the country is ready for it. It is happening as we see with no let up. This will certainly change the dialog in all campaigns for office for years to come. gulch

Ted, There was not a peep in the Boston Globe either. www.campaignforliberty.com 213,003 gulch An article did appear in the Boston Globe today, 7 September, with no mention of Jones' communist past. www.campaignforliberty.com 213,201 gulch

Ted, There was not a peep in the Boston Globe either. www.campaignforliberty.com 213,003 gulch

Et al, I am eager to see how the media, beyond Glenn Beck, treat this resignation. Curious to see if they do what they can to keep Obama himself free of the tarnish of Communism or whether they just focus on Jones himself. www.campaignforliberty.com 212,905 and doubling so far last year several times in the course of that time. Perhaps on our way to several million by a year from now. Imagine a vast contingent of citizens enlightened by the likes of the Austrian school economists, educated into the vision of those who wrote the Constitution, many of whom shall have read one of the books their hero, Ron Paul, recommeded in his best seller: The Revolution: A Manifesto, Atlas Shrugged. I keep encouraging them to read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and The Virtue of Selfishness as well. gulch

Michelle Backmann is a U.S Congresswoman from Minnesota. You may recall she also challenged Treasury Secretary Geithner and Chairman Bernanke by asking just what provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to bailout banks which were failing. See the youtube.com video for the pleasure of watching her put the question to them. Here is the youtube link: http://tinyurl.com/mq6evo The link to the article below is: http://tinyurl.com/nw6ujt <<<"Bachmann: health care bill would be unconstitutional By Eric Black | Published Tue, Aug 25 2009 11:16 am On the Sean Hannity program (the TV version, on Fox News) last week U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann said that the health care bills now before Congress, in addition to being bad ideas, would be unconstitutional. Here’s the quote: Bachmann: “A lot of members of Congress may have forgotten what the Constitution says. But, again, it is not within our power as members of Congress, not within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, for us to design and create a national takeover of health care, nor is it within our ability to be able to delegate that responsibility to the executive.” Hmm? One could certainly argue about whether Rep. Bachmann’s description of these bills (“a national takeover of health care”) is fully accurate. But if the congresswoman is correct (and assuming that the Supreme Court, as the official arbiters of constitutionality, would agree,) then opponents of the bills needn’t worry whether they pass or not, because they will be struck down. Rep. Bachmann is a lawyer, and presumably took a constitutional law class at some point. And it’s true that nowhere does the text of the Constitution even mention the word “health.” And it’s true that the powers of Congress are supposed to be limited to those “enumerated' in the Constitution. (Although this last is also not explicitly stated in the Constitution, you could make a case for it based on the 9th and 10th amendments.) But Congress has done a great many things that are not described in the Constitution. The courts have found some comfort in these areas from the language (in both the preamble and in Article One, Section 8, which does enumerate the Powers of Congress) that authorizes the Congress to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. In fact, Congress has passed hundreds if not thousands of laws applying federal authority over health care matters. Regulation of pure food and drugs was an early historic breakthrough in this area. But what of Medicare, Medicaid, the health aspects of the Veterans Administration? In fact, almost every single American who has health insurance gets it either directly paid for by the federal government, or through the generous tax subsidy that makes employer-paid health insurance premiums deductible from federal income taxes. For purposes of testing Rep. Bachmann’s assertion, Medicare is probably the best way to frame the question. Medicare is essentially a federal single-payer health system for Americans over 65. To paraphrase Rep. Bachmann, the 1965 enactment of Medicare did “design and create a national takeover of health care” for Americans over 65. Was it constitutional? If not, what does she plan to do about it? Is there some logic by which the Constitution might authorize the previous applications of federal power to health care matters, and the “national takeover” of health care for Americans 65 and older, those poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, military veterans, federal employees and retired federal employees but bar the feds from any further involvement in the health care of everyone else?">>> www.campaignforliberty.com membership 206,013 and growing faster than ever as each of us informs others of our intention to replace politicians who ignore their oath to unhold the Constitution with men and women who will uphold it!

