But for the sake of argument, let’s assume human-caused global warming is indeed happening. Conceding this, it turns out that . . .

The effort to curb carbon emissions will be far more harmful than global warming itself!

Please send Congress a letter demanding that they defeat the cap & trade bill and oppose any global climate treaty.

Here’s what I wrote in my letter . . .   

Efforts to curb global warming make as much sense as spending $2 to save $1.

The International Energy Agency believes we must cut carbon emissions in half if we want to stop global warming. They also estimate that this will cost $45 trillion.  http://www.iea.org/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=263

Yet Dr. William Nordhaus of Yale calculates that the economic losses from global warming, if we do nothing to curb carbon emissions, will reach just $22 trillion this century. Dr. Nordhaus also estimates that proposals made by The Stern Review and Al Gore to curb carbon emissions would cost $17-25 trillion more than doing nothing:  http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/dice_mss_072407_all.pdf

And all of this assumes an effort in which the whole world cooperates, with no cheating!

If Congress imposes cap & trade on the U.S., or ratifies a climate treaty, it will not stop global warming. Instead, it will only damage the U.S. economy and drive more jobs overseas. That’s because  . . .

Many developing countries will not agree to participate!

We would be hypocrites to condemn them for this. They only want what we already have. Most importantly, there are sound environmental reasons why we should want them to gain our level of affluence . . .

Wealthy nations like ours do better at protecting the environment!

* Our water is safer and our air is cleaner.
* We can afford to protect species from extinction.
* We can afford research that constantly discovers how to do more with less, allowing us to grow more and more affluent while imposing fewer burdens on the environment.

Environmental protection will benefit from a wealthier world, not suffer from it.

Developing nations will not sacrifice their progress just to please Western politicians, and we shouldn’t want them to do so. If we really care about the environment, then we need these nations to become richer, not poorer.

The proposed schemes for a cap & trade law and a global climate treaty will . . .

* Fail because of cheating or non-participation
* Cost at least $2 for every $1 we gain, and probably far more
* Impoverish America and the world, thereby destroying the innovation and environmental protections that free market affluence makes possible

Do not spend $2 in a vain attempt to save $1. Do not support a scheme that cannot work. Instead, support the economic progress that makes environmental protection possible. Do this by opposing the cap & trade bill, and any global climate treaty. Let free market innovation and affluence pave the way for solutions that will really work.

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

Remember that the more people who read this message, the more likely we will be victorious.

* If you forward this message to others, be sure to clip off the Dispatch footer when you do
* For social bookmarkers and networkers, here’s a tiny url for this message: http://tinyurl.com/y946ls7
* If you’d like to make a monthly pledge or one-time contribution to further our work, you can do so on our secure contribution page.

Let’s Downsize DC!

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

SOURCES

Information that inspired links and points above originated with Global Warming 101: Costs by William Yeatman at GlobalWarming.org.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

Originally published on November 14, 2009, at http://towneforcongress.com/platform-issues/afghanistan-war

While Republican Bush II once famously claimed he was “the decider,” the ‘Change We Can Believe In’ promised by his replacement, the Democrat Obama, is hardly any different in regards to the Afghanistan and Pakistan wars.  The media and American people breathlessly await the President’s decision on how many troops to send into the war zone.  With spines made of jelly, Congress is as toothless as a bunch of newborns as they delegate their responsibilities to represent the American people to a single man.  What could they ‘Change’ instead?

Congress could refuse to approve spending to extend this unconstitutional war of aggression against Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Congress should instead pass a resolution for a rapid, immediate, and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan and redeployment to protect America’s sieve-like borders.  Congress could increase the reward for the capture of Osama Bin Laden forty times from $27 million to over $1 billion.  Congress should also issue constitutional letters of marque to bring indicted terrorists to justice in a court of law.

To support this stance, I offer the following four key points: First, elected officials must begin behaving like the United States is a nation of laws, not a collection of rogues who delegate their gravest responsibility and immaturely fail to follow the supreme law of the land and declare war. Second, America’s historical foreign policy actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan must be understood, which contain the true reasons why terrorists attacked the United States in 2001. Third, a sober look at the eco-politics of the area, such as opiates and oil pipelines, must be taken. Lastly, we should contain the problem by securing our borders, and with all of the economic unrest, now is no time to be nation-building and quartering troops in foreign lands.   

The Problem of Osama Bin Laden

“The Congress shall have Power… to declare War [and] grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal.” – The Constitution of the United States, 1787-present. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.

When America began bombing Afghanistan in November 2001 and expanded the “War of Terror” by commencing daily bombing of Pakistani villages in September 2008, both assaults were committed against sovereign states without a declaration of war, which is a constitutional requirement. The key justification related to the public for both wars was the tragic 9/11 attacks. The key goal related to the public for both wars was simply to capture Osama Bin Laden.

