The U.S. Federal Reserve, facing growing pressure as it tries to heal the ailing economy, dodged a bullet on Monday when the U.S. Senate cast aside a new effort to increase scrutiny of the central bank.

On procedural grounds, the Senate blocked a bid to permit the U.S. comptroller general, who heads the investigative arm of Congress known as the Government Accountability Office, to audit the Federal Reserve system and issue a report.

Republican Senator Jim DeMint, who has been pushing for greater transparency at the Fed, failed to get the provision attached to the must-pass annual spending bill that includes funding for the GAO for the upcoming 2010 fiscal year.

The audit would have included details about the Fed’s discount window operations, funding facilities, open market operations and agreements with foreign central banks and governments, DeMint said on the Senate floor.

“The Federal Reserve will create and disburse trillions of dollars in response to our current financial crisis,” DeMint said. “Americans across the nation, regardless of their opinion on the bailout, want to know where the money has gone.

“Allowing the Fed to operate our nation’s monetary system in almost complete secrecy leads to abuse, inflation and a lower quality of life,” he said.

Democrats who control the Senate blocked the South Carolina Republican’s amendment on the grounds that it violated rules prohibiting legislation attached to spending bills.

I’m sure the Democrats have NEVER tried to attach legislation to spending bills… and I’m sure that since Barack Obama and the Democrats are so pro transparency the leadership immediately began working with DeMint to figure out how they can get his amendment passed.

Update:

More info at http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=21326

Related posts:

1. Footage of Jim DeMint being shot down by Senate leadership over Federal Reserve transparency amendment
2. New Hampshire Senate passes gay marriage bill
3. Senate panel OKs bill to relate cigarettes, ban cloves

I’m writing in response to Keene Sentinel columnist Michael Schuman’s story titled “Will the Free Staters Please Sit Down?” I must admit, a couple of years ago, before coming to understand the message of liberty, I would have agreed with Schuman’s opinions.

Schuman’s views are consistent with what many would describe as main stream America. Unfortunately many of his ideas are based in ignorance and misunderstanding that stems from a lack of critical thinking. Like most of us, Schuman probably attended government indoctrination centers where school children are taught to stand on their X, respect authority, and do as you’re told without question.

Take a look at the pledge of allegiance. How many other countries have one? How many of you know it was written by Fancis Bellamy, a National Socialist (Nazi) flag salesman, to “instill a strong belief in the state.” Dont believe me? Look it up on the internet. You’re likely to find the same picture I did of school children doing a Roman salute – the same one Hitler’s army used – before that was changed after WWII.

Schuman’s description of a classical libertarian is severely flawed and his examples display an ignorance of private property vs. individual rights.

The article begins by describing libertarians as “a Republican who wants to smoke pot and watch porn.” What does it mean to be a Republican – or a Democrat – these days? The only difference I can discern between the two parties is how they want to take more of your money to grow government. The red/blue game is simply a distraction to keep the masses complacent while government works to extract more of your wealth to exert greater control over your life.

Classical libertarians on the other hand believe it’s wrong to initiate force or violence on others to provide a product or service. Sure government seems fair and even “necessary,” but what happens if you don’t pay their taxes?

While we’re at it, have you ever wondered how two main viewpoints (or parties) manage to represent hundreds of millions of people? How is it countries like Sweden and Switzerland have hundreds of political parties with members elected to Parliament? Could it be that campaign finance “reform” is a tool used by the two major parties to retain power while setting the bar high enough to prevent new entrants from gaining a foothold?

Many of you are probably libertarians without realizing it. Find out for yourself by taking the World’s Shortest Political Quiz at www.TheAdvocates.org/quiz.

Schuman continued with a concert example concerning a woman who remained standing despite everyone around her sitting to enjoy the concert. Libertarians believe in social ostracism, which Schuman did when he had someone ask her to tak a seat.

Schuman’s failure was likely caused by a lack of numbers. Would the result have been the same if twenty people were shouting “sit down!” instead of one person asking? The additional pressure might have changed her mind; I’ve seen it work.

Failing to get his way, Schuman then went to get the authorities (the usher), just as government trains us to snitch on our neighbors, rather than seeking to understand and resolve differences.