Chris, At last we agree about something! Regarding your comment that the Kennedy dynasty is over I give you this link: http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html We already know the antidote is Objectivism if only widely known and properly understood. And here comes the cavalry who want to replace the politicians who do not keep their oath to unhold the Constitution with politicians who do: http://www.campaignforliberty.com 26 Aug 201,591 If only they all knew the antidote! gulch

I think this qualifies as a happening. I like to think we all know that the Austrian school of economics is closest to the truth as opposed to the Alice in Wonderland Keynesian world of Ben Bernanke. Unfortunately Bernanke is in the position of power to get those printing presses rolling. It occurs to me that part of his motivation is based on the alleged fact that interest is paid to the cartel of Federal Reserve Banks for all the paper currency which they create and "lend" to the government. It probably never occurred to him and his cronies who also share the Keynesian dogma that what he is doing is destroying the currency. Professor Antal Fekete has been warning of this as a lone voice in the wilderness for quite some time. The dollar is approaching the point where holders of gold are going to be unwilling to give up their gold for the dollar just as no amount of the Zimbabwe dollar would entice a gold hoarder to enter an exchange. You do know that the Zimbabwe dollar is now merely a collectors item. I lost track of its last denomination but it was a trillion Zimbabwe dollar note which had an expiration date right on it! If any of you happen to have your life savings stashed away in a mattress or in a money market fund or a savings account now may be your last chance to convert it. Convert it to what? Gold or silver would be my choice if you can find anyone willing to part with such coins or bars in exchange for your paper currency! If you have CDs denominated in the US dollar hope that the term has expired so you can get out of them. Here are the links: http://financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/willie/2009/0820.html http://jsmineset.com/2009/08/19/the-countdown-to-the-implosion-of-the-dollar/ Here is a link to a youtube interview with Professor Antal Fekete: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBgjCoxEJq4 And here is a link to articles by the eminent mathematician and monetary theorist: http://www.professorfekete.com/articles.asp I think there is a virtual expiration date on the US dollar. I understand that in certain foreign countries you can still exchange your US dollars at a bank or airport but that the man in the street or in a store will not accept them anymore! A portend of things to come. www.campaignforliberty.com 24 Aug 201,307, 201,397; 25 Aug 201,447 gulch

Ba'al, The only thing standing in the way of there being a truly free market in the near future is....that not enough of our fellow citizens, or should I say inhabitants, know what it is. We are familiar with the efforts of many people and organizations to enlighten our fellows about this issue, e.g. the Foundation for Economic Education, CATO, Reason Foundation, Future of Freedom Foundation, Institute for Humane Studies, Mercator Institute, Ludwig von Mises Institute, ARI, OL, etc. The Campaign For Liberty is actively recruiting people to this cause by appealing to people's understanding that the politicians ignore the oath they take to uphold and defend the Constitution and the intention of the Campaign to replace them with men and women who will take the oath seriously and abide by the Constitution. Membership has doubled and redoubled five times over the last year alone since its creation after Ron Paul suspended his campaign for the nomination of the Republican Party. It is conceivable that this redoubling will continue, perhaps at an even faster rate. Depending on how successful members are at making others aware of this movement and its goals there may well be enough citizens involved to elect members to office at every level of government and then give voice to their devotion to the Constitution. www.campaignforliberty 22Aug 201,118, 23Aug 201,203, 201,265 So you may find yourself living in a free society for once in your life in a very few years if not sooner. gulch

<<<"Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. The Free Market as Regulator By Ron Paul Published 08/21/09 Printer-friendly version Since the bailouts last fall, lawmakers have been behaving as quasi-owners of the bailed-out banks and businesses, leading to calls for increased regulation of executive compensation and other wasteful expenditures. We have heard much about bonuses and executive pay packages that sound more like lottery winnings than an honest salary. Many lawmakers voted in favor of these unconstitutional bailouts, believing that these corporations were too big to fail, and allowing them to go under would precipitate widespread economic disaster. This second wave of citizen outrage at the bailouts has left these lawmakers with a bit of egg on their face, and once again, they feel the need to "do something" to "fix" it. Shouldn't there be a regulatory structure in place governing executive compensation? Politically, it seems quite feasible. People are outraged that the system has once again gutted the many to make a few at the top fantastically wealthy. But they are incorrectly demonizing the free market. What we need to realize is that there WAS a regulatory structure in place that was attempting to stop bad management, including overpaying executives. That regulatory structure is the free market, and when poor management brought these companies to the point of bankruptcy, Congress circumvented the wisdom of the free market, and inserted its own judgment at our expense. And now because of that intervention, we will burdened with massive new regulations. We can be certain this effort will fail. The free market is a naturally occurring phenomenon that can't be eliminated by governments, not even totalitarian ones like the former Soviet Union. It can be regulated, over-taxed and manipulated until it is driven underground. Lately it has been wrongly accused of doing so many things it just doesn't do, that are really the fault of crony corporatism and convoluted government policies that brought on the crisis. Too many people equate the free market with big business doing whatever it wants, but that is not the free market. Unconstitutional taxpayer funded bailouts are what allow giant corporations to run roughshod over the economy. The free market is what puts them out of business when they misbehave. The free market is you and your neighbors working hard to produce what you produce, and exchanging goods and services voluntarily, in mutually agreeable arrangements. The free market is about respecting property rights and contracts. It is not about building up oligarchs and monopolies and confiscatory tax theft -- these are creatures of government. We must watch out when government comes up with interventionist solutions to interventionist problems. The root of our problems lie in interventionism. Trusting the free market is the solution. ">>>