After having read the July 2004 9/11 Commission Report, there should be enough evidence to bring Bin Laden to trial for the 9/11 attacks.  (1) Even though I believe Bin Laden was behind the attacks, a dispassionate observer would question why the following facts are not generally known by the American public:

1. Per the CIA’s FBIS, Bin Laden said in a public interview on September 18, 2001 that “I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States… Neither I had any knowledge of these attacks…” While he could certainly be lying, why would he deny responsibility? The entire point of terrorism is to advance a cause through violence and fear.  (2)

2. On their “Most Wanted” poster, the FBI does not specify that Bin Laden is wanted for trial in connection to the 9/11 attack which may mean that there is not enough hard or admissible evidence to try him in a court of law. (3)

However, the question of 9/11 responsibility is somewhat moot in the case of Bin Laden. Although he was a CIA “asset” in the proxy war fought against the Soviets in the 1980s, Bin Laden has been America’s enemy since 1998 when, on the anniversary of American troops to Bin Laden’s native Saudi Arabia, simultaneous bombings at US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed 12 American citizens. (4A) (4B) The USS Cole suicide bombing which killed 17 American sailors while harbored in Yemen, and the 1993 World Trade Center garage explosion which killed 6 civilians are also tied to Bin Laden. (4A) (5) (6)

However, hurling armies of tens of thousands after Bin Laden is not cost effective, nor is it constitutional – nor has it succeeded after the past 8 years. Therefore I would support the raising the reward for the capture of Bin Laden from $27 million to over $1 billion, and the issuing of a constitutional letter of marque to bring him – and other responsible Al-Qaeda – to justice. Letters of marque and reprisal are warrants issued by Congress to specified parties giving them permission to commit what would otherwise be illegal acts as they capture “marked” enemies or seek retribution, as was done against the Barbary pirates in 1812. (7) The higher reward would incentivize groups to pursue Bin Laden, and could conceivably include US special forces.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are Unjust Wars

“Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.” – former President and Supreme Allied Commander in WWII Dwight D. Eisenhower

Besides a formal declaration of war, the “just war” doctrine specifies that wars cannot be preemptive; that there must be a just cause and innocent life must be in immediate jeopardy; that war must be a last resort after all diplomatic initiatives have failed; and it must be proportional in regards to the damage caused by the aggressor. (8)

Neither the Taliban nor Pakistan attacked the United States, and America was not in dire danger of an attack from either the Taliban or Pakistani military.

While the Taliban did shelter Bin Laden, the American government did not exhaust diplomacy – as a matter of fact, the government blindly ignored any efforts by the Taliban. On October 4, 2001, a Taliban plan to extradite Bin Laden to Pakistan for trial failed. (9) On October 7, as the bombing began, the Taliban stated they would place Bin Laden on trial in Afghanistan. (10) On October 14, the Taliban stated they would extradite Bin Laden to a third country for trial if America presented evidence of his involvement. (11)

Proportional? In 2001, 2,976 died during the 9/11 tragedy with 4 planes destroyed, 3 collapsed buildings in New York City, and a damaged Pentagon. In return, we have annihilated many tens of thousands of innocent civilians, many insurgents, and laid waste to countless cities and villages in a country that had no air force. If one includes the 19-year long Iraq War, several million civilian dead is a reasonable total. If this were somehow not enough, 5,278 American soldiers have died abroad. (12)

Afghanistan, the Graveyard of Empires: History on Brutal Rerun

“Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are.” – George Santayana

The Russians, British, even Alexander the Great have all met with defeat in Afghanistan, where the allegiances of a motley collection of tribes and clans still shift like the wind. America’s present-day involvement did not start in 2001, but instead began in 1979. The Muslim rebels, including Bin Laden, were funded via a proxy war to bled the Soviet Empire dry a few years before its’ failed central economic planning would have accomplished the same feat. President Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski – who later was an advisor for President Obama – related in a 1998 interview that America fomented unrest in Afghanistan by secretly funding the Mujahadeen well before the Soviets invaded. When Brzezinski was asked if he regretted funding Islamic fundamentalists and future terrorists, he replied, “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”  (13)

Brzezinski’s attitude was typical as America wiped its hands clean and left Afghanistan to tribal warfare which resulted in the Taliban consolidating power in the late 1990s. After fleeing Sudan, Osama Bin Laden found shelter with old contacts in the Northern Alliance and also the Taliban. As is related in the 9/11 Commission Report in chapters titled “The Attack Looms” and “The System Was Blinking Red,” America took very few actions to capture or kill Bin Laden until after 9/11 occurred. (14) However, even after 9/11 America was very hesitant to spend our soldiers’ lives. Consider:

On October 7, 2001 American and British air forces began the bombardment of Afghanistan, which had no air force. Air strikes directed by small British and American special forces units working alongside the Northern Alliance were the key reason the Taliban was defeated very quickly.

On November 13, Kabul was captured by Northern Alliance ground forces.

On November 26, Kunduz was captured by Northern Alliance ground forces.

In December the last major city of Kandahar was captured, also by Northern Alliance ground forces. (15)

During December 12-17 the infamous Battle of Tora Bora was fought in the mountains on the Afghanistan border. It is widely believed that this is when Bin Laden escaped to Pakistan. (16) (Photo)

So President Bush, despite any rhetoric to the contrary, did NOT allow American land forces to pursue him on land. In other words, we launched 150,000 troops over the Iraqi border in 2003 to capture Saddam Hussein, who was completely uninvolved with 9/11, but had only aerial bombardment and a few scant special op/CIA forces in Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden. Bush was content to let the Northern Alliance, a group of tribal warlords, fight a proxy war on our behalf.  (17)

It wasn’t until March 2002 that a major ground campaign was launched by the US to attack Al-Qaeda, and this can be seen by just looking at the casualty list’s details – most of those who died up to March were non-hostile airplane crashes or special ops related deaths. The first US combat death was a CIA operative on November 25. (18)

Will America join the dead phalanxes of Alexander and the rusted tanks of the Soviets in the graveyard of empires? I do not think we should stay long enough to find out. We are spending $400 to deliver each gallon of gasoline to patrol foreign borders, and currently maintaining an expensive army of 68,000 troops in the field. (19) The current National Security Advisor James Jones claimed in October 2009 that there are “less than 100 [al Qaeda] operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.“ (20)

A Tale of Opiates and Oil

“The first casualty when war comes is the truth.” – Senator Hiram Johnson, 1917

These are two fairly taboo subjects when the Afghanistan War is covered by the mainstream press. How much each factor truly played in foreign policy decision-making is left to the reader to decide.

