Understanding the True Role of Government

via: campaignforliberty

One of the greatest misunderstandings we have with government today is its true and proper role. We have seen government continually grow through Republican and Democrat administrations and both parties, come election time, spout the same drivel that they think people will gobble right up.

You will notice that at every election the talk is always about how government will improve or stimulate the economy. Government is seen as the answer from both parties to build the economy to their liking. As government has worked itself into the economic affairs of people it is increasingly looked upon as the ideal way to stimulate the economy or “save and create” jobs.

The most crucial thing that we cannot ignore is the Constitution. The document that is supposed to restrain government gives absolutely no mention that its purpose is to create or maintain jobs, “strengthen” the economy, or get involved in any economic planning whatsoever. The Founders originally recognized that the federal government was to have very little control over the economy, in order to secure the freedoms and liberties of the people to make and control their own decisions.

Gradually over the past century, those in government have ignored the essential economic freedoms that were strongly protected in the Constitution. The passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913 and the ability of the government to tax citizens marked a beginning of the government’s economic entrenchment. How does giving the government the power to control how much of your own labor is actually yours even come close to fitting in with economic freedom? The ludicrous idea that we work several months every year for the government tramples the laws of freedom. It is central planning in one of its worst forms.

The expression (included in the Constitution) “regulation of commerce” was suddenly taken as an excuse to regulate the production, manufacturing, distribution, and sale of any product or item that the government felt it needed to. In the Founders time, regulation simply meant “to make regular.” Today government uses the word to influence or control next to anything it likes. This includes absurd regulations such as how much water a toilet bowl can hold and the size of holes in Swiss Cheese. The Constitution does not give the federal government near the authority to get this involved in affairs that would easily be solved by the people, market, and if necessary, the states.

Government has gradually shoved itself into the economy and individual affairs of the people. The Constitution’s protection of these basic rights seems irrelevant to the bureaucrats who can’t find anything that they won’t tax, regulate, or control in some manner. As the government takes more control from the people and adds to its own unconstitutional power, people become more reliant on the services of government. Individual initiative and responsibility slowly go out the door.

I cringe when I hear that the government needs to stimulate the economy or create jobs. Many people are so ignorant to believe that if we give government just a little bit more power, a little more control, that things will improve. It is a dangerous trend when people trust government more than their own judgment and choice.

Economic sustainability cannot come from government. It is impossible for government bureaucrats, regulators, and planners to calculate rewards and corresponding risks than the people who are actually putting their time, money, and labor on the line. As we have seen largely in the past decade, these public officials have absolutely no connection to fiscal sanity and the concepts of living within your means and suffering the consequences of reckless behavior.

Many politicians won’t stop preaching that the free market brought us into this economic mess. They say that capitalism and freedom breed greed and corruption. We can be sure that these statements are full of hot air when you consider that we haven’t had a “free market” for quite some time. Government has gotten itself so entrenched in individual lives, businesses, industries, and the whole economy that it isn’t humanely possible for us to have or have had a “free market” in recent history. The effects we are seeing today are the direct results of central planning, a government with little regard for the rule of law, and the consequential disregard for individual responsibility, personal freedom, and local governance.

I would hope that people can see the failures of central planning just by looking at the events of the past couple years. It is grossly unconstitutional, intrudes on the most basic traits of human nature, and does nothing but transfer the power of the people to the government. It is not sustainable, efficient, or productive. On another level it is not moral, sensible, or legal.

In short, government is not here to create, save, or guarantee jobs. Government is not here to stimulate the economy. Government’s primary purpose, as the Founders and the Constitution recognize, is to protect and defend individual liberty and freedom (including economic liberty). Government in its best role, which the Founders tirelessly pursued and fought for, is one that stays out of the affairs of the people, allows them to make their own decisions and choices, so long as they don’t intrude on the freedom or liberty of another individual.

Liberty is one and the same; it is not meant to be separated by government into groups, economic liberties, or civil liberties. Constitutionally (and I would think morally) the government does not have the authority to decide which liberties we can and cannot manage on our own, whether it be financial liberties, economic liberties, or civil liberties. One natural liberty without another is like a tree without its roots or branches. All-inclusive individual liberty is the only true liberty.

Stop Obamacare Now!

via: campaignforliberty

The Majority in Congress and the President are promising to change the “status quo” by pushing a government run-medicine plan (HR 3200). The plan would create rationing through government committees, force all Americans to buy over-priced, politically created health insurance, create an economically unsustainable government-run insurance plan and impose economy-crushing taxes. In fact, the President would break yet another promise by imposing a 2.5% income tax on each person who refused to buy government improved insurance. Further, after 2013 people would be forced to stay in their current plan for life or buy only a government-approved plan since no further enrollment will be allowed in non-approved insurance. Insurance companies would profit endlessly from the free business of the mandate. As medical care demands increased and artificially high profit margins became unacceptably low (for them) they would join the bailout game. In other words, there would be absolutely no change to the status quo — just an expansion of more people into the currently bad system with the added feature of state-sanctioned rationing of medical care.