Clearly not. The Republic as we received it from the Founders was gone by 1865, a result of the Civil War, in part. What replaced it was a parody of the original having some superficial resemblance to it. We now have a National Government, rather than a Federal Republic and it has been so for 144 years. It is gone, Galt, gone. Get used to it. Just be thankful your right to Free Speech and publication has not been eliminated in the entirety. Ba'al Chatzaf Ba'al, Not too late to restore it if we can only get enough guys and gals together who understand what is at stake and are willing to expend the effort it will take. www.campaignforliberty.com 200,670 gulch

Christopher, I think that this country is in the difficulties it is in primarily because of failure to adhere to the limits set down in the Constitution. The politicians have gone beyond those bounds. The people have wallowed in ignorance for whatever reason, perhaps the fault of the public school system or the liberal intelligencia or the like. As Ben Franklin admonished We have given you a Constitutional Republic if you can keep it. I would like to be able to say that if the ideal candidate for president emerged who shared our principles and our ethics and our philosophy and our economic theory but that his father was not an American citizen, and that therefor given my understanding of the meaning of "natural born" citizen, that I would be just as opposed and would consider him ineligible as I consider Obama ineligible. I disagree with your presumptuous statement attributing motives to me. The government has not properly vetted Mr. Obama to see if he is truly eligible for office of the presidency. I contend that as a Constitutional scholar that he knows that he is not eligible. The Democrats want him and are willing to ignore the Constitution as usual as it stands in their way to the power they seek. I await your apology which I do not expect is forthcoming so I am going to bed so I can go to work tomorrow to make ends meet after I pay the taxes I don't owe. I recommend that you join the www.campaignforliberty.com 200,525 and put in your order for Ron Paul's new book END THE FED due out in September. BREAKING NEWS: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13373 "Canada Free Press & Northeast Intelligence Network Exclusive Media Blackout on Obama eligibility dates back to November"

Christopher, I can't believe that you don't get it! It has nothing to do with where he was born. It has to do with adhering to the Constitution! The Constitution has eligibility requirements and they are few. The issue has to do with the meaning of "natural born" citizen which meant that both parents had to be American citizens. It had to do with the Founder's attempt to be sure that the future president grew up with parents who had loyalty to America and not to another country. Until that is amended it stands. God knows the politicians take an oath to uphold the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and proceed to ignore it or use sophistry to interpret it as they please to go beyond the bounds set in the enumerated powers of Article 1 Section 8. It doesn't matter where he was born it has to do with the fact his father was a British subject and that is what makes Obama not a natural born citizen. Until that Constitution is amended it doesn't matter that you may find this issue to be outmoded or quaint or absurd. Personally I would prefer another test to make sure the future president was not indoctrinated by a militant Marxist but that is me. www.campaignforliberty.com 200,484 gulch

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-to-tell-birthers-bashers.html <<<"You are poorly informed on the constitutional issue involved with Obama's eligibility to be President. The primary issue is whether Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen," not whether he was born in the U.S. When drafting the eligibility requirements for the President, the Founding Fathers distinguished between "Citizen" and "natural born Citizen" in Article II, sec. 1, cl. 5 and in Articles I, III, and IV of the Constitution. Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just “citizens,” after 1789 the President must be a "natural born Citizen." The Founders wanted to assure that the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, a non-collegial and unique and powerful civil and military position, was free of all foreign influence and that its holder have sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. The “natural born Citizen” clause was the best way for them to assure this. The distinction between "citizen" and "natural born Citizen" is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. According to that law as explained by Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, a "citizen" is simply a member of the civil society. To become a "citizen" is to enter into society as a member thereof. On the other hand, a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the country of two citizen parents who have already entered into and become members of the society. Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society. This definition of the two distinct terms has been adopted by many United States Supreme Court decisions. Neither the 14th Amendment (which covers only "citizens" who are permitted to gain membership in and enter American society by either birth on U.S. soil or by naturalization and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), nor Congressional Acts, nor any case law has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Congressional Acts and case law, like the 14th Amendment, have all dealt with the sole question of whether a particular person was going to be allowed to enter into and be a member of American society and thereby be declared a "citizen." Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a "natural born Citizen" prevails today. It is this definition of "natural born Citizen" which gives the Constitutional Republic the best chance of having a President and Commander in Chief of the Military who has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States. By satisfying all conditions of this definition, all other avenues of acquiring other citizenships and allegiances (jus soli or by the soil and jus sanguinis or by descent) are cut off. I call this state of having all other means of acquiring other citizenships or allegiances cut off unity of citizenship which is what the President must have at the time of birth. Obama's father was born in Kenya when it was a British colony. When he came to America, he was probably here on a student visa and he never became a legal resident of the U.S. or an immigrant. He had no attachment to the U.S. other than to study in its prestigious educational institutions which he did for the sole purpose of returning to Kenya and applying his learning there for the best interests of that nation. In fact, when he completed his studies, he did return to Kenya and worked for its government. If Obama was born in Hawaii, at best, he is a U.S. "citizen" under the 14th Amendment and federal statute. But he is not a "natural born Citizen" under the Constitution, for at the time of his birth under the British Nationality Act 1948 his father was a British subject and Obama himself through descent was also a British subject. Obama has himself admitted to the controlling effect of the British Nationality Act 1948 on his birth. Additionally, in 1963, both his father and Obama also became Kenyan citizens when Kenya obtained its independence from Great Britain.">>> Be sure to read the articles linked to on right column under Boca Della Verita and notice that there are ongoing Court Filings as well. www.campaignforliberty.com 200,379 gulch

