I want to reiterate the point this $100 Billion was approved by congress just 8 months after receiving $700 Billion from U.S. taxpayers for TARP.  I would also like to point out that the banks who received money from us taxpayers did not use the gift to pay off toxic assets, but instead used it to shore up their cash balances and fend off the FDIC.  The banks are still in trouble.

It turns out, Ron Paul asked the question, “Where does the money come from (to fund the IMF)?” to Ben Bernanke in April of 2010.  Bernanke confirms the Federal Reserve had nothing to do with it as the money was approved by congress.  But where does Congress get the money from?  Higher taxes and/or higher inflation, caused by the Federal Reserve of course…with the help of wiling Congressmen.

So Bernanke, in this case, is right.  The money wasn’t printed out of thin air via the Treasury and the Fed, but allocated by Congress.

I wanted to know who in Congress voted for this gift to the IMF.  Was it along party lines or, like the TARP $700 billion bailout for the financial industry, was it both the Republicans and Democrats who joined together in favor of passing this bill?

When the bill, H.R.2346 came to the House of Representatives vote, it passed by a roll call vote on May 14th, 2009 with 368 Ayes, 60 Nays, 5 Present/Not Voting. 168 Republicans and 200 Democrats combined together to vote for this bill.  Ron Paul (R) and Alan Grayson (D), both who are working to Audit the Fed, voted against it.  See how each congressmen voted.

The Senate was a bipartisan vote as well with 86 Ayes, 3 Nays, 10 Present/Not Voting, passing on May 21, 2009.

Obama signed the bill into law on June 24, 2009.

Congress Is Either With Us or Against Us

There is a connection here that’s important to voters.  Which Congressmen and women are casting their votes for the Constitution and We the People and which are voting against the Constitution and the People?  Knowing the difference come election time will dictate whether we remain We the People or become We the Serfs.  Do not vote for any of the folks who voted Yes to the TARP funding or Yes to this bill.

One point that brings this all into perspective for the common man is Ron Paul’s exchange with Bernanke involving Greece.

Quote from the video above:

Ron Paul; “The irony of this promise, in the new arrangement, this increase, Greece is going to put $2.5 billion dollars in there (the IMF fund).  Only a fiat monetary system worldwide can up and have Greece help bailout Greece.”

The smile that comes to Bernanke’s face at 2:29, right after Ron Paul made that statement is an acknowledgment Bernanke knows Ron Paul is spot on with his assumptions.  If only We the People could be spot on with their votes, we could wipe this smile off Bernanke’s face for good.

“Information is a treasure for our people. The promise of the journalist is not with popularity.  It is with the truth.” Daniel Coronell

Related posts:

1. Congress Gives IMF Your Tax Dollars to Bailout Greece
2. Vote For Those That Voted “NO” To the Bailout Come November
3. A Solution for Ron Paul Supporters?

Below is the response from my local house rep. Typical politician double speak…”I’m against it but I voted for it…”

Senator Feinstein voted for it and replied to my letter of protest. Senator Boxer voted for it and never replied.

Racetrack improvements, $100 million, movie industry $500 million and $2 million for wooden arrows are part of the bill? Are you kidding me?

All the pork thrown into this bill has got to wake America up to what is really happening with our elected officials. I swear….if it doesn’t, then Americans deserve what they get.

You can only blame ignorance for so long…pretty soon you crossover into the realm of stupidity.

If anyone votes in November for any of those that voted “yes” for this bill, they have crossed over. If this bill was really for helping the economy, then why did the stock market go down 150 points?

The ship is sinking folks… Make your vote count in November. Shove these losers that voted yes out the door.

FYI, Obama and McCain voted “yes” for the bailout bill. A vote for either of them means you approve of this bailout.

Doug Eberhardt

www.youcanmakeadifference.org

From my House rep Mike Thompson:

Dear Doug:

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act passed by the House today is not much better than the one we rejected on Monday. While the increase in FDIC protection is an important improvement, more market reforms are still needed. The reality is that the credit market is locked up and that is hurting Americans. It was very evident that if the House failed to act the consequences would shake the foundations of our economy.