Per the most recent, highly detailed United Nations report, the opium crop is over twice the pre-invasion levels. In fact, up until the invasion in November 2001, the Taliban’s mission to eradicate the crop was well underway due to their religious beliefs as seen by the dramatic drop in this chart. (21) The claim that the invasion has slowed down the drug trade is false; the war has accomplished the exact opposite.  This is a major cash market, with Afghanistan supplying over 90% of the world’s opiates.

The second topic is the geopolitics of oil.  While Afghanistan itself does not have fossil fuels, the vast and fairly-untapped reservoirs of oil and natural gas lie in the former Soviet satellite nations on the Afghan northern border. The Caspian Sea region is landlocked and there are plans to pipe the resources out via a Turkish or an Afghani-Pakistani pipeline, but political instability makes this difficult. A modern “Great Game” of geopolitical power struggles with the Russian, Chinese, Indian and Iranian governments is well underway. (22)

Border Security and the Economy

For those who do not heed the Constitutional limits on government, the brutal lessons taught by history, the immorality of unjust war, here are another two attempts to reason – border security and the economic turmoil.

As a chemical engineer, in industry when attacking customer problems, the first step is always containment of the problem, followed by root cause analysis, then preventative actions. In the case of 9/11, the Bush II administration made a foolhardy leap directly to preventative action, and has still not contained the threat of terrorism. In fact, even the “root cause analysis” from the 9/11 Commission did not begin until 14 months AFTER 9/11 instead of on 9/12/2001.  (23) Despite all the wasted bureaucracy in creating the monstrous $44-billion-a-year Department of Homeland Security, the American border is still a sieve with more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese as evidenced by rampant illegal immigration. (24) Returning the overseas Defense Department troops back to actually defending our borders with civilian border patrol staffing access points is extremely crucial for two reasons – our border security and our budget.

We must extricate our country from the overseas military empire of well over 700 bases in 150 of the planet’s 194 countries costing well over $1 trillion before it is too late. (25) With unemployment raging at over 20% and the dollar currency in crisis, imperial overstretch will result in the further stripping from the false Keynesian economy of our capital equipment, businesses, and jobs. If we and our children are to have peace in our lifetimes, we must drop the silly notion of America serving as the “world’s policeman” and JUST BRING OUR TROOPS HOME.

What kind of “policeman” patrols city streets with tanks, assault rifles, automated Predator drones and calls in aerial bombing and strafing runs to “peacekeep” the neighborhood? Washington DC is full of warmongers, armchair generals and chicken hawks who have no idea what the horrors of war entail. If our country were truly in danger of being invaded, I would be among the first to protect my family and friends. (Photo courtesy Leon Kuhn.  Used with permission.)

The enemies I have chosen to peacefully rise up against instead walk the halls of government.  Errant foreign policies are to blame for 9/11 and any future acts of terrorism on our soil.  In return for military and CIA meddling during the past century, America was hit on 9/11 by “blowback,” a CIA term coined to describe what goes around comes around.  (26) Without our troops stationed on Saudi, Bahraini, Qatari, Kuwaiti, et cetera soil, continuous supply of arms to both Israeli and Arab factions, and continuous bombing of Iraq, and harsh sanctions on Iraq and Iran, we would not have been attacked on 9/11.

We must be far more wary of the reckless spenders who support the Warfare-Welfare state, the FED and corporatist bailouts than of desperate bands starving in caves on the opposite side of the world. The American republic was conceived in liberty and is dead in its grave until We the People decide to fight for our freedoms.  While I draw breath I intend to see that liberty shall not perish under the heavy fist of this unconstitutional and illegal collection of rogues in government.

For freedom, justice, peace and prosperity,

Jake Towne

November 14, 2009

[Note: If you would like to find out what General McChrystal, commander of our forces suggests we do instead, here is his leaked and declassified report. While I had been hoping to find a logical, detailed alternative, unfortunately it reads like a poor high school book report that was turned in 8 years too late. The key takeaway is that “many indicators suggest the overall situation is deteriorating.” (page 5/66)  Also recommended reading is the resignation letter of Iraq War veteran Matthew Hoh, who resigned rather then continue serving in Afghanistan, and Imperial Hubris, a book written by the CIA's Bin Laden unit's former head, Michael Scheuer.]