Ba'al, The answer to your question remains to be seen. I will keep track of the time it takes to add certain increments, perhaps 1000, 5000, 10000, 20000, 50,000, 100,000 to give us an idea of the rate of growth "going forward" as the politicians like to say. In my experience it is not difficult to entice people to check out this phenomenon. Many thank me for simply making them aware of it. Many say it gives them a kind of hope which replaces a sense of foreboding and hopelessness they feel watching the present administration engage in one power grab after another. If anything is likely, the rate of recruitment will increase as more people realize what is at stake is nothing less than their own freedom and that of their children and grandchildren. When I joined the first day I found out about this Campaign For Liberty there were about 6000 members. There have been quite a few doublings and redoublings since then in about a year's time to reach 200,012 today. 6K, 12K, 24K, 48K, 96K, 192K. That is five doublings. 200K, 400K, 800K, 1.6M, 3.2M, 6.4M that would be five more. 6.4M, 12.5M, 25M, 50M that would be five more! So if it takes another year to have five redoublings then in a couple of years there will be 100,000,000 members. The rest of the population will not all be radical, militant leftists either! I plan to go to the Barney Frank town hall meeting on Tuesday. It is supposed to be devoted to the health care reform plan. I think I will remind him that he and all the other congressmen and senators and justices and the president took an oath to uphold the Constitution. As I understand it all the powers the Founders granted to the Congress are enumerated in Article 1 Section 8. Nothing in that section empowers the Congress to be involved in medical care or the relationship between a doctor and a patient. Town Hall meeting members who have raised the question of the Constitutionality of Obama's intrusion in that relationship have been called wing nuts. I will ask Barney Frank if he thinks raising the question of the Constitutionality of government involvement in medicine is crazy. If so, since when is it uncalled for to question the Constitutionality of government actions? What is the meaning of the oath of office to uphold the Constitution? gulch

I am unaware of just how many members of the campaign for liberty I am personally responsible for recruiting but there are now 200,006 as we approach 6AM Sunday August 15th, 2009. Back in 1968 when I learned that there were about 20,000 subscribers to The Objectivist Newsletter I calculated that the numbers of Objectivists might grow to 10 million if those 20K doubled and redoubled over time. I imagine there are more Objectivists now than ever before but nowhere near ten million! But this C4L movement is different. It involves peoples perception of their role in changing the course of our society at a time when everyone realizes that the politicians in power don't read the bills they vote for, that they take an oath to uphold the Constitution and then ignore it. In fact citizens who merely raise the question of constitutional authority at town meetings are considered to be loony or wing nuts! So just possibly the numbers who join the C4L will continue to grow into the millions and tens of millions as it could. This time we have the internet to help educate and inform. This time we have college and high school age enthusiasts growing the movement among their colleagues. Presently on the Young Americans for Liberty site www.YALiberty.org I found that there are 148 colleges involved and growing. Remember these future tax payers will be carrying the enormous federal debt load during their working lives. Do the math! 200K each reach one more thus 400K who reach one more 800K and so on 1.6M, 3.2M, 6.4M then 12.5M, 25M and so on until we have enough to restore the Republic and the Constitution. The mistaken premise is that each will endeavor to reach more. Not every member takes the trouble or is motivated to recruit so the growth depends on those who are more motivated and perhaps have more opportunities to enlighten others. The population isn't static and hopefully the die hard socialist, statist, collectivists, mystics and altruists will die off while the numbers who are exposed to the thinking of the free market school will increase. My contention is that most who are made aware of rational ideas in the realm of philosophy, ethics, psychology and economics, history and political science will become immune to the brainwashing nonsense of those who advocate for government involvement in everything. www.campaignforliberty.com Sunday August 16th, 2009: 200,006, 200,041, 200,105, 200,145, 200,165, 200,185, 200,225 gulch

