USA Needs to Refinance to Prevent Liquidity Crisis

Not everyone is drinking the same kool-aid as the rest of the MSM and government talking heads -- here's a more realistic view of what needs to happen before it may be too late - http://www.cnbc.com/id/37451085 - The Real Economy - RHP

In other un-covered news - Washington Drug Agents Seize Pot Legalization Petitions - http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2010/05/washington_drug_agents_seize_pot_legalization_peti.php
You hardly think that the MSM and power structure is gonna give up without a fight - do you? The Drug War - RHP

Another endless SWAT team botched mix up - Woman Hospitalized Following Botched Raid - http://wsbradio.com/localnews/2010/05/woman-hospitalized-following-b.html SWAT raids - RHP

This recent article had TWO links to THIS blog - cool. RHP makes an impact - http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/272930

This one is called the 10,000 Commandments http://fringeelements.tumblr.com/post/646035349/the-federal-register-is-a-daily-publication-of-all  Bloated Government chart displays all.

A Critique Of Bob Barr's 2008 Presidential Run - By An Eight Time Libertarian Presidental Supporter

My last 8 votes for President have been 1980 - Clark; 1984 - Bergland; 1988 - Paul; 1992 - Marrou; 1996 - Browne; 2000 - Browne; 2004 - Badnarik and 2008 - Bob Barr. That's correct, not ONCE did I waste my vote on `the two party system'. Not once, and, I am proud of that. (Of course, I had to stand the stares of friends who felt that it was I who was wasting a vote.)

That said, it's strange to live in a country and to go thru one Presidential campaign, after another, after another, hoping that your candidate will get `covered' by the mainstream media. That the `ideas' presented by a party -- even if a party with only 5-10% potential support - receive a `percentage' of the coverage that is remotely `fair'. Meaning, that 5-10% of the coverage is on that third party. (I'm reminded of that Beatles song `Taxman' with the lyric -- that's 19 for me and one for you -- be happy we don't take it all.)

Yes, I'd be happy, no, elated, if the Democraps and Republinuts got 19 stories reflecting their points of view on Government -- and then -- ONE Libertarian story. Is that asking too much? Is the media THAT scared of presenting `other viewpoints' - or - is the media that much in the pockets of the two parties? (The obvious answer.)

But, as a keen observer of the media relentlessly regurgitating first one and then the other of the two parties viewpoints, for a few moments in 2008 -- I thought the media might have a reason to `balance it up'. After all, for really the first time in memory we didn't have a sitting President or Vice President of one of the major parties as nominee - and, for once - one of the `third' parties had a known name of a former congressman - Bob Barr.

Indeed, I felt very connected to this campaign - as I had met Mr. Barr at a Rib Ranch Meeting (a room in a BBQ restaurant on Canton Road in Marietta Georgia) prior to his announcing he would run for the Libertarian nomination. When I met him, and spoke with him privately for a minute, I urged him to use his awareness level - within the realm of politicians - to raise the profile of the Libertarians in the 2008 election. (I was even told by the head of the Libertarian party of Georgia (at least at that time) that Barr was going to run for sure if Hillary seemed to be the front runner for the Dems.)

Indeed, I even watched most of the Libertarian convention - at least the portion carried by C-Span. And, frankly, it was not a thing of beauty - nor was Mr. Barr's victory. Indeed, my memory is that it was widely held by the Libertarians that were voting (who seemed to be whoever would show up for a state) that while Barr WOULD give the party a candidate with `awareness' -- that now (2008) was NOT the time to pick for a nominee someone who was a leader in the Drug War effort at one time.

But, others countered, Mr. Barr seemed to apologize for that period of his life and was certainly a strong advocate - almost the only one - against the civil liberty aspects of the Patriot Act. And, in what appeared on TV to be little more than a quid quo pro -- Barr took the support of Wayne Root's followers to victory -- then gave the VP position to Mr. Root - for now. Personally, I really liked Root and think he would have made a much better candidate (and I hope he runs in 2012).


So, at the moment the convention ended, the Libertarians had - finally - someone with actual name recognition who was very well versed about the in's and out's of the whole game of Politics. And, as usual, the media -- BEFORE the two `main party' conventions - was willing to give Barr moments of exposer - which he seemed to handle fairly well. And, by this time, he had chosen Russ Verney to head the campaign - you probably remember that Verney was in the same position for the WELL FUNDED Ross Perot campaign years before.


I honestly think that they both thought that money would come flowing into the campaign as the party had someone with name recognition AND a known political consultant running the campaign. Not to mention the disgust the population had with both parties. Perhaps they thought the media would view them as having a new positioning for the Libertarians. Perhaps they thought they would really be having a whole country national campaign.