In the story, the woman refused to sit, saying she had a right to stand, and the usher decided there was nothing he could do. This is where Schuman concludes libertarians are selfish based on his limited understanding of rights.

If I’m invited to a friend’s house (private property) and he has a “no shoes inside” policy, do I have a “right” to wear shoes in his house? If I don’t like the policy, I won’t go over to his house, or I’ll see if I can bring a pair of slippers to wear inside.

In Schuman’s example, libertarians may advocate: petitioning the venue for a standingin/seated section; a boycott of the venue; opening your own venue, where you set the rules; requesting a refund from the venue’s management. What would Schuman’s solution involve? Perhaps he suggests a “no standing” law commanding the guns of government to punish the woman with arrest, taxpayers with enforcement costs, and the private property owner by trampling his rights and ability to provide innovative solutions to changing customer demands.

Libertarians believe in the power of a true free market to solve problems, and we understand the unintended consequences that arise from using force – government – to solve problems.

Schuman continues by comparing the Free State Project to a Christian Fundamentalist group moving to South Carolina. He left out the Mormons who moved to Salt Lake City. I’m left wondering about the political fathers and the 13% of American colonists who supported them in throwing off British rule. Would that make Mr. Schuman one of the loyalists, the 30% of the population happy with British rule? Many of them were run off to Canada.

While Schuman seemed to understand at least one aspect of the trillion dollar failure that is the war on drugs, he doesn’t seem to understand the concept of a victimless crime.

In his initial attempt to discredit this idea he repeats his earlier flawed concept with the smoking issue. Again the issue is private property. Are you a victim of second hand smoke if you voluntarily decide to patronize an establishment that allows smoking on its private property? Customers and employees are free to ostracize, patronize, or increase choice and diversity in the marketplace through competition.

Schuman then set his sights on gun control. He references what he describes as almost daily shooting sprees around the nation. What he fails to mention, and what most don’t understand is this: the most deadly cities in America – New York, D.C., LA, Chicago – also have the most restrictive gun laws. States with the least restrictive gun laws like New Hampshire and Vermont also enjoy some of the lowest crime rates. The facts show gun laws reduce safety.

In what seems like a direct attempt to discredit the messenger, Schuman implies the Free State Project is an extreme organization. In his article, he describes the New Hampshire Free Press – a local paper which publishes stories on topics including the 9/11 Truth Movement and the John Birch Society – as “one of the project’s media outlets.”

As a fellow journalist, I would expect Schuman to do some basic fact checking and investigation. Spending 5 minutes reading the FAQ section at FreeStateProject.org, and he would have understood that the Free State Project exists solely to encourage liberty activists to move to New Hampshire and get active for liberty. The FSP does not endorse any political parties, not any candidates, nor any legislation. It certainly doesn’t have any media outlets!

Here’s how the FSP works: people hear about the message of liberty and eventually the FSP; they move to New Hampshire; they learn about the various things activists are doing and they decide what they want to support. The FSP is not involved past moving.

Some liberty activists see something they want to change – like the government abrogating freedom of the press – while others come up with new ideas – like volunteering at the Community Kitchen, the monthly canned food drive, or Keene Freedom Fest, to name a few. These activists come up with a plan and the people who think it’s a good idea support it. The best ideas garner the most support. If someone is unhappy with the way things are going they splinter off and start their own group. It’s happened several times, and the liberty movement grows stronger and more diverse with each split.

It’s something a command and control, top-down organization could never accomplish. It’s also the way a true free market – most libertarians advocate – would operate. No leaders; no structure; only individuals standing for and supporting what they believe.

That brings us to Schuman’s last example, my unlawful indefinite detainment without trial for filming on public property. To begin with my last name is Dodson, not Miller, and Schuman acknowledges my identity is no secret. Had he done the slightest bit of investigation he would know that I have identified myself, with a fingerprint, as demanded by their laws. Had he reviewed the publicly available court filings, he would know the court/prosecutor team has presented no laws to the contrary. He would also know that over the last month and a half the courts have ignored most of our requests including 3 separate motions to schedule a trial.

Is that what this country was founded upon, arresting journalists critical of the state and holding them indefinitely without trial?