Adam, I am not familiar with Lew Rockwell enough to understand why he is opposed to patents. Even the Founders recognized the value of establishing patents and copyrights uniformly in the enumerated powers granted in Article 1 Section 8. I am afraid that the Obama administration will proceed to ram their takeover through any day now. The firestorm of venomous commentary being launched against anyone who opposes Obama's Health Plan is setting the stage for its passage. Anyone who voices opposition is characterized as loony or crazy including quotes of questions challenging the Constitutionality of Obama's plan. The fact that there is no constitutional authority for government involvement is thus undercut altogether as anyone who raises this issue is lumped in with the loudmouths regardless of their rationality and calm demeanor. I will be tempted to attend the townhall meeting in Dartmouth on Tuesday where Barney Frank will argue in favor of Obama's HP. I thought I might ask him why the government opposes the right of individuals to obtain health insurance out of state or outside of their employers plans, in other words on their own. Also whether he would promise that if a public option proved to be driving private insurers out of business that he would advocate to eliminate the public option to preserve the private options and competition. I expect he might promise anything to get this thing passed and would be willing to lie to us. More likely I would ask why citizens are being labelled as cukes if they raise the issue of the Constitutionality of this public plan. After all he did take an oath to uphold the Constitution. i want to know just what that oath means to him or whether it is just a meaningless rite of passage not meant to be taken literally. www.campaignforliberty.com 199,910, 199,956, 200,150 gulch

<<<" Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail] is founder and chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author, most recently, of The Left, The Right, and The State. Obama and the Post Office By Lew Rockwell Published 08/15/09 Printer-friendly version Writing in The State and Revolution in 1917, Vladimir Lenin summed up the economic aim of socialism as follows: "To organize the whole economy on the lines of the postal service...." Incredible, isn't it? After centuries of treatises and miles of paper and tubs of ink, this is the great historical turning point: government employees carrying sacks of paper mail from house to house, and operating at an economic loss. It's fascinating how it all comes down to the post office, again and again in the history of public policy. And so it is in our time, with Obama's admission/gaffe/slip concerning the post office and its analogy to what he wants to do with health care. Here is a transcript of his spontaneous talk at a high school. A student raised a question about the government's provision of health services and its impact on private services. "How can a private company compete against the government? My answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining, meaning that taxpayers aren't subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services, and a good network of doctors, just like private insurers do, then I think private insurers should be able to compete. "They do it all the time. If you think about it, UPS and Fed-Ex are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems.... there is nothing inevitable about this somehow destroying the private marketplace. As long as it is not set up where the government is being subsidized by the taxpayers so that even if they are providing a good deal, we keep having to pony up more and more money." Now, these comments are nothing short of incredible. The Post Office has been on the loser list for many decades. Most recently, it has been included on the GAO's high-risk list, increasing its debt to $10.2 billion and incurring a cash shortfall of $1 billion. Note that the post office is not being shut down for this mess. On the contrary, it is being subsidized not only with tax dollars but, most importantly, with laws. Title 18 (I.83.1696) says that "Whoever establishes any private express for the conveyance of letters or packets" can be fined and jailed. Moreover, the law (39.I.6.606) says that any letter delivered by unlawful means can be seized and stolen by the government. It is immune from antitrust action and criminal liability. You can read the whole Post Office Gosplan here. If the Post Office were really a market institution, it would go belly-up in about half an hour. So, no, there is no competition here. Only the government is permitted to deliver first-class letters. How do UPS and Fed-Ex get away with it? They slip through a hole in the law by delivering packages, not mail. And it wasn't easy to survive even then. Just as in the 19th century when the federal government waged war on Lysander Spooner's American Letter Mail Company and on Wells Fargo (and Benjamin Tucker defended "private enterprise in the letter-carrying business"), the government has been hounding private services in our time, whether through wicked labor union bullying or by restricting their services as much as possible. The freedom of UPS and Fed-Ex to operate at all is hard won. But the government has succeeded in destroying the private marketplace in the one area that government monopolizes by law. It took the innovation of digital messaging to finally horn in on that area. And this has worked in a big way, with a massive collapse in the number of people choosing government mails over digital alternatives. Therefore Obama is right in a strange way: private enterprise has triumphed and government service is terrible. Everyone knows this. It is utterly preposterous that a government mail service exists at all. There is no theory of economics that supports it. There is not now nor has there ever been any economic reason for government postal service. It should be immediately abolished and private enterprise should take over. Even on the basis of Obama's thin and strange statements, you might argue this conclusion. But perhaps Obama meant to suggest that the reason the Post Office is so bad is because it has to compete with private enterprise. If he meant that, he lives in a socialist fantasy land, and we have a very dangerous man on our hands. In the real world, no living person could possibly believe that mail service would be improved by getting rid of the efficient producers and granting a totalitarian monopoly to a single government-backed provider. How can a private company compete against the government? Simply because government is so terrible at what it does that even a private company that is beaten down and attacked and competed against with all the tax dollars in the world will do better than the government. It is true in mail and it is true in health care. But what they will not be able to do is thrive to the point of universal service, especially when there are laws that prohibit direct service-by-service competition. Another point that needs to be addressed is Obama's claim that the government service will operate just like the private service, with self-sustaining financing. But here is the question that socialists have never been able to answer. If the goal is to get government to operate like a private service, what is the value added by having it provided by the government in the first place? The only reason for a government service is precisely to provide financial support for an operation that is otherwise unsustainable, else there would be no point in the government's involvement at all. And let us set aside the amazing and preposterous claim that if the government service doesn't work according to market principles, it will be shut down. Never in the entire history of government has that been true. No matter how bad, no matter how financially egregious, no matter how much the people suffer, the propensity is for government services to last forever and ever, precisely because they are protected from market-based tests of profit and loss. The right path to health-care reform is the market path (no subsidies, no monopolies such as drug patents, no licensure, no anything) that tends toward universal distribution at very low prices and relentless improvement in service. The wrong path is to make health care run the same way as the post office. Obama seems to favor the latter path, even though he admits that it is the least well-performing one. This is surely the definition of fanaticism. If the mobs aren't angry, they should be. Copyright © 2009 LewRockwell.com">>>