President Obama and Congress are building a medical cage that would trap all Americans and their doctors. Doctors who chose to provide the best, most innovative care with the fewest side effects to their patients would be punished. Doctors will be coerced to buy electronic medical records and send the private medical data of their patients and the details of their medical decisions to the government and insurance companies. The data of your doctors’ medical practice would then be scanned by bureaucrats to see that they have complied with rules designed to force them to ration care. They must practice “efficiently” to avoid a 5%-40% pay cut or to avoid being driven out of practice altogether. The same government that recently accidentally posted all the nation’s sensitive nuclear sites on the internet would then have to be trusted to keep your data confidential. With full access to every bit of your medical data, government and insurance companies would have an excuses to deny care for your “non-compliance” with, for instance, a diabetes control or tobacco cessation program. Congressional plans would likely add to the cost of health insurance by adding mandated benefits to plans you must buy — perhaps even forcing pro-life taxpayers to subsidize abortions.

Congress is foolishly basing its health system reform proposals on the same approach used in Massachusetts. The state has failed to achieve “universal coverage” with about 200,000 (2.6%) of their state still uninsured. In fact, most of the newly insured were covered by receiving heavily subsidized insurance from the state — not due to the mandate to buy private insurance out of pocket. Due to budget overruns, they recently voted to remove coverage from 30,000 legal aliens for a $130 million savings and last year released others who couldn’t afford costly coverage from the mandate. Health care costs are rising much faster than nationally with spending up by 23 percent. Insurance premiums have increased 10-12 percent per year, nearly double the national average. The state is facing $1.5 billion this year in health spending and now is considering cost control programs that will limit care doctors provide to patients. There are too few providers for the increased demand – due to price fixing of doctor pay for decades by the federal government. Thus patients are waiting long periods to see doctors — especially in primary care. Congressional proposals to fix this included allowing nurse practitioners to be designated primary care “providers”, negating the years of training doctors receive and discouraging more doctors from entering the profession to compete against nurses for the same business.

Fortunately there are good Congressional proposals to address these problems and to allow American to escape from the government’s medical cage. Congressman Ron Paul has authored HR 2630, the “Protect Patients and Physician’s Privacy Act”. The bill states that all individuals shall have the ability to opt out of any federally mandated, created, or funded electronic system for maintaining health care information. He also is offering HR 2629 the “Coercion is Not Health Care Act’” which forbids the Federal Government from forcing any American to purchase health insurance, and from conditioning participation in any federal program, or receipt of any federal benefit, on the purchase of health insurance.

Free market economist and philosopher of freedom, Friedrich Hayek defined freedom as “the absence of coercion”. In his classic The Road to Serfdom he describes how parliamentary bodies (like Congress) prefer to delegate their power to unelected committees to insulate themselves from criticism — especially when they create economically unsustainable programs which are promises that they cannot keep. Modern Congressional promises that can’t be kept include Medicare, SCHIP and now a proposed public option and heavily subsidized, but mandated, universal health insurance. Congressman Paul is channeling Hayek when he works to protect us from coercion proposed by Congress and from the power their appointed committees would gain by using the valuable medical information essentially looted from each American alive. As a free American, it is in your your best interest to use the freedom you have now to rise up to stop this very un-American intrusion into your lives. Some would say it is your duty — but that would be coercion too. Yet remember that Benjamin Franklin told us that when you fight for your own freedom, you are helping the cause of liberty for all. And a society with more freedom is in everyone’s individual interest. You can start by calling your Congressman and ask them to support HR 2629 and HR 2630. Then recruit others who have an open mind to the cause. Finally, it is important that you donate to causes like the Campaign for Liberty so they can be on your side to help you fight.

Stop Obamacare Now!

via: campaignforliberty

The Majority in Congress and the President are promising to change the “status quo” by pushing a government run-medicine plan (HR 3200). The plan would create rationing through government committees, force all Americans to buy over-priced, politically created health insurance, create an economically unsustainable government-run insurance plan and impose economy-crushing taxes. In fact, the President would break yet another promise by imposing a 2.5% income tax on each person who refused to buy government improved insurance. Further, after 2013 people would be forced to stay in their current plan for life or buy only a government-approved plan since no further enrollment will be allowed in non-approved insurance. Insurance companies would profit endlessly from the free business of the mandate. As medical care demands increased and artificially high profit margins became unacceptably low (for them) they would join the bailout game. In other words, there would be absolutely no change to the status quo — just an expansion of more people into the currently bad system with the added feature of state-sanctioned rationing of medical care.