I say that because I was on the mailing list -- and the overwhelming concern EARLY on was to be on ALL 50 states ballots - to somehow show legitimacy. Indeed, one e-mail after another asked for donations so that they could send people into markets to get signatures or to find lawyers to fight one hardship after another. They never seemed to be asking for money to `bring ideas to America' - at least to me.


And, remember, I live in the Atlanta area - I know the coverage in the 90's that Barr got and the level of awareness of him. Indeed, he just barely lost a Republican primary in a run for the Senate. So, in Georgia and really in the core of the conservatives in America - the south - Barr was a known commodity. And, perhaps outrageously, I began an e-mail campaign with the Barr staff to have him use a strategy saying "I am going to win Georgia". (Since the media always love to ask - where are you going to win.)


Yes, I know, it sounds outrageous -- a Libertarian WINNING somewhere? But, in Georgia, with his limited funds - he would be able to raise awareness hugely about the Libertarian positions. And, once he started to `move' in the polls, in Georgia -- very likely -- other `southern states' would likely start to take interest. Other Southern States would likely also start to see some `movement' and improvement in the polling numbers as Georgia's numbers `took off'.


At WORST, at that point - the Libertarians would have had the media interest in the `regional' candidate - a new Wallace - (as you know, the media hates the south anyway). You would have had the media projecting `what if's' about winning southern electoral votes and throwing the whole affair into the House of Representatives. In a nutshell, you would actually shake the political system up and truly get the Libertarian point of view on the screen to all viewers nationwide. (I truly feel that `numbers' would, at that point, even move in other non-southern states.)


But, as you know, that did not happen - and ultimately Barr will get LESS than 1/2 of 1% of the total vote.

So, what went wrong from the viewpoint of an EIGHT time Libertarian voter? A better question would be what DIDN'T go wrong?


Obviously, VERNEY is not and was not a Libertarian - nor did he think like one - nor could he talk like one. Big mistake number one. Next, Barr wouldn't even back the legalization of marijuana - big mistake number two. Next, Barr also ignored the idea of a focused regional campaign, that would allow the campaign to grow from a base - big mistake number three. And then, finally, we had the spectacle of a nominated Presidential candidate willing to dump his Vice President candidate - big big mistake number four. (This, of course, was when Barr supposedly offered Ron Paul that position.)


That is not to say that IF Barr had gotten `traction' in the campaign that he would have done `well' - as the media would have been all over his prior hypocrisies such as cheating on his wife yet prosecuting Clinton for the same. Or, the obvious hypocrisy of `being a Libertarian' when he was so much behind the Drug War against Americans - and the adult right to self-medicate.


Ultimately, Barr inspired NOBODY - and got the results that showed an inept strategy from what should be one of America's main Liberty and Smaller Government parties. Perhaps, next time, in 2012 - the Libertarians WILL stand for Liberty once again - AND - truly smaller government - with a candidate that doesn't have to apologize for previous actions against Liberty.

Here's more links for today:

Judge Throws Out Red Light Camera Tickets As Program Declared Illegal And Void - http://techdirt.com/articles/20090811/1701585847.shtml To me, one of the absurdest ideas has been the Red Light Cameras - PROVEN to be a threat to public safety.

About half of U.S. mortgages seen underwater by 2011 - http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5745JP20090805 The media has largely buried this aspect of our `recovery'.

Why You Can't Trust Those Jobs Figures - http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/08/jobs-unemployment-layoffs-business-washington-figures.html Trusting the media spin on ANYTHING is not in ones best interest.

California Town Shuts Down Child’s Lemonade Stand - http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/08/07/california-town-shuts-down-childs-lemonade-stand/ Quoting from the article "There’s no business that’s too small for government to torture"

And, today's fun link - A GREAT video for all who believe in the old America --
(if video doesn't work - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZwIPnLZd6w)