Source List

(1)  The 9/11 Commission Report. 2004.  http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm

(2) FBIS Report. 2004.  “Compilation of Usama Bin Laden Statements 1994 – January 2004.” http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ubl-fbis.pdf

(3) FBI’s Most Wanted Fugitive: Usama Bin Laden.  http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

(4A)  The 9/11 Commission Report. 2004. Embassy attacks p. 132-8/585.  USS Cole p. 207-14/585. http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

(4B) “1998 United States Embassy Bombings.“  Wikipedia.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_embassy_bombings

(5) “USS Cole Bombing.”  Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

(6) “1993 World Trade Center Bombing.”  Wikipedia.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

(7) Liberty Bell Center of Constitutional Studies. “What Are Letters of Marque and Reprisal?” http://www.lbccs.org/2009/11/what-are-letters-of-marque-and-reprisal.html

(8) “Just War.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War

(9) UK Telegraph.  4 October 2001.  “Pakistan Blocks Bin Laden Trial.“  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1358464/Pakistan-blocks-bin-Laden-trial.html

(10) CNN. 7 October 2001.  “U.S. Rejects Taliban Offer to Try Bin Laden.“  http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.us.taliban/

(11) UK Guardian. 14 October 2001.  “Bush Rejects Taliban Offer to Hand Bin Laden Over.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

(12) Antiwar.com. U.S. Military Casualty Count.  http://antiwar.com/casualties/

(13) Le Nouvel Observateur. 1998.  “Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski.”  http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

(14)  The 9/11 Commission Report. 2004. p. 232-94/585.  http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

(15) “Operation Enduring Freedom.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Enduring_Freedom

(16) “Battle of Tora Bora.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora

(17) Bugliosi, Vincent. 2008.  “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.”  p. 214-219.

(18) iCasualties.org. “Operation Enduring Freedom Fatalities.”  http://icasualties.org/OEF/Fatalities.aspx

(19) The Hill. October 2009.  “$400 per Gallon Gas to Drive Debate over Cost of War in Afghanistan.”  http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-gas-another-cost-of-war-in-afghanistan-

(20) Washington Times. October 2009.  “Obama Aide Downplays Extra Troops in Afghanistan.”  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/05/afghan-attacks-add-to-call-for-more-troops//print/

(21) United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2009.  “Afghanistan Opium Survey 2009 – Summary Findings.” p. 26/42. http://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_opium_survey_2009_summary.pdf

(22) Johnson, Chalmers. 2004.  “The Sorrows of Empire.”

(23) “9/11 Commission.” Wikipedia.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission

(24) White House. FY 2009 Budget. p. 83/342. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf

(25) Towne, Jake. 2009.  “America’s Military Empire.“  http://towneforcongress.com/economy/americas-military-empire

(26) Johnson, Chalmers. 2001. “Blowback.”

by John Browne – Senior Market Strategist, Euro Pacific Capital

The U.S. economy is in uncertain times. Analysts are split between those seeing recovery and those fearing a second downturn. This confusion is being echoed in the highest levels of government as President Obama simultaneously speaks about the need for more federal spending and warns of the dangers of increased debt. As the volatile markets indicate, investors are not only confused – they are seriously concerned.

The country appears to be going through a period of buyer’s remorse over the election of Barack Obama. The majority cobbled together by the President one year ago included the Democratic base, independents hoping for “change,” and many disaffected Republicans betrayed by the Bush Administration’s big-government neoconservatism. It is unlikely that most of these voters favored an overt push toward socialism; however, this is what they have received. As the ‘tea parties’ illustrate, voters are not only confused – they are seriously concerned.

These concerns are justified. The Administration’s hard-left turn was evident from the outset. Ignoring expert advice to spend on job-creating infrastructure, Obama spent wildly on entitlements. Now, with rising grassroots discontent, a falling currency, and threats to America’s AAA credit rating, there is some evidence that the Administration is trying to hedge its bets through tough talk. Yet, they still have not taken any tough action. As their gold stockpiling highlights, foreign governments are not only confused – they are seriously concerned.

Over at the Federal Reserve, no such soul-searching appears to be underway. Its chairman, Ben Bernanke, is clearly intent on avoiding deleveraging. He has charted a course of massive liquidity injections, financed by hitherto unimaginable levels of monetary inflation. He has even attempted to coordinate these expansionary policies on an international basis.

For the moment, the cheap liquidity has saved Wall Street. To the delight of the Goldman Sachs, et al., the Fed has created a boom in financial assets, including equities, bonds and commodities. These rallies have stimulated a nearly universal belief that the worst has past. This feel-good attitude could be clearly seen on a recent cover of The Economist that read: “After the Storm – How to Make the Best of the Recovery.”

But, to many people, life looks increasingly desperate. Official U.S. figures admit to some 15 million unemployed. Despite the massive stimulus packages, American consumers are still in shock and not spending as they once did. Already, the fall in consumer demand is larger than that of the early 1930’s. The authorities now face a moment of truth: admit that they don’t have the power to bring the consumer back to life or redouble their efforts, consequences be damned.

The whole world awaits the decision, which could indicate a wild inflation, a major recession or the worst of both.

Should the Administration accept, or even be forced to accept, an ultimately healthy deleveraging, a deep recession would ensue. Entitlements would have to be dramatically reduced while taxes remain unreasonably high. Otherwise, the federal government could face outright default. Barring a popular revolt, this course would lead to a sustainable recovery.

On the other hand, if the government continues to run the printing presses, as seems far more likely, hyperinflation will become a distinct possibility. While this may create the appearance of recovery, with rising stocks and less short-term unemployment, average citizens will notice a sharp decline in their standard of living. It will get harder and harder to ‘make ends meet’ as wages increase less than the cost of everyday goods.