Schuman then points out that taxpayers have been forced to pay thousands of dollars for my detainment and asks, is this a victimless crime? Absolutely not, along with me, taxpayers are victims of an out of control judge, protected by a lifetime appointment, who’s willing to throw away as much of your money as he wants to challenge the slightest threat to his authority. This has little to do with my identity and everything to do with control.

Schuman attempts to close his story by drawing an analogy between my situation and a Peanuts comic strip in which Snoopy is described as doing something “Pretty stupid!” Gandhi said it best, “First they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” While Schuman and others may be laghing, the New Hampshire bureaucrats have started fighting.

Unfortunately, they’re fighting an idea; an idea that, thanks to press coverage on the internet, The Keene Sentinel, the Boston Globe, Fox News, and Break the Matrix, has now spread over a quarter million people, a handful of which are now planning their move to New Hampshire. Laugh all you want, and I hope you don’t mind if I join you.

SamIAm

Related posts:

1. Will the Free Staters please sit down?, by Seninel columnst Michael Schuman
2. The Boston Globe: The appeal of ‘Live free or die’ – Antigovernment activists putting down roots in N.H.
3. Cato Institute’s David Boaz snubs Free State Project

Forget University of North Carolina and Michigan State.

The real drama, excitement, emotion and tension came in our first annual March Madness pool — to determine (yeah right) the 2012 Republican presidential nominee.

And today, just hours after the NCAA tourney, we announce OUR winner, as voted by you. And it’s Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

Paul defeated Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina in the finals by 13 points, 56-43 percent, with 963,719 total votes cast.

The names of 32 prospective (and yes, some unlikely) candidates were in the brackets when we began this madness on March 19.

Millions (literally!) of votes were cast. Hundreds of comments were sent in. Some of them, I should add, were not that civil.

Part of it is because of my picks. My brackets showed not necessarily whom I would have voted for — that is of nobody’s concern — but how I saw it playing out if GOP voters around the country actually had these choices in the primaries and caucuses. My Final Four were Romney, Sanford, Ryan and Huckabee. I had Romney beating Sanford and Huckabee toppling Ryan, and for the championship (oops, the nomination) I had Romney over Huckabee.

You wouldn’t believe the kind of emails I got for that. Or maybe you would.

But that’s not the point. This was about how YOU voted. And, judging from the response and the emotions it caused, it was a success. People paid attention to it.

Congratulations to Congressman Paul. And whatever this means, or doesn’t, regarding 2012, it does prove one thing — that his supporters are committed and passionate.

Indeed they are. I’d love to see Paul run again in 2012. It’s a long way off though and a younger Paul may come out of the woodwork which could carry Dr. Paul’s torch in a more aggressive and politically articulate fashion.

Related posts:

1. Ron Paul wins New Jersey Bergen County Republican straw poll
2. Ron Paul comes in a close second in South Carolina straw poll
3. Ron Paul comes in 3rd in the Texas GOP straw poll

U.S. presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama each deserve credit for a breakthrough in talks on a $700 billion plan to revive the credit markets, their advisers said today.

Republican McCain worked with party members in the House to achieve plan changes such as government insurance of mortgage- backed securities and a phase-in of federal aid, Senator Lindsey Graham said on the “Fox News Sunday” television program.

“The fact is the House Republicans were not in the mix at all” until McCain arrived at the talks, said Graham, a South Carolina Republican. McCain “was decisive in regards to the House being involved.”

Senator John Kerry, an Obama adviser, disagreed. McCain said “he was going to interrupt his campaign to come down and save the negotiations,” according to the Massachusetts Democrat. “What he did was interrupt the negotiations to come down and save his campaign.”

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said in a CNN interview today that McCain’s trip was “a political stunt” that “delayed and slowed down this process.”

Obama was supportive of negotiations in a “mild” and constructive” way by calling in over eight or nine days of talks, said Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat.

If they want to take credit I’m happy to give it to them. When the depression comes I just hope whichever clown is in office will take the blaim.