President Obama and Congress are building a medical cage that would trap all Americans and their doctors. Doctors who chose to provide the best, most innovative care with the fewest side effects to their patients would be punished. Doctors will be coerced to buy electronic medical records and send the private medical data of their patients and the details of their medical decisions to the government and insurance companies. The data of your doctors’ medical practice would then be scanned by bureaucrats to see that they have complied with rules designed to force them to ration care. They must practice “efficiently” to avoid a 5%-40% pay cut or to avoid being driven out of practice altogether. The same government that recently accidentally posted all the nation’s sensitive nuclear sites on the internet would then have to be trusted to keep your data confidential. With full access to every bit of your medical data, government and insurance companies would have an excuses to deny care for your “non-compliance” with, for instance, a diabetes control or tobacco cessation program. Congressional plans would likely add to the cost of health insurance by adding mandated benefits to plans you must buy — perhaps even forcing pro-life taxpayers to subsidize abortions.

Congress is foolishly basing its health system reform proposals on the same approach used in Massachusetts. The state has failed to achieve “universal coverage” with about 200,000 (2.6%) of their state still uninsured. In fact, most of the newly insured were covered by receiving heavily subsidized insurance from the state — not due to the mandate to buy private insurance out of pocket. Due to budget overruns, they recently voted to remove coverage from 30,000 legal aliens for a $130 million savings and last year released others who couldn’t afford costly coverage from the mandate. Health care costs are rising much faster than nationally with spending up by 23 percent. Insurance premiums have increased 10-12 percent per year, nearly double the national average. The state is facing $1.5 billion this year in health spending and now is considering cost control programs that will limit care doctors provide to patients. There are too few providers for the increased demand – due to price fixing of doctor pay for decades by the federal government. Thus patients are waiting long periods to see doctors — especially in primary care. Congressional proposals to fix this included allowing nurse practitioners to be designated primary care “providers”, negating the years of training doctors receive and discouraging more doctors from entering the profession to compete against nurses for the same business.

Fortunately there are good Congressional proposals to address these problems and to allow American to escape from the government’s medical cage. Congressman Ron Paul has authored HR 2630, the “Protect Patients and Physician’s Privacy Act”. The bill states that all individuals shall have the ability to opt out of any federally mandated, created, or funded electronic system for maintaining health care information. He also is offering HR 2629 the “Coercion is Not Health Care Act’” which forbids the Federal Government from forcing any American to purchase health insurance, and from conditioning participation in any federal program, or receipt of any federal benefit, on the purchase of health insurance.

Free market economist and philosopher of freedom, Friedrich Hayek defined freedom as “the absence of coercion”. In his classic The Road to Serfdom he describes how parliamentary bodies (like Congress) prefer to delegate their power to unelected committees to insulate themselves from criticism — especially when they create economically unsustainable programs which are promises that they cannot keep. Modern Congressional promises that can’t be kept include Medicare, SCHIP and now a proposed public option and heavily subsidized, but mandated, universal health insurance. Congressman Paul is channeling Hayek when he works to protect us from coercion proposed by Congress and from the power their appointed committees would gain by using the valuable medical information essentially looted from each American alive. As a free American, it is in your your best interest to use the freedom you have now to rise up to stop this very un-American intrusion into your lives. Some would say it is your duty — but that would be coercion too. Yet remember that Benjamin Franklin told us that when you fight for your own freedom, you are helping the cause of liberty for all. And a society with more freedom is in everyone’s individual interest. You can start by calling your Congressman and ask them to support HR 2629 and HR 2630. Then recruit others who have an open mind to the cause. Finally, it is important that you donate to causes like the Campaign for Liberty so they can be on your side to help you fight.

Constitutional Tyrany

via: campaignforliberty

The Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee met July 15th to hear testimony regarding the Real ID Act 2005 and the newly introduced Providing for Additional Security in States’ Identification (“PASS”) Act. Senator Lieberman is the Chairman of the committee. As you will see, the “fix” was in.

For two weeks the Stop Real ID Coalition, of which I, Mark Lerner, am the co-founder, had lobbied to provide testimony to the committee. Thousands of our supporters called the committee on our behalf.

The answer we received from the committee staffers was there was going to be two witnesses that were already scheduled to testify before the committee that were opposed to the PASS Act, thus my testimony was not needed.

This is where the “problem” started. I had already spoken with one of the two people that were supposedly going to oppose the PASS Act. He told me his organization was supporting the PASS Act. The second person was a former DHS senior person who had previously stated he preferred Real ID but would accept the PASS Act. He did believe the PASS Act did need some strengthening to work.

My own area of knowledge is in the areas of biometrics and global information sharing. I have testified on the state level many times. I must have been considered credible because legislation opposing Real ID resulted.

Knowing that I was not being allowed to testify, I decided to attend the hearing. Committee staffers had notified me that I would be allowed to submit written testimony. I declined because the “fix” was in. Few people ever read written testimony.

