More Secrets at the Fed Revealed

The Federal Reserve fought tooth and nail for over two years to keep their actions hidden from the American people. The central bank lost part of their battle for secrecy when they were court ordered through a Freedom of Information Act request to release 29,000 pages of documents earlier this year. Although it was just a one-time and limited release of their records, the papers revealed that one of the largest recipients of the Fed’s money was foreign banks during the 2008 economic meltdown. Bloomberg News has further examined the thousands upon thousands of pages of transactions to discover more Fed secrets.

The Federal Reserve had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to “rescuing” the financial system, according to a new study from Bloomberg News. The Fed also kept secret which banks were in trouble during the height of the financial crisis while bankers were taking in tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans. Bloomberg has calculated that the secret Fed loans helped banks net a whopping $13 billion. All of these numbers are staggering but not exactly surprising. The unelected bureaucrats at the Federal Reserve have fought to keep their dealings behind closed doors for a reason.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has become desperate to protect his privileged secrecy. Bloomberg writes that he “argued that revealing borrower details would create a stigma — investors and counterparties would shun firms that used the central bank as lender of last resort — and that needy institutions would be reluctant to borrow in the next crisis.” Helicopter Ben, a nickname he acquired by essentially stating that the government could “defeat” deflation by dropping money out of helicopter, cares more about protecting the reputation of his cronies than letting the American people know where their money is going.

Bloomberg reports that Fed officials haven’t told the truth about the bank bailouts. The news agency writes that, “while Fed officials say that almost all of the loans were repaid and there have been no losses, details suggest taxpayers paid a price beyond dollars as the secret funding helped preserve a broken status quo and enabled the biggest banks to grow even bigger.” The Federal Reserve is ripping off the American people by printing money out of thin air which devalues the value of the dollar to bail out the big banks.

As Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) writes, “this is just one more reason why we need a full audit of the Fed.” The court ordered released documents are disturbing enough. But imagine what kind of mischief we would find out through a comprehensive audit. A real audit of the Fed would also inspect how it determines interest rates which is one of the most crucial activities of the central bank. We still need to pass a true audit of the Fed such as Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Ron Paul Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011 that would require comprehensive audits on a regular basis.

An overwhelming 75% of Americans want a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve, according to a recent Rasmussen poll. The calls for a true audit are getting louder and stronger by the day. The fight for transparency is transcending party lines with fiscal conservatives such as Ron Paul and self-identified Democratic socialist Senator Bernie Sanders working together to remove the Fed’s cloak of secrecy. More Republican presidential candidates are starting to echo Ron Paul’s long held beliefs on the Fed.

We will win our immediate goal when the Fed is thoroughly audited. Then the next step becomes ending the Federal Reserve and finally restoring sound money in America.

The Real Story of Thanksgiving

Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.

Every year around this time, most schoolchildren hear the same ol’ Thanksgiving story in their classrooms across the nation. That so-called official story is a heartwarming tale of how the Pilgrims and Native Americans shared a bountiful feast together. But it does not tell the full truth about what really happened on the Plymouth Plantation.

We’re told that the Pilgrims struggled for their survival when they landed in present-day Massachusetts in the 1620’s. Half of the Pilgrims starved to death or went back to England during the first year alone because of harsh winter weather and their lack of proper farming skills. Their chronic food shortages were ultimately resolved when the Native Americans taught the Pilgrims how to plant corn the following spring and together they celebrated their blessings with a huge feast.

That “official” story is nothing like what actually happened. For evidence of the failures of communism, we do not need to look to disastrous experiments in foreign lands. The Plymouth Plantation, one of the first English colonial ventures in North America, is actually one of the most evident examples of the failures of collectivism.

Centuries before the Communist Manifesto was even published, the Pilgrims set up an economic system that looked similar to the “utopia” advocated by Karl Marx. In the early years of the Plymouth Plantation, there was no such thing as private property. All property was held in common and it was forbidden for anyone to produce their own food. It was up to the plantation officials todistribute food and supplies to the Pilgrims based on equality and need.

The Plantation leaders showed their immense lack of knowledge regarding basic economic principles. Plymouth County Governor William Bradford wrote that, “the taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing.” That clearly was not the case since the Pilgrims experienced great despair and massive food shortages for several years.