Related posts:

1. McCain says N.C. Republicans out of touch over Obama ad
2. Sam Brownback endorses John McCain
3. McCain looking for Paul’s backing

http://politicalinquirer.com/…

STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2nd Session of the 51st Legislature (2008)
HOUSE JOINT
RESOLUTION 1089 By: Key
AS INTRODUCED
A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States over certain powers; serving notice to the
federal government to cease and desist certain
mandates; and directing distribution.
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States reads as follows:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and
WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 51ST OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all
powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal
government by the Constitution of the United States.
THAT this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government,
as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates
that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated
powers.

THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state’s
legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the
Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

http://www.okhouse.gov/51LEG/Leg_Votesxx.aspx?include=okh01983.txt

http://www.ok-safe.com/files/documents/1/HJR1089_int.pdf

And as other sovereignty issues arise like with Real ID hopefully the states can exert enough pressure to cripple the federal government. At least slow its march toward total national control.

Related posts:

1. States starting to declare their sovereignty
2. Montana passes the “Montana Firearms Freedom Act”
3. Ron Paul fundraising observations

SEATTLE (AP) – Timothy Garon’s face and arms are hauntingly skeletal, but the fluid building up in his abdomen makes the 56-year-old musician look eight months pregnant.

His liver, ravaged by hepatitis C, is failing. Without a new one, his doctors tell him, he will be dead in days.

But Garon’s been refused a spot on the transplant list, largely because he has used marijuana, even though it was legally approved for medical reasons.

“I’m not angry, I’m not mad, I’m just confused,” said Garon, lying in his hospital bed a few minutes after a doctor told him the hospital transplant committee’s decision Thursday.

With the scarcity of donated organs, transplant committees like the one at the University of Washington Medical Center use tough standards, including whether the candidate has other serious health problems or is likely to drink or do drugs.

And with cases like Garon’s, they also have to consider – as a dozen states now have medical marijuana laws – if using dope with a doctor’s blessing should be held against a dying patient in need of a transplant.

Most transplant centers struggle with the how to deal with people who have used marijuana, said Dr. Robert Sade, director of the Institute of Human Values in Health Care at the Medical University of South Carolina.

It takes about 14 years (on the high-end) to become a doctor:

• 4-5 years of college
• 4 years of medical school
• 3-5 years of residency
• x years (if you specialize)

It’s also not uncommon for doctors to begin their practice with over $100,000 in student loans and other indebtedness.

That being said, I’d like to think that with all that time and money invested, these “doctors” would know better.
Of course not. Instead we get ignorant statements like these:

“Marijuana, unlike alcohol, has no direct effect on the liver. It is however a concern … in that it’s a potential indicator of an addictive personality,” Sade said.

“The concern is that patients who have been using it will not be able to stop,” Reyes said.

Related posts:

1. Reason.tv’s Drew Carey Project Episode 14: Raiding California – Medical Marijuana and Minors
2. Ask Blog of Bile – NJ Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act
3. DEA rejects UMass request to grow medical marijuana

Enacting city smoking bans appears to increase drunken driving, according to a new national study of arrests by Wisconsin researchers.

Fatal accidents involving alcohol increased after communities banned public smoking, the study to be released by the Journal of Public Economics found. The authors attributed the increase to people driving farther to drink, either to a place with an outdoor smoking area or a city without a ban.

“The increased miles driven by drivers who wish to smoke and drink offsets any reduction in driving from smokers choosing to stay home after a ban, resulting in increased alcohol-related accidents,” the study says.

The researchers, Scott Adams, of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and Chad Cotti, now at the University of South Carolina, said they were surprised by the results.

“We thought we would see a reduction,” Adams said. “Our first thought was, ‘Throw it away, it must be wrong.’”

But it wasn’t, he said.

Be sure to read the title in your best Strong Bad voice. Add a “HAHA” before and/or after. What is so hard to believe an action can have unforeseen consequences? Something is going to change when you forcibly alter peoples behavior. Not smoking means more time to drink. It may mean driving further to drink. It may even cause a drop in hook ups from the loss in “Do you have a light?” pickup lines.

Any researcher whose first reaction is “Throw it away, it must be wrong.” has no credibility in my opinion. I’ll need to make a note of questioning anything out of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Related posts:

1. UK: Cigarette display ban considered
2. Mike Huckabee and John Edwards support national smoking ban in public places
3. Illinois ban on smoking in public places passed

To protect seniors from identity theft and strengthen our national security by providing for the issuance of a secure Social Security card.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Social Security Identity Theft Prevention Act’.

