Houston Area Liberty Campaign

By Benito Segovia

Newsweek, the quintessential mainstream media publication (not a compliment) embodying all things globalism and collectivism, recently published an article titled “The Triumphant Return of Hayek” by Ruchir Sharma. When this exciting headline popped up I was tickled but wary – determined to discover what twist, if any, the story held for the Austrian School and its leader Hayek.

To my delight the article correctly described the public’s growing criticism of Keynesian-backed policy and the growing favor of Austrian School ideas. Yet ultimately concluded that it was distortions of Keynesianism and monetarism that lead to the systematic failure of these policies.

“Keynes would probably never have supported big government deficits during boom times, such as those that led to our current debt crisis. Likewise, Friedman would probably not have backed the new Fed use of monetary policy as a tool to engineer expansion rather than merely cushion the pain in a downturns.”

Sharma also continues the national narrative that unchecked free markets and sound money caused the Great Depression. At least he points toward high-tax policy as a contributing factor.

“Faith in the market’s purging power served the U.S. well in the 19th century, when the economy emerged stronger after each recession, but was taken too far in the policy mix of tight money and high taxes that led to the Great Depression and the rise of the Keynesians.”

I’m disappointed that a more candid assessment of the Austrian School wasn’t given a lead role in this article but at least it’s entering into the mainstream discussion. As they say in show business; any publicity is good publicity.

[From HALC member Laura B]
================================================

By: Allen Darman

http://nutrientscure.wordpress.com

Introduction

Alternative medicine clearly has won the battle of truth about healing on the Internet during the past ten years.

So much has changed regarding alternative medicine on the Internet in the past decade. Its presence has exploded exponentially. And so has its depth of healing knowledge. (It has found many cures, when none existed before.)

Alternative medicine has “trumped” conventional drug-oriented medicine in the past decade, as far as the truth is concerned. If you perform a “simple linking search” on the Internet typing in whatever illness you may have, and precede it with the words “alternative medicine” or “integrative medicine” (without the quote marks), and then compare what you find to what conventional medicine has to offer for the very same illness, the aforementioned fact will often be clear.

Does this mean that alternative medicine is going to replace conventional drug-oriented medicine in a very big way, as it justifiably should?

Not necessarily.

It is up to the law.

Alternative vs. Governmental Medicine

Federal law in America favors ONLY conventional drug-oriented medicine at this point. (“Governmental medicine” is the appropriate term for the latter. Governmental medicine and conventional drug-oriented are synonymous, for the former mandates the latter.) 

Federal law does so with its ridiculous FDA mandate that states “ONLY A DRUG can prevent, diagnose, treat, or cure ALL disease”. (Based on reality, this is nuts!)

In taking the above position, federal law is also mandating the reverse; NO NUTRIENT, NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENT, ***OR*** NATURAL MEASURE is allowed to prevent, diagnose, treat, or cure ANY disease”. (Based on reality, this is nuts!)

Read the rest of this entry »

Original Commentary from former HALC Chairman Bill Tofte

When mortgages default and businesses fail, who gets the assets?….BANKS and FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

When those banks and financial institutions go under, who gets the assets?….Would it be the Federal Reserve?….Who benefits from financial collapse?….the FED.

Who came out smelling like a rose after the Great Depression?….the Financial… See More Robber Barons of the FED.

Who made over $46 Billion net profit (not taxable) last year, one of their largest in history, while the nation’s businesses were suffering from huge losses?….the FED.

While financial institutions were reeling from the the sudden downturn in the market, did the FED suffer?….were not they ” in the market”, to some extent too?…..NO….I am sure they were “out”…..(remember the $46B)…is this coincidental or planned?…..who profited, even though the FED was charging the lowest interest rates in history?…..the FED.

How did they do it???? By printing money, “loaning” it, then being repaid, with “real” money PLUS INTEREST!!!!!! This is how I see the dots are connected and the pieces of the puzzle are fitting…

AUDIT THE FED, THEN END THE FED.

By Bill Tofte – Former Chairman of the Houston Area Liberty Campaign

Comments on Article 3, Section 8, paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution

“The Congress shall have the power…..to regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes.”

This phrase in the Constitution was and is being used to justify any and all types of Federal regulation of most all industries, including the health care, education, and the food industries. I have personally heard from a conservative Texas Republican Congressman that even the October 3, 2008, $700 Billion bailout was constitutional, using the infamous “interstate commerce” clause to justify his position. When the predominance of human action can be reduced to “commerce,” there is nothing that escapes the grasp of the Federal government. Yes, where there is commerce, there is money, and where there is money there are taxes….and lobbies, and political gifts. Is it any wonder that this is such popular interpretation of both Republicans and Democrats?

Moreover, the broadness of this interpretation nullifies any force and meaning of the 10th Amendment. If the extent of legal regulation is broadened to extend to all forms of commerce, what is left for the people and the States, traffic laws, and murder?
Read the rest of this entry »

I heartily agree with this writer. No city, state or federal agency should have the authority to ban a private act in a privately-owned business.

If an employee does not like that policy at that business, then even in this economy, you might be able to find employment elsewhere. There are many places of employment that have set their own smoking/non-smoking policies, so you should be able to find something to your liking.

If you’re a customer to a business that allows employees or other customers to smoke and you don’t like that, “vote” with your wallet. Take your money elsewhere. That company is NOT in business to make you happy like a spouse/significant other, child or parent would do, they’re there to sell you a product or service. Period. They only want your money. Your being happy/not happy is a side-effect of their business environment, not the sole source of your happiness/unhappiness.

Also, as far as smoking bans in bars and clubs go, it kind of goes without saying, smoking and drinking go hand-in-hand. Whether you agree or not, they are both still lawful activities. That is, unless you agree with the only public official that ever banned smoking nationally.

Here is the most successful anti-smoking campaign. Ever. Quit smoking or go to jail.

Before you assume that I’m a chain smoker or have had no dealings with smokers, I assure you, I’m not. I’m a non-smoker. My father passed away from prostate cancer and emphesema when I was 17 yrs old, in my senior year of high school. I also dated and married my spouse, who was a 1/4 pack-a-day smoker before I met my spouse. I have worked for smokers in two different offices. I just chose to protect myself by my own means, rather than having the government do it for me. If I don’t like the environment in a workplace, restaurant or other facility I utilize, I take my business elsewhere.
==================================================
[From The Daily Paul.com, story here.]

(These 2 links go together so I thought I would post them together. Please take some time and read and watch. Eye opening.)

“In the past decade, public smoking bans in America have become increasingly commonplace; governmental efforts to institute such bans often prove successful, primarily because the majority of Americans do not smoke. In other words, the majority can only gain from such legislation. Supporters reason that they should not have to inhale second-hand smoke every time they patronize the local bar. This argument is seemingly sound; most ban backers this author has encountered do indeed provide this justification when endeavoring to legitimize their views. Once effective counterarguments are rendered, however, supporters often change the foundation in which their ban advocacy initially appeared to be rooted. They then contend that employers have a responsibility to provide a smoke-free environment for their employees. Neither justification is well-reasoned. Moreover, it is unambiguous that public smoking bans are incompatible with private property rights.
Read the rest of this entry »