Long story short-The hearing proceeded and not one person provided opposing testimony to the PASS Act. Not only was I lied to but so were the thousands of citizens who called. The hearing was a “staged” event.

One would have to believe there were provisions of the Real ID Act that were not just needed but could not be achieved at the state level by state lawmakers before supporting Real ID or the PASS Act. The National Governors Association worked with Senator Akaka (the author of the PASS Act), the National Conference of State Legislators, and DHS to come up with the compromise legislation, the PASS Act.

The NGA and the NCSL sold out states’ rights and the rights of citizens for money. No surprise.

Our organization is opposed to the use of biometrics and RFID with state driver’s licenses. International standards under Real ID apply to the license itself and the digital facial image. American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) standards for driver’s licenses were adopted as part of Real ID. On AAMVA’s website they proclaim they are an international organization that serves law enforcement and motor vehicle administrators. The International Civil Aviation Organization, an agency of the U.N., adopted standard was applied to the digital facial image/photograph for state driver’s licenses during the rulemaking process for the Real ID Act.

By using international standards there would be global interoperability/information sharing. The photo was mandated to be facial recognition compatible. Real ID/PASS Act=Being enrolled into a single global biometric identification system that links our body to our ability to buy and sell.

After the hearing I asked people to call the committee staffers and Senator Lieberman’s office and again asked if I could testify in person before the legislation came up for a vote in committee in about two weeks. Once again committee staffers lied. They told callers two people had testified against the PASS Act and went further by saying I did not know what I was talking about. The actual testimony is provided on the committee’s web-site.

We are going to focus our efforts on the House Homeland Security Committee when the legislation goes to the House of Representatives.

I have met with the ACLU about the Real ID Act. That meeting with the support of Republican state lawmakers resulted in the ACLJ opposing Real ID. The provisions of the PASS Act would not allow the ACLJ to support the PASS Act. I spoke with the ACLU and they were already opposing the PASS Act as they did the Real ID Act. EPIC and others are also opposing the PASS Act as they did the Real ID Act. On our website, www.Stoprealidcoalition.com you will find a video of a conference we sponsored last year at the National Press Club (NPC) in Washington D.C. You will be surprised at the diversity of those that stood together at the NPC when you watch the video.

There is hope. Mainstream media is watching and reporting. The AP is honoring their responsibility as a media organization.

We have been told many times we would fail; each time we prevailed. The Campaign for Liberty is a valuable ally in this “fight.” Failure is not an option.

Healthcare Is a Good, Not a Right

via: campaignforliberty

Political philosopher Richard Weaver famously and correctly stated that ideas have consequences. Take for example ideas about rights versus goods. Natural law states that people have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A good is something you work for and earn. It might be a need, like food, but more “goods” seem to be becoming “rights” in our culture, and this has troubling consequences. It might seem harmless enough to decide that people have a right to things like education, employment, housing or healthcare. But if we look a little further into the consequences, we can see that the workings of the community and economy are thrown wildly off balance when people accept those ideas.

First of all, other people must pay for things like healthcare. Those people have bills to pay and families to support, just as you do. If there is a “right” to healthcare, you must force the providers of those goods, or others, to serve you.

Obviously, if healthcare providers were suddenly considered outright slaves to healthcare consumers, our medical schools would quickly empty. As the government continues to convince us that healthcare is a right instead of a good, it also very generously agrees to step in as middle man. Politicians can be very good at making it sound as if healthcare will be free for everybody. Nothing could be further from the truth. The administration doesn’t want you to think too much about how hospitals will be funded, or how you will somehow get something for nothing in the healthcare arena. We are asked to just trust the politicians. Somehow it will all work out.

Universal Healthcare never quite works out the way the people are led to believe before implementing it. Citizens in countries with nationalized healthcare never would have accepted this system had they known upfront about the rationing of care and the long lines.

As bureaucrats take over medicine, costs go up and quality goes down because doctors spend more and more of their time on paperwork and less time helping patients. As costs skyrocket, as they always do when inefficient bureaucrats take the reins, government will need to confiscate more and more money from an already foundering economy to somehow pay the bills. As we have seen many times, the more money and power that government has, the more power it will abuse. The frightening aspect of all this is that cutting costs, which they will inevitably do, could very well mean denying vital services. And since participation will be mandatory, no legal alternatives will be available. The government will be paying the bills, forcing doctors and hospitals to dance more and more to the government’s tune. Having to subject our health to this bureaucratic insanity and mismanagement is possibly the biggest danger we face. The great irony is that in turning the good of healthcare into a right, your life and liberty are put in jeopardy.

Instead of further removing healthcare from the market, we should return to a true free market in healthcare, one that empowers individuals, not bureaucrats, with control of healthcare dollars. My bill HR 1495 the Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act provides tax credits and medical savings accounts designed to do just that.

