June 11, 2026

Month: November 2010

Mike Pence on the Gold Standard and Flat Tax

Mike Pence, Mike Pence Speech, Flat Tax, Detroit Speech, Economic Speech, Pro Growth, Economic Club, Politics, Election 2012, Ronald Reagan, Gold Standard, Jack Kemp

Mike Pence delivers major pro-growth speech to Detroit Economic Club- 11-29-10

In a speech given 11-29-10 to the Detroit Economic Club, Mike Pence endorsed the Gold Standard and the Flat tax.

Finally, a Republican who gets the pro-growth narrative! Mike Pence is reminding us of Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan, this is BIG news!

The Gold Standard is emerging out of years of obscurity, and looking better and better every day.

While some have tried to say that the GOP is the party of “no” and that it has no agenda, here is a major figure in the GOP constellation of personalities who has a definitive, pro-growth agenda.

If the rest of the GOP jumps on board, the liberals have much to fear, which is probably the reason why Paul Krugman went apoplectic over the Gold Standard. His Keynesian dream of a managed economy would crumble under the weight of fiscal responsibility that a Gold Standard would impose!

Here is the speech in its entirety:

Renewing American Exceptionalism:

An Agenda for Economic Growth and Prosperity

Mike Pence

November 29, 2010

Detroit Economic Club

 

Thank you L. Brooks Patterson for that kind introduction and heartfelt thanks to Beth Chappell and all the members of the Detroit Economic Club for hosting me. For 75 years, the Detroit Economic Club has been a premier venue for leaders interested in saying something significant about our economy and I am genuinely grateful to be able to join the ranks of those who had the privilege to “say it here.”

And it’s great to be in Detroit- home to Motown, the Lions (you know who this Colts fan was cheering for on Thanksgiving!) and the “Car Capitol of the World.”

My father ran a chain of gas stations so, like most Americans, I have had a life long love affair with the automobile. Try to imagine America without the Ford Mustang, the Chevrolet Corvette, or the Dodge Charger.

Being from Indiana, I am especially proud of the role that Hoosiers have played and continue to play in this unique American industry. And it all started here in Detroit.  America owes a debt to the ingenuity and entrepreneurism of this great city. You helped define the character of a nation.

But Detroit and America have seen better days and I come to this storied podium to say after years of runaway federal spending, borrowing and bailouts by both political parties, that there is a better way, a way we can renew American exceptionalism by returning to the principles and practices that built this great city and this great country and can build it again.

We live in no ordinary times. Our economy is struggling in the city and on the farm. Unemployment is at a heartbreaking 9.6 percent nationally and nearly 13 percent in Michigan.  Nearly 42 million Americans on food stamps.  A housing crisis and dismal GDP growth.

And it seems that those in authority have no idea what to do about it. Some in the administration call it the “new normal.” (like we haven’t heard that before) In the 70’s they called it a national “malaise.”

With more than 15 million people still looking for work, President Obama and Democrats in Congress have tried to borrow and spend the country back to prosperity resulting in trillion dollar plus annual deficits and a nearly $14 trillion national debt. To this runaway federal spending they added a government takeover of health care, attempted a national energy tax and approved one bailout after another.

In September 2008, when the Bush Administration proposed that Congress give them $700 billion to bail out Wall Street, I was the first Member of Congress to publicly oppose it. I didn’t think we should do nothing, I just thought it was wrong to take $700 billion from Main Street to bailout bad decisions on Wall Street. I warned that passing TARP could fundamentally change the relationship between the government and the financial sector and so it has.

Dodd-Frank codified “too big to fail” for some Wall Street firms and made taxpayers the first line of defense against failure. And we continue to bailout Fannie and Freddie to the tune of about $150 billion, with more expected, despite the fact that many of us have been fighting for years to get them off the government’s books. The partnership between the federal government and Fannie and Freddie socializes losses and privatizes profits with taxpayers getting the short end of the stick.

And, even though I am proud of the American automotive tradition and Indiana’s ongoing role it, I even opposed bailing out GM and Chrysler.  While the administration has been busy making the point that GM is on the rebound and taxpayers are being repaid, most Americans know that it still would have been better if GM had gone through an orderly reorganization bankruptcy without taxpayer support. 