The hyperinflation scenario will likely buy the Administration a little more time, but would eventually give way to the worst of all possible worlds: hyperinflationary depression. Here, America would feel a deep recession concurrent with rising prices – similar to what we’re seeing right now with gold. This is truly a devastating outcome and should be avoided at all costs.

America is at a crossroads. It is important in these times to have leaders we can trust to make the right decisions, even if they are unpopular. Obama, Bernanke, Reid, Dodd, Pelosi, Frank… These are not names that are trusted to make wise choices over expedient ones. The markets know it; the voters know it; and, judging by the price of gold, the rest of the world knows it too.

For a more in-depth analysis of our financial problems and the inherent dangers they pose for the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar, read Peter Schiff’s 2008 bestseller “The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets” and his newest release “Crash Proof 2.0: How to Profit from the Economic Collapse.” Click here to learn more.More importantly, don’t let the great deals pass you by. Get an inside view of Peter’s playbook with his new Special Report, “Peter Schiff’s Five Favorite Investment Choices for the Next Five Years.” Click here to download the report for free. You can find more free services for global investors, and learn about the Euro Pacific advantage, at www.europac.net.

We provide their responses here.

The politicians’ ignorant, arrogant, and contemptuous answers underscore the need for the Enumerated Powers Act (EPA). EPA would force Congress to demonstrate its Constitutional authority for each bill it passes. Over the past four weeks the Enumerated Powers Act has . . .

• Gained two more co-sponsors in House, bringing the total in that chamber to 54. Check here to see if your Rep. is one of them.
• Remained at 22 co-sponsors in the Senate. Check the status of your Senators here.

Let’s increase the number of co-sponsors! Please write a letter demanding that every member of Congress sponsor the Enumerated Powers Act.

This is what I wrote in my letter . . .   

Can Congress justify its actions “chapter and verse” — that is, by naming the authorizing article, section, and clause of the Constitution?

You swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Sponsoring the Enumerated Powers Act (EPA) will signify to me that you take this oath seriously.

This is not merely a symbolic matter. I have to pay attention to the laws you guys pass, and comply with them. Therefore, I will take your failure to become an active co-sponsor as an endorsement of lawlessness, because that is the choice before you . . .

Will you endorse the Constitution or lawlessness?

The EPA says Congress must pay attention to the Constitution, that “. . . each Act (must) contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act.”

Several members of Congress have been asked to cite where the Constitution permits them to force Americans to buy health insurance. THUS FAR, ALL SUPPORTERS OF THE HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATE FAILED THIS ONE QUESTION TEST. Some were even insulted that we would question their power.

In fairness, they were caught off-guard, but now you can give me a researched, thoughtful response. Please tell me, “Where does the Constitution permit you to force Americans to buy health insurance?”

If you can cite specific Constitutional provisions that permit this, I want to hear them, and I insist that they be mentioned in the health care bill.

If you can’t specify any such authority, you are bound by your oath of office to oppose mandatory health insurance.

If you write me saying that you oppose the individual mandate, please know that I’m grateful. But you’re not off the hook, because . . .

You should still co-sponsor the Enumerated Powers Act, and, as a sponsor, work passionately to bring it to a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee.

The EPA will actually make your job easier. It will tell you right away if a bill’s provisions are Constitutionally legal.

You expect me to obey the law — to avoid lawlessness. I expect the same from you.

Do not underestimate the importance of this issue. More and more Americans are starting to care about what the Constitution actually says. They understand that Congress’s legitimate powers are limited to those listed in the Constitution, and are further restrained by the Bill of Rights (including the Ninth and Tenth Amendments).

The longer Congress ignores the Constitution, the more we will conclude that the problem isn’t simply that Congress is ignorant of what the Constitution requires, but rather that most members are contemptuous of the Constitution, and are deliberately breaking both the law and their oaths of office.

The longer you refuse to sponsor the Enumerated Powers Act, the more I will assume this about you personally. I will take this into account as I discuss your re-election with other voters.

END LETTER

You can send your letter here.

Please take additional steps to spread the word, recruit more DC Downsizers, and increase the heat on Congress:

• Ask other people to send a letter to Congress — forward them this message (be sure to clip off the Dispatch footer when you do)
• Digg this message on our Blog: http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/healthcare-reform-amp-enumerated-powers-will-your-congressional-reps-endorse-the-constitution-or-lawlessness
• Start a monthly pledge so we can reach more people
• Make a one-time donation to further our work

Your support is our progress.

Jim Babka, President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Sources:

Does the Constitution’s Commerce Clause permit the health insurance mandate? DownsizeDC.org has shown that, even with permissive jurisprudence by the Supreme Court, Congress still lacks the authority to impose the health insurance mandate on Commerce Clause grounds.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

Ron Paul’s efforts at having HR.1207 voted on as a standalone bill never really had a chance. Instead, it will arrive to the House floor attached to Barney Frank’s little boy, his comprehensive financial regulatory reform bill. The draft legislation grants new powers to the Federal Reserve and creates more regulatory controls over the market. If the free market is god, this bill is the devil. However, the bill will now have something good attached to it now that HR.1207 was added to it as an amendment.

