http://www.chron.com/…

Some Galveston officials aren’t too pleased with their congressional representative, Ron Paul, R-Lake Jackson, for voting against the $22.8 billion disaster recovery aid package on Wednesday.

“That’s sad. That’s bad,” City Manager Steve LeBlanc said.

“I find it very distressing,” said Councilwoman Karen Mahoney, who represents the West End of the island, where damage was extreme. “He’s voting against aid for the region that he represents? I don’t find that very representative.”

Texas won’t get all that money, since some is dedicated to Iowa flood victims, Gustav victims and other disaster areas, but it could get more than half.

The legislation passed the House on Wednesday, 370-58. It also included other federal spending and the lifting of the ban on offshore drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific.

Eight of the Houston area’s nine lawmakers voted for the bill, with the exception of Paul. His spokeswoman, Rachel Mills, said Thursday that the congressman did not vote for the bill because it contained other “unconstitutional” provisions, which she did not specify.

Paul is famous for his consistent positions on limited government and low taxes. His views have drawn a vocal grass-roots following across the country.

Reactions among Galvestonians were mixed.

“That’s not too good,” said Mareia Schreiber while shaking out water-soaked artwork. “It feels kind of bad for the citizens of Galveston.”

But other residents said Paul’s vote didn’t bother them. “We’ve worked hard all our lives,” said Gene Lossow. “We take care of ourselves. I don’t need FEMA or anything else. We got insurance.”

Lossow, 65, works as a clerk at the Port of Galveston. The floodwaters soaked through his one-story ranch house, rising to 4 feet. Lossow and his wife had just spent $90,000 renovating the home a few months ago.

Lossow, who said he doesn’t vote, shrugged at news of the aid package. “There are too many people who expect the government to take care of them. But I’m not one of them.”

Tina Rios, who was helping her elderly parents clean out their flooded home on Ibis Street, said it was too early for her to think about “political stuff.”

“The only thing going on in our house is trying to save whatever we can,” she said. “We had flood insurance, but not contents insurance.”

Mills said Paul voted for a separate bill that passed Wednesday, the Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008. The measure offers individuals and businesses in disasters to claim tax deductions for losses and to write-off expenses related to cleanup.

Who knows what the sampling was like but it’s encouraging to see some people out there who are truly self sufficient. He’s been doing this for years and they keep electing him so these kinds of votes must not really concern the people much.

http://money.cnn.com/…

• “NO NO NO. Not just no, but HELL NO,” writes Richard, a reader from Anchorage, Alaska.
• “This is robbery pure and simple,” Anna from Denver posted on CNNMoney.com’s TalkBack blog this weekend.
• “I’m tired of rewarding institutions and people for the bad decisions they have made,” said Dean from Madison, Wis. “Sure, it will hurt tax payers if/when some of these institutions fail, but perhaps we need to let that happen. We do not need more big government involved in our lives. Enough is enough.”
• “Companies, like individuals, should be held responsible for their decisions,” wrote Jorge from El Paso, Texas. “This buyout does not address the other problems in the pipeline such as personal credit default and market slowdowns in most industries. No new jobs will be created.”
• “It is time for the financial institutions of this country to be called to the mat. We should be expecting and demanding responsible and ethical business practice, not rewarding it at the expense of taxpayers.” Paul from Portsmouth, N.H.
• “The government does not have $700 billion dollars. WE have $700 billion, and it is being taken from us. If this is passed then the next administration and the next will be extracting this one from the people who are supposedly being protected by this bailout.” John from Springfield, Va.
• “Why not take the billions and … make funds available to home owners stuck in the loans these idiots created, marketed and sold,” asked Don from Coarsegold, Calif. “It will put the money where it should be with the little guy who made a mistake, instead of the big guy who created the problem.”
• “Once I invested in something and lost money. Maybe I could just change the rules of investing so that my loss turns into a gain? Oh, I forgot only banks can do that!” Jordan from Charlestown, Ind.
• “I will be watching to see which of our representatives vote for this bailout,” said R. Kidd in Troy, N.C. “Let the American people see how many we can fire come election time.”
• “Call your Congressman. Stop blogging, posting comments, and call your congressman. This is the patriotic thing to do. Let them hear your opinion, show them this is still America and that you will not stand for this!!” Danny from Texas