Welcome to OL. I wonder how you discovered Ayn Rand and her philosophy? Care to share any thoughts about what you think of Objectivism and any concerns you may have about the direction of our society? www.campaignforliberty.com 193,023, 193,363, 193,495, 193,678, 193,763, 193,797, 193,965, 194,002, 194,110, 194,143, 194,186, 194,237, 194,274, 194,299, 194,322, 194,853, 195,789, 196,082, 196,836, 196,848, 197,905, 198,040, 198,182 members galtgulch aka gulch Addendum, John, I hope you are enjoying your visits here. This is one of several sites I check out each day. Ayn Rand wrote four novels and published a journal called The Objectivist Newsletter in which she had an Intellectual Ammunition Dept and a book review back in the mid sixties. I found out about her in 1968 and subscribed. Ayn Rand recommended works by Ludwig von Mises, an economist of the Austrian School, which sought to understand how the market place operates when the govt just makes sure contracts are abided by and no one initiates force or fraud! and where the medium of exchange and store of value is sound, as in the choice of the market over the centuries: gold and silver coins. Ron Paul, Republican congressman from Texas, also rec Mises' books, loyalty to the Constitution, sound money, and he founded the Campaign For Liberty. In an article in Freedom Daily in Jan 09 publ by the Future of Freedom Foundation, the work of Jacob Hornberger, an Objectivist, I learned that after "we" beat the British, the thirteen colonies became thirteen independent sovereign states, with no federal govt. However some people who had borrowed gold coins had signed contracts to repay in gold. But many of them approached their state govt and pleaded for an issuance of a paper currency and a law to change the gold clause to enable them to repay in paper! Their creditors decided to form a federal govt, with limited powers, over the states with provisions to forbid such ex post facto laws and to hold only gold and silver coins as legal tender! See Articles 1 Sections 8 and 10. www.fff.org www.fee.org www.atlassociety.org http://www.investmentrarities.com/ www.mises.com www.cafehayek.com http://www.lfb.org/product_info.php?products_id=291 Enjoy Et al, I have been trying to discover the simplest and most persuasive way to entice ordinary people and fellow citizens to explore and possibly join the Campaign For Liberty. Rather than wait quietly and passively on line at Wal Mart or supermarkets I ask the person ahead of me on line if they have ever heard of the Campaign For Liberty. Usually not. I tell them that we all know that the politicians take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution but proceed to ignore it and vote for all manner of powers not authorized among the enumerated powers the Founders spelled out in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. I tell them that members of the Campaign For Liberty intend to replace those with citizens who will abide by the Constitution and will keep the oath. Given the groundswell, or is it a sea change, of anger at the Obama gang for trying to make a socialist utopia here by taking over the entire medical business and intruding the government between the doctors and their patients, i think now is the time to recruit the vast majority of voters to the cause of individual freedom and Capitalism. www.campaignforliberty.com 198,799, 198,835, 198,849, 198,934, 199,021, 199,062, 199,071, 199,297, 199,311, 199,403, 199,519, 199,797, 199,836, 199,905, 199,956, 200,266 As exciting as approaching 200,000 members is today, we all know that there would have to be millions and then tens of millions of us who understand the crucial importance of adherence to the limits the Founder's made explicit in the Constitution if we are to assure our freedom from government tyranny once and for all. Now is the time for us to increase the numbers of freedom fighters and minutemen from the ranks of those who are opposed to the obvious takeover attempt by the Obama administration. If we lose this battle regaining our freedom will be that much harder. We have an opportunity here and must not waste it. Join us now or later but whether you do or not at least inform those you encounter in your daily life one to one of the existence of the Campaign For Liberty which has the potential to enable those who value their freedom and the freedom of their children and grandchildren to rally to the cause now. Here is an opportunity to do more than just hope and pray. Each person can join and simply let others know of the movement which has the prospect of success as our numbers grow into the millions conceivably within the next few months and years. gulch