The Surveillance State Threatens All of Us

via: campaignforliberty

When you hear the word “security” or “safety” watch out. They are the two buzz words that are most often used by the government, whether federal or local, to fearmonger. Fear can be used to drive bad policies that otherwise would be rejected. It has consequences, internationally, nationally, and locally. Around the world Americans fight wars because they are afraid that if they do not do so they will be attacked by terrorists. Nationally, the Department of Homeland Security grows and grows, compiling extensive data bases on citizens who have done no wrong. Locally, police forces grow larger and larger in spite of falling crime rates. What is certain about the consequence of fear is that those who sell it to increase government powers do so in the full knowledge that it will cost lots of taxpayer money and will also wind up infringing on civil liberties. Make no mistake, the post 9/11 United States is moving gradually towards becoming a police state-lite and no one seems to care very much. But don’t worry, it is all happening to make you more safe and secure.

The creep of government and the march of surveillance technology go hand in hand. In Maryland and other states, the push to use ostensibly innocuous technology to enable police to monitor the public has accelerated. There has been some debate in the Washington area about the increasing use of speed cameras, but those who are opposed are usually silenced by the “safety” argument. It is reported that Montgomery County in Maryland has deployed hundreds of cameras and is raking in $53,000 a day in fines. The cameras are sited on busy roads and record the license plates of vehicles going a pre-set speed over the posted limit. Many are located where the speed limit drops, making them electronic speed traps. The fine is mailed to the owner of the car automatically and there is no appeal and no way to determine if the camera was malfunctioning. If the fine is not paid, penalties are added on to it and the offending vehicle has its re-registration blocked.

Governments use “safer” to justify anything and have done so in the past to curtail constitutional rights through abominations like the Patriot Acts and the Military Commissions Act. Burgeoning technologies like speed cameras raise serious personal liberties issue that no one is choosing to address. Why should the government have the ability to monitor the movements of a vehicle belonging to a citizen under any circumstances? Does anyone know for sure that the speed cameras are not sending their information to some data base at the Department of Homeland Security? Maybe they already are. It is difficult to know as there is no real oversight to the process and it is easy to connect data bases. If the cameras are not being multi-tasked yet just wait until someone figures out what a wealth of information they might be collecting. And when they begin recording information on law abiding citizens the government will claim that it is for everyone’s safety and security.

Those who might argue that collecting traffic data electronically is not threatening might want to consider that information only has meaning when someone figures out how to use it. The employment of apparently innocuous data bases to police the public has been around for a while. Shortly after 9/11, CIA was sending officers all over the world, many traveling on authentic US passports issued in false names. An officer I know who was returning from Asia presented his passport to the immigration officer at Dulles Airport. The airport flipped through it, slid it through a scanner, punched a couple of numbers and then asked “What kind of car do you own?” All of the fake passports apparently had some linked data bases that were provided to make them appear more authentic, which is referred to as backstopping. In this case, the immigration officer was able to pull up additional information from state of Virginia records relating to the traveling officer who, unaware of the DMV link, was arrested, and spent a few uncomfortable hours in the slammer before being bailed by CIA security. That was in 2002. The all-information all-the-time security state has been much empowered and improved since then and it is to be presumed that there now exists an electronic data base on every citizen.

Local governments have an interest in developing ingenious ways to fine the citizenry to raise money but the more important issue is the government’s willingness and ability to electronically monitor people’s lives. The National Security Agency already has the technical capability to monitor all telephone calls taking place within the United States in real time. To judge how close we Americans are to complete surveillance it is helpful to look at the example of Europe, where state intrusion has been a fact of life for many years. The United Kingdom, which is now the most constantly and thoroughly technically surveilled country on earth, provides some hint of what the United States might become in a few years. The British government routinely monitors telephone calls and e-mail messages. Cameras provide continuous coverage of the centers of most cities and there is monitoring of all major roads and bridges by CCTV linked to monitors.

To cite only one example, back in March the British media was reporting the disappearance of Claudia Lawrence. Lawrence was working as a chef at a university in York when she disappeared. A BBC report included the following: “It was initially thought Miss Lawrence had disappeared after setting off on the three-mile walk from her home to work the following morning. But she does not appear on any CCTV footage from her normal route.”

On the basis of the CCTV, the police ruled out her having walked to work, which means that they were able to reconstruct a three mile route through the city with reasonable assurance that they had not missed Lawrence on the CCTV footage. That the police would be able to do that and no one bats an eyelash for privacy reasons is astonishing, a level of government surveillance that is several generations beyond speed cameras. It is reminiscent of Winston Smith in 1984 whose television was watching him while he was doing exercises in front of it. Maybe George Orwell knew what was coming.