Not everyone is upset about this though:

• “I was opposed to the bailout at first, but realized that the scope of this thing is global and so massive that the entire global economy could collapse if nothing was done. …The priority has to be resolving the present crisis of confidence in our economy. Remember, if Wall Street collapses, Main Street will go with it.” Bill from St. Louis
• “This money is not a handout to companies. It’s simply giving banks and mortgage companies loans, since the banking system itself is too unstable to raise this kind of capital. And no, the government cannot just use the $700 billion to pay back all the citizens that will be hurt by this. If the companies like AIG fail, the cost will be far far greater than $700 billion. Wake up!!” Andy from Chicago
• “It’s NOT a bailout. The government is not handing out cash, they actually stand to make a great deal of money out of this, which will trickle down to YOU. First priority should be to try to control and fix the problem, then regulate sufficiently to make sure this NEVER happens again.” Surfta from Brooklyn, N.Y

From Answers.com:

bailout: n. A rescue from financial difficulties: corporate bailouts.

Any profit the government would make on this is going to be completely negated by price inflation and interest on the debt accumulated. There is no money to perform this bailout. The money will be borrowed or printed. If the market was allowed to unwind this those issues would not occur and recovery would be far faster. Malinvestment needs to be liquidated and prices recalculated… not arbitrarily inflated.

I figure while we may appreciate the ideas behind the Constitution we do need to put the celebration in perspective.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/…

This day isn’t important.

There are far more significant days in the year:

• Labor Day, when we pretend to care about other people’s jobs while frolicking at the beach.
• Election Day, when we pretend we’re making a difference by voting.
• Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and Susan B. Anthony Day, when we pretend to be politically correct.
• Memorial Day, when we pretend that we live in a free country because of all the people who were killed in the government’s senseless wars.
• Flag Day, when we pretend the government is America.
• Veterans Day (formerly Armistice Day, when we pretended that World War I made the world safe for democracy).
• National Teachers Day, when we pretend our children are getting an education.
• Earth Day, when we pretend that making the government more powerful will make the environment cleaner.
• United Nations Day, when we pretend to believe all those inane statements about world peace.

Today doesn’t seem to come anywhere near those days in importance.

You see, today is supposed to be Constitution Day. And no one really cares about the Constitution anymore.

Read More…

http://washingtontimes.com/…

The McCain campaign, acting through the Republican National Committee, has been negotiating with Rep. Ron Paul to win his support and acquire the names of his sympathizers among the 4,607 delegates and alternates at the Republican National Convention, according to a senior aide to the Texas congressman.

The aim is to try to win support for the John McCain-Sarah Palin ticket from Paul sympathizers, some of whom formally committed to Mr. Paul during his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination and others of whom are closet sympathizers of his libertarian brand of Republicanism.

Sen. McCain and national party strategists worry that Mr. Paul’s sympathizers will vote for Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate and former Republican congressman who shares many of Mr. Paul’s views.

Mr. Paul has refused to endorse Mr. McCain, and Mr. McCain’s operatives have refused to let him address the Republican National Convention.

As a result, Mr. Paul decided to hold a rally of his own Tuesday billed as the “Campaign for Liberty.” Initially set to be held at the University of Minnesota’s 11,000-seat Williams Arena, it has been moved to the far-larger Target Center in Minneapolis. Mr. Paul said in an interview that he expects to attract up to 18,000 people.

Mr. Benton said Mr. Paul is negotiating with convention officials - who are in effect McCain campaign representatives - for permission to make the rounds on the convention floor Wednesday in the company of his personal security guard, communications director and political aides.

Earlier negotiations to have Mr. Paul address the convention fell through because the congressman would not change his position on the war in Iraq, which he opposes as needless and self-defeating for the United States.

He also was denied permission to address the Republican Platform Committee last week in Minneapolis, Mr. Benton said. He said Mr. Paul wanted to discuss the foreign-policy planks in the platform, but the McCain forces who controlled the platform proceedings, as well as the Rules Committee and the Credentials Committee, objected.