SEC. 2. UPDATED AND SECURE SOCIAL SECURITY CARDS.

(a) In General- Section 205(c)(2)(G) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(G)) is amended–

(1) by inserting `(i)’ after `(G)’;

(2) in the last sentence, by striking `shall be made of banknote paper, and’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new clauses:

`(ii) A social security card issued pursuant to clause (i) of this subparagraph to an individual described in subparagraph (B)(ii) shall–

`(I) be made of tamperproof and wear-resistant material;

`(II) have clearly marked on its face the name and social security account number of the individual to whom the card is issued;

`(III) in the case of a card issued to an individual after attaining age 16, display a digital image, captured directly by an officer or employee of the Social Security Administration acting in his or her official capacity, of the person to whom the social security account number was issued and the date on which that image was captured; and

`(IV) contain an encrypted, machine-readable electronic record which shall include records of biometric identifiers unique to the individual to whom the card is issued, including a copy of any digitized facial image printed on the face of the card pursuant to subclause (III).

Here is a video about it. I recommend contacting your congressman and letting them know we don’t need the Real ID under a new name.

Related posts:

1. Australian national ID card abandoned
2. Identity theft bill would allow consumers to seek restitution
3. TSA to soon require identification

Unless a police officer is dutifully enforcing a legitimate warrant, or has unassailable probable cause to believe that an individual has committed a felony, he has no business attempting to arrest anybody. That was the understanding that prevailed in the Anglo-Saxon world, in one form or another, from 1215 until the mid-1960s to mid-1970s, at least here in the United States.Fifty years ago, the statutes of nearly every state recognized the right to resist unlawful arrest. Today, it is recognized only Michigan, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Mississippi.* The question has been examined, and upheld in remarkably candid terms by courts in Mississippi. This is ironic, given that Mississippi is the same state where Cory Maye was convicted of first degree murder for killing a police officer who invaded Maye’s home in a late-night paramilitary raid at the wrong address.

A 1963 Mississippi Supreme Court decision (King v. State) favorably cited a legal scholar’s conclusion that “the right of personal liberty is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen, and any unlawful interference may be resisted. Every person has a right to resist an unlawful arrest; and, in preventing such illegal restraint of his liberty, he may use such force as may be necessary.”

Not quite four decades earlier, a judge presiding over the criminal trial of a police officer accused of murdering a man who resisted arrest underscored the fact that a citizen has the right to kill a police officer attempting to arrest him without probable cause or a valid warrant. The judge instructed the jury that if the officer had been attempting an illegal arrest, the defendant was permitted to employ “whatever force was necessary to avoid the arrest, even to the extent of taking the life of [the] defendant.”

In other words: A police officer who kills a civilian in the course of an unlawful arrest is a murderer; a citizen who kills a police officer when threatened with lethal violence in the course of an unlawful arrest is exercising his innate right to self-defense.

Like jury nullification the right to resist unlawful arrest is something simply not talked about by those in power and generally not know by the public. It’s something which as our nation moves closer and closer to a police state needs to be taught to others in an attempt to counteract some of the government’s abuses.

Related posts:

1. Police State Rules in NJ High School
2. Police State: Memphis
3. Why Waco Still Matters

A very detailed breakdown of Paul’s 4th quarter
campaign spending, from a post on ronpaul forums:

Where $17M went in the 4th Qtr

These are the major category expenses from the 4th
Quarter FEC report for the RPPCC (taken from the raw
FEC data files and then sucked into a DB and totaled.)