Health Care Never Never Land - By Bob Barr

Received in my E-mail from Bob Barr

Health care Never Never Landby Bob Barras published in The Atlanta Journal ConstitutionMonday, July 20, 2009 at 9:00 AM
In "Sicko," iconoclastic filmmaker Michael Moore extols the virtue of health care in such liberal "paradises" as the United Kingdom and Cuba. Leaving his audience to wonder where he would choose to go for treatment if he were facing a life-threatening illness — the People's Hospital in Havana or the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. — Moore exhibits the same Alice-in-Wonderland delusion that has settled over the Obama administration.A majority of members of Congress, too, seem to believe that if only enough bureaucracy and taxpayer dollars are thrown at the health care "crisis," then everyone in the country will have their every medical need met, when they want it, and at much reduced cost. Such a mind set turns Peter Pan's Never Never Land into a reality show.For starters, advocates of the House legislation might want to talk to governors of those states, like Massachusetts, that have already implemented "universal" coverage plans. Increasing program costs, coupled with decreased state revenues as a result of the economic downturn, are causing serious fiscal problems and are forcing those states to consider cutbacks in coverage.However, witnessing the irrational, "gotta-do-this-now" push in our nation's capitol to pass comprehensive health care "reform" within the next few weeks, it is obvious the proponents of Obama-care are not interested in anyone throwing the cold water of fiscal reality on their parade.The House version of the legislation, unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) last week, includes substantial mandates on American businesses (including a severe, 8 percent payroll tax on any business that fails to offer health insurance coverage to its employees). Still, the Pollyannaish Pelosi claimed (with a straight face) it would "lower costs to businesses." This is government logic at its finest — you lower the cost of doing business by raising taxes on those businesses.Pelosi's obvious inability to grasp even the most basic of economic concepts was further displayed when she claimed that the "costs to consumers," too, would be lowered. Apparently, this would be accomplished by placing a new surtax on those American consumers whose income exceeded the levels deemed worthy by the legislators.Analysts of the 1,000-plus page legislation calculate its 10-year cost to exceed $1 trillion. Other experts fear such a figure greatly underestimates its true cost. Even the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the government subsidy for health care coverage will amount to some $6,000 per person within the next decade, which figures to more than $1.8 trillion.Pelosi's bill would also create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers. Such a scenario, of course, is never a fair "competition," because the government "owner" can always print money, spend borrowed money indefinitely, operate without regard for cost-benefit analysis, and threaten legal sanctions for those who fail to comply. None of these remedies are available to businesses (except, of course, for the "new" General Motors).The smoke-and-mirrors approach is evident also in the fact that high-income taxpayers, who would already be taxed in order to pay for the "universal" coverage for their less-well-off compatriots, would face escalating taxes if the government fails in the years ahead to achieve targeted "savings" in Medicaid and Medicare. In other words, the government will set "savings targets," but if it fails to meet them, it is taxpayers who will pay the penalty, not those members of Congress or federal bureaucrats who decide how much to spend on the entitlement programs.Other industries, including pharmaceuticals, will face increased taxes as well, in order to pay for this "reform." The more successful drug makers will pay a higher percentage tax than their smaller, less successful colleagues. Once again, success in the business arena is punished in the government arena.Truly, this bill is a monstrosity.
###
Bob Barr, an Atlanta attorney, is a former member of Congress and Libertarian presidential candidate.

Bob Barr on Cap and Trade

As I have mentioned before - I am on Bob Barr's mailing list - which is where this is from (it also appeared in the AJC - Altanta's paper)

Cap-and-trade's a lot of hot airby Bob Barras published in The Atlanta Journal ConstitutionMonday, July 06, 2009Americans inclined to support President Obama's health care overhaul might want to first look at the so-called "cap-and-trade" legislation passed by the House of Representatives with the president's support.Its 1,200 pages must rank among the most complex and convoluted pieces of legislation ever devised, making old, Soviet-style government edicts appear streamlined by comparison.Former President Jimmy Carter, who oversaw the last formal effort Washington undertook to mandate comprehensive energy usage, was a novice compared to the heavy-handed, global-oriented approach by Obama and his Democratic colleagues in the House. Where Carter, a generation ago, was content to turn down the thermostat and lecture the country while wearing a cardigan sweater in front of a warmly glowing fireplace, Obama uses 21st-century communications tools and offers to change not just America's energy system, but the entire world's — with taxpayer dollars by the trillions.The regulatory behemoth that would be unleashed by the cap-and-trade legislation, if it were to become law, starts with a group of "experts" deciding how much carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" the earth's atmosphere can withstand. These then become the "targets" that bad-guy emitters (such as manufacturing plants) would have to meet by "buying" annual "emission permits" from Uncle Sam or on the secondary market. They could trade — that is, buy and sell — their permits to meet their target or cap; hence the term, "cap-and-trade." The number of permits drops annually until a "safe" level of emissions is reached.Some 85 percent of the initial offering of permits would be given to certain favored industries, states and Indian tribes. These entities, of course, could then trade them to other "polluters." All this would be monitored and enforced by government bureaucrats.As if this scenario would not be enough to make your eyes roll and your hands rush to grab your wallet and hold it near, there is yet another bureaucratic overlay nestled in the legislation . The bill establishes a mechanism for "polluters" to obtain two billion "offsets" that would allow them to emit more greenhouse gasses than their permits would otherwise allow. These "offsets" consist of paying for "green projects" in the U.S. or — get this — somewhere else on the globe.Thus, a manufacturing plant in, say, Gary, Ind., that is exceeding its "permitted" expulsion of CO2, could continue to commit this sin against humanity by paying for a Brazilian farmer to plant some trees in the rain forest. A more patriotic company might achieve the same result by paying an Iowa former to implement more "Earth-friendly" farming practices. Of course, to guard against some nefarious polluter trying to cheat Uncle Sam and the world by claiming bogus "offsets," there must be a monitoring mechanism. Enter the "Offsets Integrity Advisory Board" — yet another group of scientific "experts" that would be tasked with compiling a list of qualifying offsets around the globe.Utility companies would be required to purchase increasing percentages of their electricity from "renewable sources," but they could meet these mandates, at least in part, by forcing their customers to reduce their energy usage. Those customers — that is, every individual, family and business in the country — also would be forced to change building codes in order to use less energy, change lighting systems employed in homes and outdoor areas, and buy more expensive "energy-efficient" appliances.This discussion barely scratches the surface of the Byzantine system of mandates and favors that would be doled out by the government if this legislation reaches Obama's desk. The cost is impossible to calculate, except to know it will be in the trillions of dollars. For a plan based on bad science and proposing to implement a model that's already failed in Europe, that's a price no responsible American ought to accept. But, how can you put a pricetag on saving the world and all of mankind?
###
Bob Barr, an Atlanta attorney, is a former member of Congress and Libertarian presidential candidate.