Ron Paul makes a name for himself by always considering the Constitution while weighing his votes. Should Paul supporters expect him to don his Dr. No mask when his 30+ year fight against the central bank finally comes to a vote on the House floor? Will Paul vote against auditing the Fed because it is attached to an obviously unconstitutional bill? The libertarian purists among us may expect him to do so, but I expect him to vote for the evil to get the good. In fact, I would expect most if not all Paul supporters will give him a pass on this one. Tell us what you think in the comments section to this article.

He has already indicated what he will do in his press release covering yesterday’s committee vote:

“While HR 3996, if passed, will grant sweeping new powers to the Federal Reserve, at least with this amendment attached, it won’t be acting in secret anymore. This is a major victory for Federal Reserve transparency and government accountability. I am very grateful to Congressman Bachus and all the other Members who were so supportive and helpful in this effort,” stated Congressman Paul.

An argument could be made (and Paul seems to be implying it by his quote) that the financial regulatory reform bill is going to pass anyway and with Paul’s audit included in it, the bill’s attack on the free market will be softened. If they gut Paul’s amendment (like Mel Watt and Barney Frank tried to do in committee) as it moves closer to a floor vote it wouldn’t be shocking to see Dr. Paul morph into Dr. No once again.

So it is certainly bittersweet, but at least it’s not all bitter and no sweet.

——————————————-

UPDATE: It looks like Paul will still push for a separate vote on HR.1207 as a standalone bill. I don’t think those in power will let it happen, but I never thought his bill would get as far as it has already, so we’ll see.

Of course, there is still ample opportunity for Paul’s bill to be gutted once again, but for now liberty-lovers should be quite happy that a big hurdle has been cleared.

Vote totals and details:

• 43 yeas / 26 nays

• 15 Democrats and 28 Republicans voted YES.

• All 26 nay votes were from Democrats. No Republicans voted NO.

The full list of names and the way they voted can be found here (PDF).

Paul’s amendment passed, first by voice vote, and then by roll call vote later in the day. The final tally was 43 for Paul’s bill and 26 against.

Earlier I posted Grayson and Watt debating Watt’s amendment and Ron Paul introducing his substitute amendment. Below are four new videos from the markup hearing. This includes the voice vote and the final roll call vote so you can hear which of the committee members need to be voted out of office in their next election cycle.

First up is Ron Paul arguing (yet again) why Fed transparency is not a call for injecting Congress into Fed policy decisions.

Next we have Barney Frank patting himself on the back again for bringing Ron Paul’s Fed audit legislation up in the committee. There’s a bit of humorous back and forth then Congressman Hensarling rips Frank for his comments a bit by calling them “irrelevant”.

Here are the leadup comments from Alan Grayson and co., then the voice vote on adopting Ron Paul’s substitute amendment.

And finally, the official roll call vote of Ron Paul’s substitute amendment. Ron Paul wins!

This was an important step in the process, but the amendment is going to be tacked on to the larger regulatory reform bill being deliberated now.

Watch Ron Paul introduce the bill earlier today in the committee in the video below.

The clip below shows Alan Grayson arguing against Mel Watt’s amendment and then Watt’s rather angry response. Stay tuned for more clips…

This was submitted to us by author, Clyde James Aragon. He writes:

THE HEALTH REFORM PLAN TOWN HALL MEETING – THE NON-MUSICAL is a ten-minute comedy play about the health care ‘reform’ bill and is a humorous way of looking at a very scary situation. Curious, but informed citizens, meet at a town hall meeting to ask questions of their representatives on Health Care Reform.

This play is being distributed free of charge and the author, Clyde James Aragon, only asks that should it be performed, no admission be charged and that the author be given credit as having written it.

The author is an Albuquerque, New Mexico humor writer and can be reached at bookhumor@yahoo.com

You may also download the PDF here for printing out and potentially performing it at your next Tea Party event.

————————————————————-
THE HEALTH REFORM PLAN TOWN HALL MEETING
- THE NON-MUSICAL -

a one-act play by © Clyde James Aragon

CAST OF CHARACTERS:

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN
REPRESENTATIVE FLOWMASTER
CITIZEN #1
CITIZEN #2
CITIZEN #3
CITIZEN #4

COMEDY: 10 pages. 6 characters to be played by: 3 men; 3 woman.

SYNOPSIS: Curious, but informed citizens, meet at a town hall meeting to ask questions of their representatives on Health Care Reform. This is a ten-minute comedy play about the health care ‘reform’ bill and is a humorous way of looking at a very scary situation.

PROPS: 6 folding chairs

* * * This play is being distributed free of charge and the author, Clyde James Aragon, only asks that should it be performed, no admission be charged and that the author be given credit as having written it. * * *

**************

THE HEALTH REFORM PLAN TOWN HALL MEETING
- THE NON-MUSICAL -

a one-act play by Clyde James Aragon

(on a bare stage, two politicians, seated in folding chairs, face four citizens intent on asking the politicians questions on their health reform plan)

CITIZEN #4 (addressing the audience and then sitting down): The other day there was a town hall meeting in Montana over the new health reform bill which was presented by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and passed by the House of Representatives. The public was invited and allowed to ask questions of the two members of the House of Representatives, Representative Bullhorn and Flowmaster, who showed up. Many things were said and, after adjourning quietly after three hours of questioning, these excerpts were extracted from the minutes of that meeting:

CITIZEN #1 (raising hand and then speaking): Representative Bullhorn, the new House health care plan is almost 2,000-pages long. How do you expect anyone to read it, let alone understand it?