Bulk Mail Printing/Processing/Postage ……..
4,329,007.44
Radio Spot Expense ………………………
3,092,519.89
Television Spot Expense/Production ………..
2,192,292.56
Telecommunications ………………………
1,514,587.03
Television Spot Expense ……………………
906,702.32
Salaries …………………………………
532,929.25
Credit Card Contributions Processing Fee …….
483,249.47
Signs/Sign Supplies ……………………….
451,796.19
Payroll Tax Expense ……………………….
394,600.75
Airline Travel ……………………………
380,840.50
Reimbursement Expenses …………………….
328,504.73
Consulting-Political Field Work …………….
320,851.92
Campaign Shirts …………………………..
247,442.55
Freight/Shipping Expenses ………………….
220,911.91
List Rental/Purchase ………………………
220,046.04
Freight ………………………………….
206,369.07
Bulk Printing-Slim Jims ……………………
202,890.00
Bulk Mail Postage\Processing ……………….
200,020.99
Bulk Printing …………………………….
160,250.28
Campaign Buttons/Stickers/Etc ………………
125,910.00
———————————————————–
TOTAL …………………………………
16,511,722.89
That’s it for the main expense data folks.

Everthing else below is my “educated guesses” based on
some further (more detailed) analysis of the numbers
BEHIND the data above.

DO NOT READ ANY FARTHER if you do not want to know.

Ok, for those who ARE interested (or like myself, NEED
to know this stuff) — well, unfortunately I *think*
that I now understand why the campaign was NOT so
forthcoming with where the money went.

Before you panic — It does NOT look like there was
any philandering anywhere, but there definitely WERE
some major blunders and bad choices made. IMHO, it is
a case of inexperience and incompetence followed by
some solid CYA.

The BIGGEST Expense item shown there is the $4.3M for
printing/processing/postage — and this all appears to
have been spent with a single firm out of New
Hampshire (Tier 3 Advertising, Inc.) — it consisted
of 24 payments from 10/15 thru 12/28 (Avg $176,640).

That looks to me to be a series of MAJOR mailings to
virtually everyone in the state. (This was a HUGE
EXPENSE it could be argued received little ROI in
terms of votes. However, it *might* also argues as a
cause of the high donations from NH, so it may
actually have balanced out. I haven’t done totals and
quarter % comparisons on donations from NH… so no
idea yet.) Since NH has a population of a little over
1.2 million — if we estimate a general household size
of 2.5 people that gives us about 450,000 households
– so about $10 per household was spent on printing &
mailings. Since the only thing that I am aware of that
was mailed was the large 12page, full color bio book,
it seems like someone got snookered on printing costs!
Whoever made THIS decision was thinking either that it
would produce a 1st place, AND/OR they thought they
were running a Romney-style $100M campaign.
Regardless, major faux pas.

The second biggest expense was the payment of $3M for
Radio spots, of which some $2.8M was spent with a firm
called “Direct Results Radio” — consisting of 11
payments from 10/11 thru 12/27 (Avg $260,985). Know
way of knowing exactly where this was targeted, but IA
and NH are the only obvious choices (possibly some SC,
but who knows?)

Third biggest expense, and perhaps the second most
troubling after the $4.2M mailers, is the $2.1M in
television production costs. Since the LION’S SHARE of
this $ 1,558,243 was paid to a single firm (Creative
Cable Television Inc. of California) in 5 payments
from 11/08 thru 12/13 (Avg $311,648) — it seems the
initial “dopy” ads (and the Iowa “Special”???) were
REALLY EXPENSIVE. Only explanation I can give is that
someone got snookered, BIG TIME.

So… from all of that, I am willing to posit SEVERAL
things:

1) OTHER than the things I’ve already cited (which
granted are enough to sink a ship) spending looks to
be relatively well managed. (Spending a quarter of a
million on campaign shirts — 1/2 the amount you spent
on campaign signs — seems a bit much, but if this
included the many clothing items available through the
store… well, it wouldn’t be high on MY priority
list, but it is NOT “insanely” wasteful, maybe just a
bit irresponsible). Amazingly, salaries were pretty
frugal, so they didn’t go “nutso” in hiring gobs of
people, and I would venture to say that MOST of the
campaign staff are good people earning less than they
would make at other jobs. Other expenses look pretty
appropriate as well (people are NOT eating “surf N
turf” every night on an expense tab).