I’m not surprised. McCain would love some of the Paul zeal. He won’t get it though. Most Paul supporters wouldn’t even consider McCain. Those that did would likely be canceled out by the Obama leaning Paul supporters.

I think most Paul supporters will be staying home, voting for Barr or Baldwin.

I’ve been looking around for a company which could put together a press ID for me. Sam Dodson from Texas sent me a link to Full Identity. Most of the places I had found were both expensive and shady. Full Identity is still kindof shady looking but Sam said he had used them before. I found a site with a home made press pass and use that as a template. Total cost with a plastic sleave, lanyard, an encoded magnetic strip, with shipping: $10.50.

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/…

Last Sunday we posted our Web Update titled “Next Step: Large Scale Hunger Fast.”

Last Tuesday, WTP Chairman Bob Schulz met for the third time with the staff of the National Park Service (NPS) to discuss the details of WTP’s permit for the hunger fast. The fast was originally scheduled to start on August 11, but was rescheduled to start on September 16, due to the current five week break by Congress.

Until Tuesday, the conditions of the permit included a 24 hours a day, 7 days per week hunger fast, with tents as shelters, provided there were “no sleeping bags, blankets and pillows for comfort.” Chairs would be allowed.

Last Tuesday, NPS informed Bob that no one would be allowed to sleep during the hunger fast! Anyone caught sleeping, they said, would be cited for violating the permit. The cost would be $75 for each citation plus court costs. Bob argued, without success, that our Hunger Fast was a First Amendment expression of our disgust with the Government’s failure to respond to our Petitions for Redress, and that a “no sleeping” rule would, in effect, amount to a denial of First Amendment Rights to Petition, Speech and Association.

Absent the initiation of yet another legal challenge, or hungering by People on 2-3 day shifts, the Park Service’s “no sleeping” Rule effectively cancels the large scale hunger fast.

The Park Service’s “no sleeping” rule did not effectively cancel the hunger fast. Those who where to be part of the We the People hunger fast who are deciding to go along with their rule cancels it. If you are asking the government for permission you deserve to be told no. I find it sad that some of these people will go out of their way to not pay income tax because the government won’t respond to them yet true civil disobedience scares them off. They need to realize that it’s not their government. It’s a group of thugs who need to be denied legitimacy and resisted. Canceling the fast is a sign of weakness in their resolve and just further legitimizes the government’s claimed authority over them.

Thus far, Texas Rep. Ron Paul has “responded” to the Petitions for Redress by having them “forwarded to the Clerk of the House.”

While such a move is unique among the Members of the House, and is not a bad first step in etching the concept of Government accountability into the minds of some of the Members and advancing ever so slightly the question of the constitutional meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment, it is highly unlikely that the Petitions for Redress will advance to House Committees for consideration, much less a vote to provide Redress. With the possible exception of Ron Paul, we know of no other politician willing to consider the notion of being held accountable to the People outside the periodic electoral process.

Whether or not the Petitions for Redress served on Ron Paul advance beyond the Office of the Speaker of the House, a constituent’s Right to Redress (like that of Religion, Speech, Press and Assembly) is an individual Right that does not depend on the will of any person or majority, not in the House, not in the Senate, not on any Court bench, and not among those voting in any election.

Forwarding the Petitions for Redress to the Clerk of the House has not relieved Rep. Ron Paul of his individual obligation to respond by answering the questions embedded in each of the seven Petitions for Redress. Even if his answer is, “I lack knowledge enough to admit or deny,” he has a legal (constitutional) obligation to respond.

We pray Rep. Paul will personally respond to the Petitions for Redress.

It’s unfortunate that Paul’s staff if not also Paul himself are afraid of responding claiming that doing so would open the door for more petitions and they don’t have the staff to deal with that. Even if they don’t answer them promptly they could at least queue them up and let the petitioner know it’s queued. They get to it when they have the ability to do so. The very idea that it would lead to the Congressmen being inundated with petitions for redress of grievances should be reason enough to do so.