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: We, meaning your government, are teaming up with the Marvel Comics people to develop a comic book character called Health Reform Man who will explain, in simple laymen terms, what our health reform proposal is all about.

CITIZEN #2: Will Cleopatra, Queen of the Vampire Underworld, feature in this?

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: Yes, and after explaining what our plan is about, she, Health Reform Man, and the A.C.O.R.N. Posse will go out and fight the various nemeses of our plan such as Greedy Insurance Monster, Private Fee-For-Service Doctor Thing, Alarmist Talk Show Host Ogre, and, of course, everyone in the Republican Party with the exception of moderate Republicans who want to hitch their star to a winner.

CITIZEN #1: Won’t a comic book be considered propaganda?

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: No. What people are saying against this plan is propaganda. Our comic book is info-entertainment. And it will be distributed free of cost through the mail, at welfare offices, and in hospital waiting rooms everywhere. Right, Representative Bullhorn?

REPRESENTATIVE FLOWMASTER: We want everyone in America to have health care and the only way to accomplish that goal is for government to provide it.

CITIZEN #1: This is just socialized medicine.

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: What else would you expect? We’re social creatures. We socialize. We’re sociable. We go to ice cream socials, we join the PTA, we volunteer to wash cars on the weekend. Could we give to the social people of this country anything less than a plan which doesn’t take into account their inbred social nature? I daresay not.

CITIZEN #1: But you’re taking away choice.

REPRESENTATIVE FLOWMASTER: No we’re not. There’s so much choice in our plan you can’t help but want it. Especially if you’re sociable. However, if you’re anti-social you’ll be able to pay a small annual fee and opt out, leaving yourself to find your own health care in backroom alleys, parking lots, through self-help books, and on the Internet.

CITIZEN #3: Why should we pay any fee?

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: Actually, this isn’t really a fee. It is a yearly reminder that a better way of life is available through your government.

CITIZEN #4: Won’t illegal aliens be covered?

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: No. Absolutely not.

CITIZEN #1: But all you’d need would be a few court rulings and they’d be in.

REPRESENTATIVE FLOWMASTER: That’ll never happen.

CITIZEN #2: What about space aliens. Would they be covered?

REPRESENTATIVE FLOWMASTER: Of course space aliens won’t be covered. That would break the system.

CITIZEN #2: Since we’re on the subject, will this health plan cover space-related diseases.
REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: Like what?

CITIZEN #2: Euphoria, for example.

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: SRDs won’t be covered.
(Representative Flowmaster whispers into Bullhorn’s ear)
Uh, wait. An amendment has been introduced covering space-related diseases but only as brought to earth by NASA space missions.
(Representative Flowmaster again whispers into Bullhorn’s ear)
Uh, an amendment to the amendment has been introduced which covers all space-related diseases.

CITIZEN #1: Your plan calls for end-of-life counseling. Is euthanasia covered by this plan?

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: Absolutely not.

CITIZEN #4: Isn’t abortion a form of euthanasia? That’s going to be covered.

REPRESENTATIVE FLOWMASTER: Abortion is the removal of a troublesome human-like blob of protoplasm that, for all intents and purposes, is not human. Except in Hawaii where it’s considered a type of chicken nugget.

CITIZEN #2: I love chicken nuggets. Will free chicken nuggets come with this plan?

REPRESENTATIVE FLOWMASTER: Yes, along with the special sauce of your choice.

CITIZEN #1: Poll after poll says Americans don’t want this plan. Yet you seem intent on forcing this down our throat – the public be damned. Isn’t the Democrat Party returning us to the days of Taxation without Representation?

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: The Democrat Party always represents the people, some more than others.

CITIZEN #3: Didn’t Taxation without Representation lead to the American Revolution?

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: Americans, at that time, were protesting the lack of government involvement in their lives. We shall fulfill that nascent yearning.

CITIZEN #2: In the song “Heartache Tonight” by The Eagles, they sing: “There’s gonna be a heartache tonight/A heartache tonight, I know/There’s gonna be a heartache tonight/A heartache tonight, I know”. Does this refer to a real heartache or an existential heartache and would break-ups be covered by this plan?

REPRESENTATIVE FLOWMASTER: We believe The Eagles referred to an ontological heartache which, most definitely, would be covered. The pain of breaking up can’t be ignored as it was in the previous administration which, as we all know, wanted to kill everyone and eat their dripping internal organs.

CITIZEN #4: You say the plan would only cost 900 billion dollars. How do you know that for sure?

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: Because we’re your representatives. We would never lie to you. The only ones who would lie are Republicans and conservatives who lie about everything.

CITIZEN #1: You’re saying this plan will cost about 900 billion dollars. Isn’t that just an introductory price?

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: No, it really, truly, cross my heart is what it will cost.

CITIZEN #3: Still, how do you expect to pay for this?

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: We’re proposing, among other things, a millionaire tax. I think the greedy, filthy rich should have to pay back the money they’ve stolen from this country.

CITIZEN #1; All you talk about is taxing the rich. You believe they’re just going to willingly go along with your plan and turn their money over to you?

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: Yes.

CITIZEN #1: So you’re assuming the rich are stupid, then?