2) UNLESS the big “Creative Cable Television” expense
was a some 5 month-ahead prepaid media-buy for
February 5th… then as an EDUCATED GUESS, I would say
it is as many of us suspected after the initial set of
TV ads were released (“He’s catching on”???)
…Someone sold the campaign management a set of
“Emperor’s Clothes” regarding those ads; and the
campaign was just to sheepish to admit it. (The
company that produced the ads — CCTV looks to be a
small-time outfit that hit the proverbial “jackpot”
and found someone with a certain word on their
forehead! Their web page alone is atrocious
http://www.creativecabletv.com/ and should have been
enough to warn anyone competent that this company was
NOT a high-grade professional outfit worthy of $1M
productions… their portfolio does NOT provide any
candidate names or ad samples, WHY NOT? )

3) BUT after 12/13 the bleeding stopped — the
campaign had apparently learned its lesson and been
properly chastised. Because while there are several
additional “Television Spot Expense/Production” –
they are all with OTHER companies where the costs are
very reasonable ($7K, $20K, etc) and some of them even
have solid looking websites, “EFX Media” for example
(though why someone would name their company “R/S/M”
– as one of the other firms did — in the age of the
internet strikes me as not too bright — but at least
they were a good value.)

4) Jesse Benton is an either an idiot OR he was
majorly lied to (CYA) and hung out to dry — and
didn’t bother to verify anything before he spoke on
the RPR interview — while he was essentially correct
about the campaign having around $8M in cash-on-hand
at the end of the quarter, he was WAY OFF on where the
money went. It did NOT go to pay for charter flights
for Dr. Paul. (Airline Travel expenses at $380,000 are
NOT a major expense when compared to two other
categories and payments to only a few firms that cost
over $7M in total.)

5) Again, unless I’m wrong and it was an unheard of
4-month ahead pre-planned prepaid media buy for Feb
5th (and I’d need to see the invoices before I’d
believe THAT) then ONE OR MORE HEADS should have
rolled over the TV ad debacle, and the ridiculous NH
mailer expenses — though actually they never should
have had authority to spend that kind of cash in the
first place (they essentially spent MORE than the
ENTIRE 3rd Qtr donations on the NH mailers and the TV
Ad debacle.)

6) Jonathan Bydlak was NOT lying when he claimed the
campaign was nearly out of cash around Thanksgiving.
(What he was NOT clear on was the REAL reasons why…
I would venture to say he didn’t know, probably STILL
doesn’t know.)

7) While the Mailing thing was a much BIGGER expense
than the TV spot creation spending, mailing costs
(especially for fancy flyers) are NOT cheap and it
seems like someone just over-committed without getting
proper costs ahead of time (or maybe as I posited
before, they thought they were running Obama’s or
Romney’s campaign? …dunno). Only folks who live in
NH can know how many pieces — OTHER than the 12 page
full-color bio book — were printed and mailed and
what type they were, etc. There is definitely room in
$4.2M to hide just about anything, but it seems MOST
likely to be just a REALLY bad choice (and maybe bad
management in overpaying for some things, or paying
for first class rather than bulk or ?)

8) Someone from California should probably check into
this “Creative Cable Television Inc.” and make certain
there is NO direct association with any campaign
staffers or other behind-the-scenes shenanigans going
on here (hey, it’s not exactly unheard of for
campaigns to have people “launder” money to themselves
and “friends” or “relatives” — I see no evidence here
of anything OTHER the campaign being suckered, but who
knows… it does happen.)

Well, that pretty much does it for me tonight. Some of
you may hate me for posting this (especially the
analysis — which granted is just educated guesses) –
but hey, I’m just the data analyst and the messenger.
I didn’t sign any contracts or make any agreements or
cut any of the checks above.

And I’m not exactly a happy camper right now myself…
Indeed, I did NOT set out to find this, and had hoped
to NOT find anything of the kind (and there IS still
the VERY remote possibility that my “educated guess”
is WAAYYY off base, and that this was some type of
pre-buy… but I sincerely doubt it).

Well, I need some sleep. It’s been a long night.

—–Peace & Freedom, John—–
National Coordinator, Paul for President Coalition
Organizer, NYC Ron Paul Meetup
Paul “Save Our Generation” Grassroots Commercial:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oOc7O9_Ux_8

Related posts:

1. Shock: Ron Paul biggest GOP fundraiser last quarter
2. Ron Paul’s 3rd Quarter fundraising results
3. Paul Campaign raises over $5 million in 3rd quarter