The Plymouth Plantation lacked the appropriate incentive structure. As economics Professor Benjamin Powell writes, “bad weather or lack of farming knowledge did not cause the pilgrims’ shortages. Bad economic incentives did.” Many Pilgrims faked illness or stole instead of working in the fields to produce food. William Bradford later wrote that the colony was filled with “corruption,” and with “confusion and discontent.” He stated that the crops were so small because “much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable.”

William Bradford finally decided to change course by implementing a new economic system in 1623. He assigned “every family a parcel of land” to do with it as they saw fit and the results were nothing short of miraculous. For the first time in the New World, families could enjoy the fruits of their labor. While it was not a complete private property system, the move away from collectivism saved the Pilgrims. As Governor William Bradford wrote that year, “instead of famine now God gave them plenty.”

Never again did the Pilgrims face widespread starvation and food shortages. Governor William Bradford wrote that this more capitalist system “had very good success for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. By this time harvest was come…the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many.” The colonists actually produced so much food in 1623 that they starting exporting corn. The Pilgrims were able to celebrate all of their blessings with plentiful feasts.

The real story of Thanksgiving shows why freedom works and collectivism doesn’t. Let us not forget the lessons of colonial America: collectivism will always fail to produce a happy and prosperous society.

Elena Kagan Must Recuse Herself from ObamaCare Case

After several federal judges have declared ObamaCare unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has finally decided that it will hear challenges to the health care overhaul law. This could be one of the most closely watched and politically charged Supreme Court case in the past few decades. While I hope that the nation’s highest court makes the correct decision regarding ObamaCare, we shouldn’t automatically trust the justices to uphold the Constitution.

We all know that the Constitution grants very few powers to the federal government. Only about thirty enumerated powers are listed throughout the entire document. Our founding document clearly prohibits the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase a product simply because they exist. Almost everything that Congress does is not within bounds of the Constitution yet the Supreme Court rarely ever strikes down a law as unconstitutional. Between the years 1937 to 1995, the Supreme Court did not declare one single law unconstitutional according to the Tenth Amendment Center. This is exactly what Thomas Jefferson feared.

Jefferson warned that if the federal government has a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, these powers would continue to grow regardless of separation of powers. This is why James Madison declared that states were “duty bound to resist” any federal law that violated the Constitution. A majority of the states have pushed back against the health care overhaul law. The recent passage of Issue 3 also known as the Ohio Healthcare Freedom Amendment is a win for the states against federal abuse.

The main point is just because ObamaCare is unconstitutional doesn’t mean the Supreme Court will rule it so. Some justices more than others have shown that they are not interested in upholding our founding document. They wrongly see it as a “living document” that can be interpreted as they please based on the political whims of the day. Their dangerous philosophy has essentially rendered the Constitution pointless. As historian Kevin Gutzman says, “those who give us a living Constitution are actually giving us a dead Constitution, since such a thing is completely unable to protect us from the encroachments of government power.”

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan made it clear that she sees almost no limits to federal power in her confirmation hearing last summer. She was even unable to answer a question on whether it is constitutional for the federal government to force citizens to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day. Knowing what we are up against, is there anything we can do to help ensure that the Supreme Court makes the right decision? I would say that the best thing we can do is to call on Justice Elena Kagan recuse herself—abstain from participating from the case—due to a conflict of interest.

Elena Kagan as Solicitor General for the Obama administration claims she was present at “at least one” meeting regarding strategy for the defense of ObamaCare. The Judicial Crisis Network has made the case that her involvement is much more substantial than she is admitting. Emails obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that she cheered on the passage of ObamaCare in a number of emails. On March 21, 2010, an email was exchanged between Kagan and then-Senior Counselor for Access Justice Laurence Tribe. Kagan writes “I hear they have the votes!! Simply amazing…” and Tribe responds “So healthcare is basically done! Remarkable.”

Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the case as matter of integrity. She has recused herself from 29 of 82 Supreme Court cases because of her previous work as Solicitor General. The ObamaCare case should be no exception. Section 455 of Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) states that “any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I believe that calling the passage of ObamaCare “simply amazing” and using double exclamation points implies a bit (okay, a lot) of partiality.

Let’s hope that the Supreme Court actually stands up for the original intent of the Constitution. Justice Elena Kagan is not a defender of our constitutional rights; she is a partisan cheerleader for ObamaCare. Regardless of what the Supreme Court happens to rule next June, ObamaCare is a clear violation of the Constitution and should be immediately repealed for the sake of our health care freedom.