And then there is the real ID. Janice Napolitano, Director of Homeland Security, has backed off from the real ID concept that would have united all relevant data bases on the federal, state, and local levels to create an identity card that would be required for all US citizens and resident aliens. Reportedly, a number of states balked at the expense of integrating their data bases, but there is a fundamental civil liberties issue that is much more important. A huge data base on all citizens incorporating detailed personal information is a formula for control by the state that essentially renders null and void the US constitution. Can Napolitano make a case that the creation of the real ID will end terrorist threats? Of course not. The sponsors of Real ID might be well intentioned and honorable, but they should understand that in the wrong hands electronic invasion of privacy can become another tool taking away individual rights and liberties and transferring control to the government. No one really knows whether a national ID it would really make anyone safer or more secure. Many European countries already have identity documents that are similar to the proposed real ID, yet they have suffered from terrorist attacks and continue to have thousands of illegal immigrants.

The creep towards the technological control of the entire US population continues. It is particularly dangerous because it is largely unregulated, free of any judicial process. There is no sign that the Obama Administration will do anything to stop the development of new technologies and policing imperatives because more government in everyone’s lives is really what the Democratic Party is all about. When government officials start talking about everyone’s safety the people should be aware that those promises are essentially empty and that exchanging liberty for the promise of security will eventually lead to the loss of both.

Copyright © 2009 Campaign for Liberty

Romans Chapter 13 Revisited

via: campaignforliberty

It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, “What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone.” Or words to that effect.

No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let’s be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way.

Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let’s briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”

Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose America’s political leaders really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt whether they truly believe that.

For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject’s bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, “Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government”? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law?

So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)

By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

Notice that civil government must not be a “terror to good works.” It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection. This is a basic principle of Natural Law (and all of America’s legal documents–including the U.S. Constitution–are founded upon the God-ordained principles of Natural Law).

The apostle clearly states that civil government is a “minister of God to thee for good.” It is a not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to “execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” They have no authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.

Did Moses violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul’s troops? Did Daniel violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king’s command to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God’s principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God’s principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.

Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God’s principle of submission to authority?

So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority–even civil authority–is limited.

Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said, “Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.” Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just “because they said so.” It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government’s laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.

Therefore, there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that discussion for another time.

Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America’s “supreme Law” does not rest with any man or any group of men. America’s “supreme Law” does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the “supreme Law of the Land.” Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so.

This means that, in America, the “higher powers” are not the men who occupy elected office; they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:

“Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God’s minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”

Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, according to the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.

Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any other governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this column, Biblical principles and Natural Law form the foundation of all three of America’s founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

(See: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2005/cbarchive_20050630.html)

As a result, Christians in America (for the most part) have not had to face the painful decision to “obey God rather than men” and defy their civil authorities.

The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders to violate their oaths of office and to ignore–and blatantly disobey–the “supreme Law of the Land,” the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution.

Now, how many of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?

Copyright © 2009 Chuck Baldwin

The Return of America’s Anathema

via: campaignforliberty

As most American school children know, one of the chief complaints that the American colonists had against the mother country was that they were taxed without their consent. “Taxation without representation is tyranny,” a phrase often credited to the revolutionary James Otis, became an American maxim. Colonial Americans were anti-tax to begin with, but to be taxed by a parliament three thousand miles away without any say in the matter was intolerable.

The colonists revolted and after sacrificing their lives and treasure they defeated the pariah which is taxation without representation; and, consequently, the freest nation the world had ever seen was born. Victory, however, was short-lived, as taxation without representation was resurrected and transmogrified a little more than 100 years later, in 1913, in the form of the Federal Reserve System, America’s third and most menacing iteration of a central bank.

Technically, the Federal Reserve has no power of taxation. In fact, it is not even a governmental entity or agency. It is a bank composed of unelected officials who answer to their shareholders… and who once in a while appear before Congress to discuss a whole lot about nothing. How then does the Federal Reserve effect taxation without representation? Through its manipulation of the money supply, that is, through varying degrees of continual inflation. As even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke admitted, “Inflation is a tax.”

The problem is that unlike those in 1776, Americans today—courtesy of the fractional reserve banking system led by the Federal Reserve—do not even realize they are being taxed without their consent. One reason for this general dearth of understanding concerning such vital subject matter is the perception that acquiring knowledge of the economics of central banking is equivalent to earning a PhD in quantum physics. Not so; and, if liberty is to return to America Americans must understand that the Federal Reserve is their new King George.

No Representation

To begin, calling it the “Federal Reserve” is a misnomer, because it is not “federal” (or a “reserve” for that matter, but that is not important for our purposes). Nonetheless, it does have loose, somewhat incestuous, ties to the federal government. As one federal circuit court explained it is “composed of both public and private elements.” Committee for Monetary Reform v. Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System, 766 F.2d 538, 539 (D.C. Cir. 1985). The Federal Reserve System was created by Congress’s 1913 Federal Reserve Act, and consequently derives its powers from the federal government. It consists of twelve districts each of which has one Federal Reserve Bank (“Fed Regional Banks”) and more than 5,000 other privately owned banks, that is, your bank. The Federal Reserve System’s powers are distributed primarily among three separate bodies, none of which are composed of elected officials: the Board of Governors (“Board”), the Federal Open Market Committee (“FOMC”), and the Federal Advisory Counsel (“FAC”). The Board governs the day-to-day business of the Federal Reserve and consists of seven members each of whom is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Board members serve fourteen year terms — more than twice as long as U.S. Senators. While the original text of the Federal Reserve Act allowed the President to remove a Board member “for cause,” that is no longer the case. Today Board members may only be removed through Congressional impeachment, a next to impossible process.

