OBAMA IN MINNESOTA
"I've bent over backwards to work with Republicans," Mr. Obama said in his news conference Monday (7/11) on negotiations to raise the ceiling on the national debt. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell disagrees. "The president has presented us with three choices: smoke and mirrors, tax hikes, or default. Republicans choose none of the above." Mr. Obama's aides told reporters he'd offered to trim spending by $1.7 trillion over the next ten years in exchange for tax increases. That $1.7 trillion consists mostly of phantom cuts - "fairy dust" is what Rep. Allen West (R-FL) calls them. So what should Republicans do? How about looking at Minnesota? That's where they'll find Mr. Obama.
THE SPEECH I’D GIVE IF I WERE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT
I am running for president because freedom in America is being systematically destroyed by Demagogues in Washington, and I am determined to restore it. That capital "D" is there because it is the more appropriate label for Democrats. The Democrat Party should be referred to as the Demagogue Party, and that is what I shall do until the day comes when they abandon their opposition to fundamental American values and their advocacy of Marxist-Fascist ideology. We are gathered here today to discuss solutions to the economic crisis the Demagogues have created - a crisis to which they claim there is no solution. Their Treasury Secretary, Mr. Geithner, has stated this publicly, saying that for a lot of Americans, their lives are going to be, quote, "harder than anything they've experienced in their lifetime now, for a long time to come." This is a textbook example of Demagogue Marxist idiotic nonsense. Folks, restoring prosperity in America is easy. It can be achieved quickly, virtually overnight. Not automatically. It will require a lot of energy, a lot of focused and intelligent effort by all of us. The solution to America's Malaise is so simple it can be summarized in seven words. Those seven words are:
LESS GOVERNMENT, MORE PROSPERITY
When I hear politicians say they cannot cut government spending and we must have tax increases, I know they are either corrupt or incompetent. Anyone who has ever been around government agencies knows that they tend to be overstaffed and inefficient compared with operations in the private sector. But we also know that many governments in other countries do a much better job in managing taxpayer dollars than ours. At a minimum, we should demand that our political leaders manage the government they are responsible for as well as other political leaders in these countries manage their governments. President Obama and many of his fellow Democrats say we cannot reduce our debt problem to manageable levels without increasing taxes. I say, why not? Some other countries spend less per capita and yet provide higher levels of government service. Take a look at the chart below.
MINNESOTA IN WASHINGTON
Tim Pawlenty should have stayed in Minnesota. Instead of running for a third gubernatorial term, he decided to run for president. Big mistake. Prior to the GOP debate in New Hampshire June 13, he'd been gaining some traction by denouncing ethanol subsidies in Iowa, calling for Social Security reform in Florida, and making the most comprehensive statements on foreign policy of any candidate. Then he zinged Mitt Romney by coining the clever, and accurate, term "Obamneycare" to highlight similarities between Obama's health care plan and the one Romney imposed in Massachusetts when he was governor (2003-2007). Conservatives who'd overlooked him looked again with new respect. Yet after throwing down the Obamneycare gauntlet on June 12, Pawlenty refused to confront Romney on it during the debate the very next day. He wimped out, and his candidacy may never recover. Yep, he shoulda stayed in Minnesota, for with Washington gridlocked, action on the fiscal crisis has moved to the states.