Congress Declares Pizza a Vegetable. What?!

Only in America: Congress declares pizza counts as a “veggie” for school lunches. Seriously?

 

Occupy Denver End the Fed Rally

Occupy Denver protests outside Federal Reserve building on 11/12/11. I am not associated with Occupy Denver. To be fair, quite a few people I asked said they didn’t know enough about it to speak on camera and others said they hadn’t formed an opinion yet.

Occupy Denver Mixed on Ron Paul

I asked a handful of Occupy Denver protesters how they felt about Ron Paul. Some loved him, some really hated him…

Occupy Denver Invades Blogcon

Occupy Denver invades blogger conference hosted by FreedomWorks. Occupy Denver tried to bust in the conference room in a private hotel. I did edit this since the original video was ~20 minutes long but I did my best to be fair. I don’t like the name calling in this video which comes from both sides. I apologize for my shortness…

Do Libertarians Hate the Poor?

New video is up. The free market helps people rise from poverty. Government keeps people poor.

A Politically Incorrect Thanksgiving Story

Maybe a bit too early but it’s one of my favorite stories.

Mitt Romney Gets it Wrong—Again

Mitt Romney refused to take a position on government unions and the individual mandate on a recent campaign trip to Ohio. He visited a phone bank filled with volunteers making phone calls in support of two critical November 8 ballot issues, Issue 2 and 3, which will reduce the scope of government in the Buckeye State. Issue 2 would uphold the legislation restricting collective bargaining for government employees and issue 3 would protect Ohio residents from ObamaCare’s individual health insurance mandate. Instead of applauding these citizen activists for their efforts, Mitt Romney declined to comment on these ballot issues.

Mitt put himself in an awkward situation. His actions as governor of Massachusetts indicate that he would reject the ballot issue which prohibits any level of government from forcing residents to purchase health insurance. He instituted an individual mandate in his state calling it a “conservative idea” in 2006. Issue 3 in Ohio blatantly states that, “no federal, state, or local law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system.” The individual mandate is a violation of personal liberty whether it is on the federal, state or local level.

He is now backpedaling on Issue 2 saying that he is indeed supportive of the law. This comes after backlash from fiscal conservatives around the nation. Mitt who seems to support anything that will help get him elected had to change his unpopular opinion. It’s become virtually impossible to keep up with Mitt Romney’s flip-flopping over the years. Consistency is simply not his strong suit.

The goal should be to get Obama out of the White House but we shouldn’t have to settle for Mitt Romney. Just because a candidate has an “R” after his or her name doesn’t necessarily mean they uphold constitutional values. Yes, let’s make Obama a one-term president. But let’s replace him with someone better, much better. What’s the point of swapping Obama with a Republican who’s likely to continue the same tax and spend policies?

I don’t want a Republican Obama. Mitt Romney might use slightly different rhetoric than Obama but many of their policies are the same. Like Obama, Romney has endorsed Cap and Trade, raising the minimum wage, smoking bans, TARP, energy subsidies, the so-called “stimulus”, various tax hikes and government run health care plans. The policy difference between Obama and Romney are few and far in between.

I’m not a cheerleader for the Republican Party. Blind partisanship is part of the reason we’re in this fiscal mess to begin with. The Grand Old Party lost their way when they started advocating for Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, TARP bank bailouts and other big government policies that exploded our national debt—all of which Mitt Romney supported. We ought to be principled enough to call out both Democrats and Republicans when they are wrong.

Mitt Romney is part of the problem—not the solution. Some people tell me that I should stop criticizing the admittedly “imperfect” Mitt Romney because he is “electable.” I have yet to see a credible poll showing that Mitt can actually beat Obama but let’s say he does win. Then what? Will we see any substantive changes in the right direction or will we continue down the same path of financial ruin? The latter is more likely given Mitt’s terrible record.

Fiscal conservatives have better options than Mitt Romney. Obama is tanking in the polls and Americans are overwhelmingly more open to the ideas of individual liberty than they have been in a very long time. 2012 is the year for a true limited government candidate to shine. We shouldn’t have to settle for a big government Mitt Romney type when a better candidate can and should replace Obama. (Hint: Ron Paul).