The FOMC consists of twelve members: the seven Board members and five additional members who are selected by the Fed Regional Banks and all of whom are either presidents or first vice presidents of the Fed Regional Banks.

The FAC, which advises the Board and the Fed Regional Banks, consists of one member from each Federal Reserve District and is selected by the board of the corresponding Regional Bank.

Likewise, members of the board of directors of each Fed Regional Bank are not elected officials. Instead, they are either selected by the commercial banks within the Federal Reserve District or are appointed by the Board.

Thus, within the Federal Reserve System there is not a single elected official who is accountable to the people. It is, for all intents and purposes, independent, and therefore, not representative, of the American electorate.

Inflation — A Hidden Tax, but a Tax Nonetheless

According to the Federal Reserve Act, the purpose of the Federal Reserve System is “to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.” (Hahaha. . . my apologies. . . that one always makes me laugh). According to a handy little calculator provided by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the Federal Reserve is not doing so well with its statutorily imposed obligation.

For example, a dollar today buys what $0.045 bought in 1913, when the Federal Reserve was created. In other words, a dollar earned in 1913 has been subjected to a 95.5% tax. Now granted, most people today never earned a dollar in 1913. So let’s say a baby boomer began working in 1973 and immediately started saving for the future. Today each dollar he earned in 1973 is worth about 20 cents, that is, his dollar has been taxed 80%. This is an outrageous tax, but this taxation acts so subtly over time that it is scarcely noticed.

It is the Federal Reserve that is to blame for the dollar’s depreciation and it carries out this hidden tax through its manipulating of U.S. monetary policy. The Federal Reserve utilizes three primary instruments in formulating and executing monetary policy: “1) open market operations; 2) regulation of member bank borrowings from the Federal Reserve Banks; and 3) establishment of member bank reserve requirements.” See Reuss v. Balles, 584 F.2d 461, 463 (D.C. Cir. 1978). The net result of every one of these tools, however, is an increase in the number of circulating dollars. “The most flexible, and perhaps the most important, of these monetary policy tools is the open market instrument.” Id.

The open market operation (“OMO”) is the Federal Reserve’s power to purchase U.S. bonds, notes, or any other U.S. obligation, gold, certain types of commercial paper, and “cable transfers and bankers’ acceptances and bills of exchange.” The twelve-member FOMC has the exclusive power over OMOs. It is the OMO that results in what Ron Paul and other free market economists describe as creating money “out of thin air.”

You see, more often than not the Federal Reserve makes its open market purchases through brokerage houses, like Goldman Sachs for example. Goldman will purchase, say, $100 million worth of U.S. government debt via Treasury Bills (“T-bills”), which the federal government issues to fund its deficit spending. The Federal Reserve will then purchase those T-bills from Goldman by crediting Goldman’s Federal Reserve bank account (which it is required to have by law) with $100 million of newly created money—$100 million which did not exist until the Federal Reserve “purchased” the T-bills. Thus, every dollar which is in circulation is proportionately devalued by the newly created dollars. To be overly-simplistic, if there were $1 billion in circulation each dollar would have been devalued by 10%, that is, a 10% indirect tax rate. (Click here for an interactive example of the OMO process, courtesy of our beloved central bank.)

But that is just the beginning of the insidious tax created by the actions of the Federal Reserve. In our example, Goldman now has $100 million in its Federal Reserve bank account which it previously did not have. By federal statute, Goldman like nearly all banking institutions, need only keep between 3% and 12% of its total deposits in reserve. This is called fractional reserve banking. Again to make things simple, let us say that the reserve requirement is 10%. Of the newly created $100 million Goldman can lend $90,000,000 and keep $10,000,000 in reserve. Now, to demonstrate the real taxing mechanism, the $90,000,000 loaned by Goldman will eventually end up being deposited in other banking institutions, but for our purposes let us say the entire amount is deposited in Chase. Chase can keep 10% in reserve ($9,000,000) per the statutory requirement and lend the remaining 90% ($81,000,000). This process repeats itself and can ultimately result in a net increase of 900 million new dollars on top of the original $100 million that was created by the Federal Reserve when it “purchased” the T-bills from Goldman. Net increase — $1 billion of “new” money.