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: Oh, believe me, the rich are very stupid.

CITIZEN #3: Aren’t you a millionaire yourself?

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: Honestly, I’ve been working so hard ever since I came to Washington I haven’t had a chance to look at my bank statement. Nevertheless, if I’m a millionaire, and I’m not saying I am, but if I might possibly be a millionaire, I’ll be subject to this new tax after taking into account congressional expenses, refunds, postage, envelopes, and all the time I donate to worthy causes.

CITIZEN #4: What worthy causes?

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: Puppies. I lead the House caucus on puppy welfare. Damn it, no one’s going to mistreat puppies in this country if I have anything to say about it.

CITIZEN #2: That’s wonderful. I have a puppy. Her name is Sheila.

CITIZEN #3: What are the other ways you propose to pay for this?

REPRESENTATIVE FLOWMASTER: We’re going to introduce a tax on all medical devices such as monitors, x-ray machines, pacemakers, things like that.

CITIZEN #2: Do Band-Aid brand bandages constitute a medical device?

REPRESENTATIVE FLOWMASTER: If applied properly.

CITIZEN #4: What else?

REPRESENTATIVE FLOWMASTER: Lipstick.

CITIZEN #3: Lipstick?

REPRESENTATIVE FLOWMASTER: It adds moisturizing substances which keep your lips from drying up. Thus, it is a moisture dispenser.

CITIZEN #2: Would a Slurpee machine also be considered a moisture dispenser?

REPRESENTATIVE FLOWMASTER: Don’t be silly. Slurpee machines are ‘calorie’ dispensers. They would be subject to a fine, not a tax.

CITIZEN #1: I’ve heard you’re going to cut payments to doctors.

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: Damn right. It’s high time our nation’s greedy physicians start paying us back for their lavish lifestyles. Big cars, big houses, big meals. Let ‘em eat bologne like the rest of us.

CITIZEN #2: You’ve eaten bologne?

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: Once. And I loved it.

CITIZEN #3: Won’t that just chase off doctors?

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: Look, my friend, these greedy doctors have to be taught a lesson. We’re going to really stick it to them for gouging us for so long.

CITIZEN #3: You don’t expect to have surgery anytime soon, I take it.

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: Hell no. I’m fit as a fiddle.

CITIZEN #4: Would you politicians be subject to this new health plan?

REPRESENTATIVE FLOWMASTER: Unfortunately, no. We tried to find a way to add ourselves to this marvelous health care plan but it only would have increased the cost and we put our foot down at having to increase it even one dime more.

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: To that end, we also have some very exciting cost-cutting proposals. And we know everyone in this room wants the government to save money.

CITIZEN #1: I’ll bite. What kind of cost-cutting proposals?

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: These are brilliant. I even came up with a few. For example, instead of hip or knee replacement we’ll offer crutches; instead of physical exams and X-rays, we’ll offer a soothing walk through any airport security screening machine as a substitute; and we’ve known for quite some time that most brain surgeries can be avoided with aspirin.

CITIZEN #3: What’s next, replacing heart transplants with obituaries?

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: Ooh, that’s good. I’ll submit that one the minute I get back to Washington. You’ve got the spirit.

CITIZEN #4: If the government wants to take over the medical system of this country, why not every other business in America?

CITIZEN #1: Yeah. I’m sure you’ll give us the customer care of the Post Office, the repair record of the Park Service, and the efficiency of Amtrak. Oh, and I’m sure you’ll continue to take our money like the IRS.

REPRESENTATIVE FLOWMASTER: Believe me, we’re working on it.

CITIZEN #3: Your plan demands that employers provide health insurance or else. Wouldn’t companies just stop hiring new workers and giving raises?

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: Nonsense. Of course companies will hire new workers. If not, we’ll mandate they increase employment every year. That alone will end unemployment forever in this country.

REPRESENTATIVE FLOWMASTER: And as for you not getting a raise, well, what poppycock. You’re worth a raise. I’m worth a raise. In fact, I get a raise every year.

CITIZEN #1: Many people have said this plan is too expensive, takes away from our freedoms, and allows the government the opportunity to take over a sixth of the economy. They say the same goals can be accomplished in other, less expensive and less intrusive, ways. Why aren’t these avenues being pursued?

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN: We can’t be chasing after rainbows all our lives. Obviously these ‘other people’ you speak of live in an insulated fantasy world.

CITIZEN #3: But isn’t chasing this crazy expensive plan a lot like watching the captain of the Titanic trying to keep the ice machine going as his ship slips into the cold water?

REPRESENTATIVE FLOWMASTER: We’ve seen the numbers, the data, the costs. We know what we’re talking about. (getting up) Now, if you’ll excuse us, we have to get back to Washington.

REPRESENTATIVE BULLHORN (also getting up): We have an important vote on puppy health care coming up early tomorrow morning. We can’t miss that.

- end of play -

A few weeks ago at a Town Hall meeting Lindsey Graham argued that he would not let Ron Paul hijack the Republican Party. Grayson seems to be taking lessons from Graham. Watch Grayson in the interview below from WHAS11 as he smugly dismisses Paul while labeling him “crazy”. Hmmm… where have we heard that tactic before?

As the news report mentions, it appears there is the potential for another establishment Republican to enter the race. That would certainly shake up the race, but I’m not sure it would be a bad thing for Paul’s chances.