From the time that the Bush Administration first asked for this rescue package, I argued that if taxpayers were being asked to pay up, then we needed regulatory reform at the same time. But this week, the precarious state of our economy showed that we needed to act quickly, and that getting comprehensive regulatory reform would take time, a luxury we did not have. In my many conversations with constituents and economists, it became clear to me that this crisis is not going to just affect those on Wall Street, but folks on every street across our district and around the country.

You don’t have to look any further than today’s unemployment numbers to see why we have voted to act now. The country lost more jobs in September than any month in the last five years. Unemployment in California stands at 7.7 percent, the highest it has been in 12 years. A major reason is that our financial system has stopped functioning and banks are not extending credit to employers. I have talked with individuals and business owners across the district who say that the tightening of the credit market has already affected their ability to maintain operations or to expand their businesses.

Within the last two weeks, the Arcata Community Recycling Center has seen their interest payments balloon to four times their normal rate. Standard Structures in Windsor was about to finalize a $10 million order from a Texas company until they got word this week that the project was stalled because of the credit crisis. There are fifty jobs tied to that one contract. Many more of our small businesses will be forced to lay off workers or wait on hiring new workers if they don’t have access to credit.

Governor Schwarzenegger and Treasurer Bill Lockyer announced this week that California has four weeks of cash flow, and if the markets are not restored, the state will be unable to pay its bills. It’s only a matter of time before cities and counties will be forced to pass along these budget shortfalls by reducing public services. From public health and safety workers, to road crews and garbage pickup, the government services that we rely on will be disrupted and these jobs will go on the chopping block.

I can assure you I still disagree with this bill and I remain committed to enactment of concrete market reforms that address the underlying problems that lead to this crisis. To that end, I’ve received a direct commitment from Speaker Pelosi that she too will work to identify and address the problems that led us to this point. The House will immediately begin holding hearings on the regulatory shortcomings in our financial system, so that come January we will be ready to craft legislation that addresses the issues I’ve raised and others that will be uncovered. Congressman Barney Frank, who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, has promised me that his committee will make the reforms I advocated for a top priority. And I’ve received a personal commitment from Senator Obama that if he’s elected President he too will work for these important market reforms. In January, we will be well positioned to pass important legislation that will close the loopholes and tighten up regulations in the financial services sector.

Today I voted for this legislation because it was clear to me that we must take immediate action to restore a measure of confidence in the economy. This isn’t the end of our problems nor is it the last of the legislation. Like everyone else, I’m outraged that taxpayers have been tapped to cover the greed and excesses of the financial marketplace, and I’m outraged that as taxpayers we have been asked to cover for the failure of Wall Street regulators. But when forced to choose between doing nothing and passing this bill, I voted for what I believe is best for our country and our district, and voted to pass this legislation. We face a tough road ahead, but hopefully by unfreezing the credit markets, Americans can get back to growing their businesses and growing our economy.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me on this important issue. I appreciate your conviction on this matter and have valued your continued dialogue.

Sincerely,

MIKE THOMPSON
Member of Congress
[link edited for length]

Related posts:

1. Which Congressmen Voted to Give IMF $100 Billion? Vote Them Out!
2. America’s Infrastructure In 2009: Grade “F”
3. Congress Gives IMF Your Tax Dollars to Bailout Greece

——————————————————————————–
Voting Fourth Party Part 2

Sandra Hamilton wrote an article on voting Fourth party that I had posted here recently.

There were some comments on how writing in Ron Paul could be a “wasted vote.”

In this sequel to her first article on writing in Ron Paul, she addresses this issue as well as presents a letter you can send to your congressman explaining why the system needs to be changed so your vote can be counted.

Remember, Ross Perot received 20% of the popular vote in 1996, but received ZERO electoral votes. The system is even worse now (aka rigged) so that 3rd parties won’t ever be able to debate any of the other parties.

It is only through the action of writing to your congressmen or eventually electing congressmen who think like we do that real change will happen.

Voting for those that maintain the status quo accomplishes nothing.