Barbara, It is tempting to wish that your comments and quotes above were read by the entire population so they would understand what Obama's health plan would be like for them, but it seems that many do already have a good idea. Do you suppose that Obama is oblivious to the consequences or that he has deluded himself into thinking that somehow it will work here despite its failure everywhere in the world it has been implemented? You may treat this question as rhetorical if you like. gulch www.campaignforliberty.com 194,322

Welcome to OL. I wonder how you discovered Ayn Rand and her philosophy? Care to share any thoughts about what you think of Objectivism and any concerns you may have about the direction of our society? www.campaignforliberty.com 193,023, 193,363, 193,495, 193,678, 193,763, 193,797, 193,965, 194,002, 194,110, 194,143, 194,186, 194,237, 194,274, 194,299, 194,322, 194,853, 195,789, 196,082, 196,836, 196,848, 197,905, 198,040, 198,182 members galtgulch aka gulch Addendum, John, I hope you are enjoying your visits here. This is one of several sites I check out each day. Ayn Rand wrote four novels and published a journal called The Objectivist Newsletter in which she had an Intellectual Ammunition Dept and a book review back in the mid sixties. I found out about her in 1968 and subscribed. Ayn Rand recommended works by Ludwig von Mises, an economist of the Austrian School, which sought to understand how the market place operates when the govt just makes sure contracts are abided by and no one initiates force or fraud! and where the medium of exchange and store of value is sound, as in the choice of the market over the centuries: gold and silver coins. Ron Paul, Republican congressman from Texas, also rec Mises' books, loyalty to the Constitution, sound money, and he founded the Campaign For Liberty. In an article in Freedom Daily in Jan 09 publ by the Future of Freedom Foundation, the work of Jacob Hornberger, an Objectivist, I learned that after "we" beat the British, the thirteen colonies became thirteen independent sovereign states, with no federal govt. However some people who had borrowed gold coins had signed contracts to repay in gold. But many of them approached their state govt and pleaded for an issuance of a paper currency and a law to change the gold clause to enable them to repay in paper! Their creditors decided to form a federal govt, with limited powers, over the states with provisions to forbid such ex post facto laws and to hold only gold and silver coins as legal tender! See Articles 1 Sections 8 and 10. www.fff.org www.fee.org www.atlassociety.org http://www.investmentrarities.com/ www.mises.com www.cafehayek.com http://www.lfb.org/product_info.php?products_id=291 Enjoy