Like our current “progressive” income tax structure, the inflation tax does not tax everyone equally; in fact, it benefits some and causes detriment to others. Whoever receives the newly created money first (in our example Goldman) derives a benefit, because the newly created money has the same purchasing power as every other existing dollar in circulation. As that money changes hands and makes its way down through the economy, the market adjusts its pricing structure in order to compensate for the influx of new money. By the time (some of) those dollars arrive in your hands and mine, their purchasing power has decreased to the fullest extent and we, as a result, can buy less with them than Goldman could.

The increase in the supply of money — via government deficit spending, the FOMC’s OMOs, and fractional reserve banking — is one reason why prices “increase.” It is not that the goods and services you want to buy are necessarily gaining value due to a fluctuation in the supply or demand of the goods and services, it is that the supply of dollars goes up causing those dollars’ purchasing power to go down.

Accordingly, as the money creation process is typically initiated by the government issuing debt (T-Bills, bonds, etc.), increased government deficit spending will generally result in an increase in the supply of money, and consequently, a decreased standard of living. The federal government, therefore, is able to finance its welfare-warfare state with only minimal increases in direct income and other tax rates because it is able to tax us through the back end by way of the Federal Reserve System. The only winners in such a system is Big Government and Wall Street. The losers are Lady Liberty, you, and me.

King George must be spinning in his grave with envy. If only he and his parliament had been smart enough to implement a central banking system based on fiat currency, and the colonists had been dumb enough to accept such a system, he may have been able to avoid the whole “taxation without representation” fiasco and hold on to his cherished American colonies.

Taxation without representation truly is tyranny and anathema to everything that is (was) America, but the anathema is back, only in different form. We, like our eighteenth century predecessors, therefore, have an important question to answer. Are we willing to accept taxation without representation?

Socialism and the Economic Calculation Problem

I was prompted by recent discussions about Socialism, to take a closer look at that particular system, and to contrast it with free-market Capitalism. I want to address, specifically, the means by which resources are distributed within the economy of each system. Though Socialism comes in many forms, they all share the underlying concept that the “collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” It is from this definition that I base my criticism.

In any economy, there is the problem of routing people into jobs where consumer demand needs to be met. This is accomplished, in a Capitalist system through the price mechanism. If a scarce resource is in high demand its scarcity rises as it is consumed at a higher rate than it is produced. A scarce good or service naturally rises in value — and hence price — as it becomes scarcer. Higher prices attract self-interested entrepreneurs and laborers into that particular market where a profit is being sought. As more competition enters a market, the price is driven down until a relatively stable balance is reached between production and consumption. People are compelled to voluntarily seek, and become skilled in jobs they would not otherwise accept, due to the incentive of larger profits, higher likelihood of finding employment, and job security. If a particular market has been saturated, there is a disincentive for people to seek that as their main source of income, for reasons contrary to those stated above.

Under a Socialist system, the price mechanism is absent; since resources would be distributed by a central governing body (I’ll refer to it as the government, though some may prefer another designation). The continually changing demands of consumers are determined by the government and must be relayed back to producers. When a shortage occurs, i.e. demand exceeds the current supply; additional production of that resource is desired by consumers. Since there is no price mechanism, there is no incentive for laborers to enter that production market. The mere knowledge of higher demand for a particular good or service is insufficient to entice laborers to produce it.

READ THE REST

My Congressman’s change of tone regarding HR 1207

Something’s caused Dave Camp (MI-4) to change his tone regarding the Fed.  Maybe he’s learned that the central bank is destroying our currency, but chances are (based on his voting record and currently sponsored and cosponsored legislation) he’s only going with the group.  Either way, I’m thankful he’s now a cosponsor of HR 1207.

Here’s the first response to my request that he cosponsor. (Just the typical canned response.)

Then, after he finally became a cosponsor:

Dear Brian,

I would like take [sic] a moment to inform you I recently became a cosponsor of H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, introduced by Representative Ron Paul (R-TX).

As you may know, since its creation in 1913, the Federal Reserve has had unlimited authority to buy and sell government debt, lend to failing banks and financial institutions, and make agreements with foreign central banks.  It can do all this while being exempt under the bank’s charter from any public disclosure or audit.  Using these powers, the Federal Reserve has put trillions of taxpayer dollars on the line over the past year and Congress has been unable to see their books or scrutinize their actions.

The Federal Reserve Transparency Act would make all this information public and require the U.S. Comptroller General to immediately conduct a full audit of the Federal Reserve.  I believe it is as important as ever for Congress to oversee and, if necessary, rein in the actions of the Federal Reserve.  If this financial crisis  has taught us anything, it is that we need more transparency and accoutability in our financial system.

For these reasons, I have decided to cosponsor H.R. 1207 and am hopeful the House of Representatives will soon take up and pass this bill.  Again, I am glad to know your support for this important legislation and, as always, I welcome you comments on any federal matter.

                                                           Sincerely,

                                                           DAVE CAMP