I hope you read her article by clicking on the url below and also take action as she has suggested.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/hamilton5.html

Doug Eberhardt

Related posts:

1. Ron Paul Needs to Hire Britney Spears!
2. Ron Paul Should Leave The Republican Party
3. Voting Fourth Party

Doug Eberhardt

Voting Fourth Party
by Sandra Hamilton

Most of the people that I know are not happy with the political choices they have for President this year. I hear lots of talk about voting against one guy or the other, but not so much talk about voting FOR anyone. There is one man, however, that a great many people wish they could vote for and that is Ron Paul. His supporters have their news page set to pick up all stories about him, they go to rallies thousands of miles away to support a man who is not even in the running anymore, and his support is not waning, in fact, it is growing.

Recently, Ron Paul held a news conference and suggested that people vote for a third party candidate. Notably absent from his side, was the third party candidate Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate. Despite the snub, Ron Paul still stood up for Barr and others in an effort to stop the insanity. If you want change, then you have to change the way you vote. Repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

I spent the day reading articles about Ron Paul’s historic speech. I found it strange that the pundits, who once ignored Ron Paul completely, suddenly were terribly interested in his opinions. It seems that as soon as Ron Paul says something that might affect the anointed ones, they must report. Would Ron Paul’s words make his supporters more or less likely to vote for McCain? Obama? Who will this affect more?

Meanwhile, the comments from Ron Paul supporters were all about which third party member to vote for, who should they support now? Reading between the lines it appears that his supporters are still loyal, only now they are not sure how to remain loyal.

If we are to accept that voting for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil (and I do accept that premise), then why throw your vote around willy-nilly? Voting for a third party candidate simply because they are a third party candidate makes no sense. You still have to use your mind in this election. You still have to choose a candidate to vote FOR.

At this point in this article I had intended to tell people that wish to vote for Ron Paul to do so by writing his name in on the ballot. I have bad news. Research revealed that in most states, a candidate must jump through a bunch of legal hoops to have their names counted as a write-in. The supposed argument is that you are never actually voting for a candidate, just a slate of electors who will go to the Electoral College to vote for your candidate and if those electors are not registered ahead of time, then in fact, you are not voting for anyone.

However, some states have managed to do away with all that nonsense. This is a nice page that breaks down the rules state by state, but as rules are constantly changing, I ask that you please check the rules for your state and not rely on the information in that link. My question is, if some states can allow you to vote for whomever you wish why can’t they all? What is so difficult about allowing the American people to pick the person they want to be President? Why is this so dangerous?

Every year we get these huge get-out-the-vote drives that are designed to legitimize a system and to make you think you have a choice. If you knew you did not have a choice you might balk a little. So they pretend to give you a choice between a statist and another statist and do everything in their power to prevent you from hearing the non-statist point of view and if you dare to learn of it on your own, they will stop you from being able to vote for your particular candidate. They are good at it.

This year I find myself with a huge dilemma. I typically vote Libertarian, but this year I cannot. I do not like the candidate. I choose not to support that candidate. I also do not like the other third party candidates. If I vote against a guy, then I am telling the guy I voted for that I like him. That would be false and I do not want to send that message. If I similarly vote Libertarian no matter who the candidate is, then I am telling the Libertarian Party that I do not care who they choose, but I do care. I do not want this year’s candidate to be President. I initially thought I would just write-in Ron Paul and feel good about myself. It turns out, much to my chagrin, that my state has one of those laws that will not count write in candidates unless the candidate filed certain papers and has not already lost a primary. (They call it the sore loser law. But if the people later discover they like the loser better than the winner, where is the harm in letting them choose?) So if I vote for Ron Paul, it will be counted as a “write-in” but not as a vote for Paul.

I have gone over this multiple times. Do I support the Libertarian Party even though I do not support the candidate? That goes against my principles. Do I choose any other third party to send a message? Again, that goes against my principles. I choose not to vote against people but to vote for them. Therefore, I am left with the decision to write in the name Ron Paul. I think he would make a great President. I know my vote will not count as a vote for Dr. Paul, but it will be counted in the generic category of “write-ins.” When they show the total of people in my state who do not like the choices they were given I will be among them. And that is the message I truly want to send with my vote. I do not accept your chosen few. I am an American and as so I believe I have the right to vote for whom I choose.