Robert, Here is a quote from www.naturalborncitizen.org which includes references at the end, which I have not had the chance to explore as yet: <<<"My Fellow Americans, What have we done! December 13, 2008 Do you know what a Natural Born Citizen is? If you answer “a child born on American soil,” you are only partially correct. The Framers of the Constitution and American citizens at the time of the writing of the Constitution understood the term so well, that there was no need to define it. Through the years, however, the term has fallen from public conversation. Its meaning, however, is still the same today as it was over 200 years ago. There are many, many references to the term in our written history, and one common definition is repeated over and over: A Natural Born Citizen is born to two American Citizens on American Soil. The Framers of the Constitution made this a special requirement of the President, and only the President. It is not a requirement of any other position, including Senators, Representatives, or Supreme Court Justices. It makes complete sense that the Founding Fathers would make this strict requirement to ensure that no President had split or divided loyalty to any other nation. The President of the United States should have allegiance to America, and America only. Despite widespread, popular belief, Mr. Obama’s father was not an American Citizen. Mr. Obama, Sr was a Kenyan (British) citizen in the United States on a student visa. Thus, Barack Obama was born with both Kenyan (British) and American citizenship. This is precisely what the Framers guarded against when they wrote the Constitution and put the strict Natural Born Citizen requirement in place. It makes no difference that he lost his Kenyan citizenship at the age of 21, the Constitution is only concerned with citizenship at the time of birth. Mr. Obama freely admits that he was both an American and Kenyan citizen at birth (see his official website called fightthesmears.com). This is no secret. Despite repeated requests for the media to cover this most important issue during the election, it was repeatedly ignored. Why it was not covered is a mystery, but it does not matter. The fact remains that on January 20, 2009, our Constitution will be violated if Mr. Obama is sworn in. Secretaries of State, our Chief Election Officials, have been sued across the country to challenge Mr. Obama’s eligibility. The lawsuits have been denied repeatedly because Secretaries of State, despite widespread popular belief, are not required to check the eligibility of presidential candidates. Please call your Secretary of State to verify this fact. Whose job is it to determine eligibility? It is the responsibility of the Electoral College voters. Mr. Obama’s electors have been notified, and so far this issue has fallen on deaf ears. Electors respond by saying that since Natural Born Citizen is not spelled out in the Constitution, it means whatever they want it to mean. This is an outrage! I am one person. I am not a member of any group. I do not want money. I want you to contact your elected officials and demand that this be challenged. Show them this letter. Demand that they do their jobs! The only way to stop the swearing in of an ineligible President is through Congress on January 6, 2009 when the electoral ballots are opened and counted. At that time, one Senator and one Representative can challenge the eligibility. We need one brave Senator and one brave Representative to stand up for the Constitution, to stand up for us. Below are several references to the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. I invite you to investigate on your own. These references are a good starting point, but they are not all inclusive. Nowhere in history is Natural Born Citizen defined in such a way that would allow a person with divided loyalty to be President. -1758 Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” –The Framers relied on many of the principles to write the Constitution -1787-1788-The Federalist Papers, including Justice John Jay’s letter to George Washington -Article II, Section I, United States Constitution -The Naturalization Act of 1790-repeal of “Natural Born” from the 1790 Act in 1795 -The Framers of the 14th Amendment-(citizenship granted, not Natural Born Citizenship); Rep. John Bingham and Sen. Lyman Trumball define Natural Born Citizen -Congressional Hearing on Dual Citizenship, 2005, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” discussion">>> It is my understanding that the Founders made a distinction between a mere citizen and a natural born citizen. They wanted to be sure that a future president, as a child, had both parents as American citizens, in order to assure that he (or she!) would not have divided loyalty by having a parent or two who were citizens of another country. Makes sense to me! gulch

Ba'al, <<<"Do you know what a Natural Born Citizen is? If you answer “a child born on American soil,” you are only partially correct. The Framers of the Constitution and American citizens at the time of the writing of the Constitution understood the term so well, that there was no need to define it. Through the years, however, the term has fallen from public conversation. Its meaning, however, is still the same today as it was over 200 years ago. There are many, many references to the term in our written history, and one common definition is repeated over and over: A Natural Born Citizen is born to two American Citizens on American Soil. The Framers of the Constitution made this a special requirement of the President, and only the President. It is not a requirement of any other position, including Senators, Representatives, or Supreme Court Justices. It makes complete sense that the Founding Fathers would make this strict requirement to ensure that no President had split or divided loyalty to any other nation. The President of the United States should have allegiance to America, and America only. Despite widespread, popular belief, Mr. Obama’s father was not an American Citizen. Mr. Obama, Sr was a Kenyan (British) citizen in the United States on a student visa. Thus, Barack Obama was born with both Kenyan (British) and American citizenship. This is precisely what the Framers guarded against when they wrote the Constitution and put the strict Natural Born Citizen requirement in place. It makes no difference that he lost his Kenyan citizenship at the age of 21, the Constitution is only concerned with citizenship at the time of birth.">>> That is an excerpt from www.naturalborncitizen.org The issue has nothing to do with where he was born but the citizenship of his parents. His father was a Kenyan, British citizen at the time of Obama's birth. If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land than the man in the White House is a Usurper. We are no longer living in a constitutional republic but a democracy with mob rule and no regard for individual rights. www.campaignforliberty.com 191,972, 191,987, 192,016 gulch