Another link for you today:

Watch lists, guns and government - By Bob Barr

A couple days ago I received this E-Mail from Bob Barr (having been on the 2008 mailing list) - the article also ran in the Atlanta paper. Here it is - and it's dead on point:

as published in The Atlanta Journal ConstitutionMonday, June 29, 2009 at 9:00 AM The secret government "Terrorist Watch List," reportedly already swelled to more than 1.1 million names, will have an addendum, if gun control advocates in Congress have their way. This new addendum — also to be cloaked in secrecy — would empower the U.S. Attorney General to deny a person the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights to purchase a firearm.While it is not surprising that some members of Congress are again using fear of terrorism to implement a gun-control agenda, the openly unconstitutional legislative language proponents are employing is troubling.Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) is leading the effort in the Senate, while another well-known gun control advocate — Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) — is directing the House initiative. They have introduced identical bills — the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009." This proposal would give the attorney general the power to unilaterally and in secret develop a watch list of persons believed to be unworthy of possessing a firearm or any explosive.This new "dangerous terrorist" watch list would include names based not on hard evidence of criminal activity, but on nothing more than the subjective conclusion by the attorney general that a person is "appropriately suspected" (whatever that means) of engaging in some manner of assisting or preparing for acts of domestic or international terrorism. The American people would never be privy to what criteria might be employed by the attorney general to determine whether someone is an "appropriate suspect," and they would have no way of knowing why they might be denied the ability to purchase a firearm.If a person were to be refused "permission" to purchase a firearm or explosive, and if they subsequently filed a lawsuit in federal court to find out why, the government still could keep such information secret. In other words, the attorney general could deny a U.S. citizen the ability to own a firearm, and never have to give the reason.For legislators like Lautenberg and King, who apparently have absolute faith in unelected government officials to make the right decisions for the right reasons at the right times (and never be required to explain those decisions), one has only to consider the checkered history of post-9/11 "terrorist" watch lists to see the folly of such perspective. Stories abound of persons denied the ability to board a commercial aircraft, or greatly delayed in being allowed on board, for no reason other than their name erroneously appeared on some "watch list." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), have been among this not-so-elite group.A report earlier this year by the FBI's inspector general chronicled extensive internal problems with the terrorist watch list maintained by that agency. The IG found numerous examples of inaccuracies, incomplete entries, out-of-date information and inclusion of information "unrelated to terrorism." While the inconvenience of not being able to board an airliner for a business trip or a vacation can be a real headache, being refused the ability to purchase a firearm to protect one's life clearly raises the stakes.The government already has remedies already at its disposal to keep firearms out of the hands of known or suspected terrorists. Under existing federal law, there are numerous categories of persons prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms; including persons in violation of immigration laws, convicted felons, illicit drug users and others. And if a person truly is a known or suspected terrorist, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — as the federal law enforcement agency primarily responsible for enforcing the nation's gun laws — certainly should be made aware of that information. We don't need a secret, anti-Second Amendment watch list to implement effective law enforcement in America.
###Bob Barr, an Atlanta attorney, is a former member of Congress and Libertarian presidential candidate.

To donate by mail: Barr 2008 Presidential Committee900 Circle 75 Pkwy., Ste. 1280Atlanta, GA 30339To donate by phone:Call 770/836-1776Paid for by Barr 2008 Presidential Committee.
Federal law requires us to report the name, address, and name of employer and occupation for any individual whose aggregate contributions total over $200 in a calendar year. Corporate contributions and gifts from foreign nationals are prohibited. Personal Credit Card gifts only. Contributions are not tax deductible for income tax purposes. Limit of $2,300 per person per election and $4,600 per couple if signed by both parties and drawn on a jointly held bank account.