Perhaps if enough people also wrote-in their vote, these draconian write-in laws will be removed. In Delaware, for example, (correct me if I am wrong) if you write in a candidate, that vote will count, period. I think we all have that right.

I thought about not voting at all because I do not want to legitimize the system, but those non-votes are simply seen as apathy. I am not apathetic. I am passionate: Extremely passionate for liberty.

So this election, I will be making a statement. I will vote for the man I believe to be the best candidate, I will do my best to expose a corrupt system that prevents most of us from making a real choice, and I will sleep well. If you feel the same way, I ask you to join me. Even writing in “none of the above” sends a message. I ask you to think about the message you wish to send with your vote. If you want change then change.

Peace.

September 13, 2008

Sandra Hamilton is a retired attorney.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/hamilton4.html

Here is what I wrote Sandra in reply to her article:

Hi Sandra,

I think this is a perfectly written article that Lew Rockwell posted!  I wrote an article on another website back in March that Ron Paul should leave the Republican Party: http://www.nolanchart.com/article3131.html – I keep wondering why he won’t make the move to run, but he still thinks he can make a difference in the House being the minority vote against the evil duopoly (even though we know he’s almost always right!).

While the revolution will evolve, and I am writing to further the cause, I just wish I could have my vote count for Ron Paul, but alas, will “feel good about myself” by voting for whom I want to be President, just like you!  Maybe by next election we can get the write-in candidate approved in advance, but then we have that electoral problem whereby Ross Perot received 20% of the votes, but received ZERO electoral votes.  Like “not voting for anyone” indeed! Ugh!

Peace!

Doug Eberhardt

Related posts:

1. A Solution for Ron Paul Supporters?
2. Ron Paul Should Leave The Republican Party
3. Ron Paul Needs to Hire Britney Spears!

I’m mixing up my normal type of support article for Ron Paul….frustration sometimes does this to me! I want to see if just by adding the name “Britney Spears” to a Ron Paul article if viewership will increase by any significant amount. But in writing the article, I actually have come to like the idea it represents!

Britney Spears and Ron Paul should be hooked at the hip like the two actors, Matt Damon and Greg Kinnear, in the movie, “Stuck on You.”

This will accomplish one of two things. It will either stop the media flurry over Britney Spears where she can lead a normal life again as the paparazzi won’t follow her around any longer or it will cause the media to report on the every move of Ron Paul.

I don’t write this article in a “Spoof” or “Wonkette” mocking manner. There is a degree of seriousness to it. I do realize it is “somewhat” far-fetched or wishful thinking, but desperate times call for desperate action! Nothing has worked so far right?

TMZ, Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood, you know…what America watches each night for an hour, along with the regular media’s consistent reporting, would give Ron Paul all the coverage he needs between now and November.

Seriously, what do you think would happen? The media can’t get enough of Britney Spears! Ron Paul would finally get some coverage!….except on Fox News of course…but only war loving neocons watch that channel anyway….

Imagine that…Britney Spears would become an American Hero! The headlines would be; “Britney Spears Helps Save America!” or “Britney Spears Helps Save the Dollar!” But the best aspect to it all is Ron Paul would finally get the media coverage that is coming to him. As a matter of fact, it would make up for all the media coverage he HASN’T received over the last year! His “message” would finally get through to the masses!

Take that biased MSM!

Now all we need to do is draft Britney Spears into the rEVOLution! She may not be the perfect campaign spokesperson, but we’d put a gag order on her and just use Britney for her uncanny ability to draw media attention. It would probably keep her out of trouble having a good fatherly figure around her and she would have some appeal to the youth vote! Hey, we need the votes!

Anyone have her number?

Doug Eberhardt

Related posts:

1. A Solution for Ron Paul Supporters?
2. It’s Not Too Late For Ron Paul!
3. The Ron Paul rEVOLution, Super Tuesday and “The Message!”