RESTORING SOUND MONEY
Confidence in the dollar is plummeting, confidence in the euro has been shattered by the European bond crisis, and beleaguered consumers and investors are slowly but surely awakening to the fact that government-issued currencies do not hold their value. A government monopoly on the issuance of money is purely a method of central control over the economy. If you can be forced to accept the government's increasingly devalued dollar, there is no limit to how far the government will go to debauch the currency. Anyone who attempts to create a market based currency-- meaning a currency with real value as determined by markets-- threatens to embarrass the federal government and expose the folly of our fiat monetary system. So the government destroys competition through its usual tools of arrest, confiscation, and incarceration. This is why I have taken steps to restore the constitutional monetary system envisioned and practiced by our Founding Fathers. I recently introduced HR 1098, the Free Competition in Currency Act. This bill eliminates three of the major obstacles to the circulation of sound money:
RESTORING CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT
I am a constitutional conservative. So what does that mean? I've earned a couple of law degrees, but defining "constitutional conservatism" shouldn't require a legal scholar. I believe our founders knew what they were doing when they designed a limited government with specific, enumerated powers. I'm also convinced that many of our problems result from the federal government's insatiable - and unconstitutional - grab for power and money. On issues ranging from light bulbs to bailouts to the Dodd-Frank banking legislation, Washington has been on a destructive spree of bureaucratic empire-building. It's time for that to stop. Moreover, I believe in the unjustly neglected Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
HALF-FULL REPORT 07/08/11
The HFR Word of the Week is... impeachment. Here are the Constitution's instructions:
Article I, Section 2, Clause 5: "The House of Representatives... shall have the sole power of impeachment." Article I, Section 3, Clause 6: "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present." Article II, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."We'll get to Zero in a moment, but first notice that the process of impeachment applies not only to the president and vice-president, but "all civil officers" of the federal government. This means, e.g., Attorney General Eric Holder and Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan can be impeached and removed from office. And the odds are increasing that they will be.
OBAMA’S WATERGATE?
Did a secret meeting on the Fourth of July break the biggest scandal since Watergate so far open the "mainstream" media can ignore it no longer? The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) deliberately permitted the transfer of more than 2,000 firearms to Mexican drug cartels, four ATF whistleblowers told a House committee June 15. The guns have been linked to the deaths of 150 Mexican soldiers and policemen, and at least one U.S. law enforcement officer. The Washington Post was outraged... at Rep. Darrell Issa, R-CA, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, for bringing the scandal to light. But in a meeting on the Fourth with Rep. Issa and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-IA, Acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson confirmed what the whistleblowers said, and then some. Mr. Melson's testimony is why the "Fast and Furious" scandal may be Mr. Obama's Watergate.
THE 10th ARGUMENT FOR PERRY
Monday's (7/04) unveiling of Ronald Reagan's statue, described in A Reagan Fourth of July, was followed that evening by a black tie Ronald Reagan Centennial Banquet in London's magnificent 14th century Guildhall. Some 800 Reagan admirers attended and I was fortunate to be one of them. I was seated next to a nice lady who was the dean of a prestigious US law school. When she asked who I was supporting for 2012, without hesitation I answered, "Sarah Palin." She blanched. "Palin can't win - so there's no way I could be for her." "So who are you for?" I responded. "Mitt Romney," came her reply. When I made a face, she explained, "For me, it's all about who has the best chance to beat Obama. We simply cannot afford four more years of this guy. I think Romney has the best chance of anyone out there, so I'm for him." "I disagree with your conclusion, but I certainly agree with your premise," was my response. A fellow across the table joined in, an investment banker from Connecticut who now lives in London. "Palin could win, although I'm far from convinced of it. I am convinced, however, that there is someone else in a much better position than Romney to defeat Obama." Our eyes turned to him. "Rick Perry. I think he would slice Obama up like shredded pork and have him for a Texas barbeque."
A MARKET ALTERNATIVE TO TRADITIONAL BANKING
Beware Greeks bearing debt -- or any other country that has too much of it. Despite ever-increasing government regulation of banks, which often are required to hold government debt as reserves, the systemic risk of a failure in the global financial system is growing rather than diminishing. There are solutions that require less, rather than more, regulation. If you look at the big banks that have been in trouble or the banks that regulators and others worry about being in financial trouble, you will notice that virtually all of them have a corporate form of ownership and are heavily regulated. They also increasingly are being forced to be tax collectors for governments. There is an alternative form of bank ownership that is likely to lead to fewer problems and avoid the "too big to fail" problem, and that is mutual-fund banking.