Taxpayer funded bailouts are no substitute for economic policies that will create real consumer demand. I have no doubt that American automakers and autoworkers can compete and win in a growing American economy.

To restore American exceptionalism, we must end all this Keynesian spending and get back to the practice of free market economics. The freedom to succeed must include the freedom to fail.  The free market is what made America’s economy the greatest in the world, and we cannot falter in our willingness to defend it.

Even though our economy is struggling and America seems at a low point, I believe we can restore our economy but it will take vision and courage to do it. And everything starts with putting our fiscal house in order.

The good news is there is no shortage of plans for fiscal discipline in Washington these days.  We have the Pledge to America, the president’s Debt Commission, and over time we’ve had budgets, blueprints, outlines, and thoughtful proposals from Members of Congress, and blue-ribbon panels. 

For my part, I believe the answer is a Spending Limit Amendment to the Constitution. Since World War II the federal government has operated on an average of just under 20 percent of gross domestic product.  But, in the past three years, federal spending has climbed to nearly 25 percent of GDP.  Left unchecked, and accounting for no new programs, federal spending will reach 50 percent of GDP by 2055.

We should remember what Ronald Reagan said, “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size.” We must have a mechanism that forces Washington as a whole to make the hard choices necessary to reform our nation’s addiction to big spending and unsustainable entitlements.

By limiting federal spending to 20 percent of our nation’s economy in the Constitution, except for certain conditions such as a war, we will create a framework for this and future Congresses to live within our means and have the incentive to grow the economy.

To grow the economy we must shrink the size of the federal government but fiscal discipline alone will not be enough to bring jobs and prosperity back to America.

We need a new agenda for economic growth and that is principally what brings me to Detroit to discuss today. 

As Margaret Thatcher said in equally challenging economic times (1977):

…Of course we’re not going to solve our problems just by cuts, just by restraint….  it was not restraint that started the Industrial Revolution;…  It wasn’t restraint that inspired us to explore for oil in the North Sea and bring it ashore.  It was incentive – positive, vital, driving, individual incentive. 

What was true for England in the 1970’s, is true for America today. Permitting people to enjoy the fruits of their labor is what built our cities, conquered our frontiers, and made America the most prosperous nation in the history of the world.

The new Republican majority in Congress must embrace a bold agenda for economic growth built on timeless free market practices and reform.

So what are the building blocks of an incentive-based, growth agenda? I submit they are the following:

▪     Sound monetary policy;

▪     Tax relief and reform;

▪     Access to American energy;

▪     Regulatory reform;

▪     Trade

“S.T.A.R.T.” You could call it a prescription for a fresh start for the American economy. Some of these are new ideas.  Some are timeless.  Taken together, they will put us back on track for job creation and prosperity.

Sound Monetary Policy and a Restoration of Free Market Principles

Sound monetary policy is the foundation of our prosperity. A strong dollar means a strong America.

The American people know we cannot borrow and spend our way back to a growing America and sent a deafening message of restraint to Washington D.C. on November 2nd. But it doesn’t look like the administration got the message and neither did the Federal Reserve.

During 2008 and 2009, the Fed pushed well over $1 trillion into the financial system in an attempt to rein in unemployment through more government stimulus, yet the national jobless rate has been well above 9 percent for a record-tying 18 straight months. The Fed’s second and latest round of “quantitative easing,” known as QE2, actually seeks inflation in an effort to bring down unemployment. Printing money is no substitute for sound fiscal policy. And while there is no guarantee that this policy will succeed in reducing unemployment, it is near certain that the value of the dollar will be diluted. As economist Larry Kudlow says, the Fed can print money, but it can’t print jobs.

I do not lay the blame solely at the feet of the Federal Reserve. The problem for the Fed began in 1977 when Congress imposed a dual mandate, which requires that the central bank pursue price stability and maximum employment in executing its policies. Too often, this conflicting mandate has pit short-term hopes for job gains against long-term costs to the economy. QE2 is an example of what happens when the Fed involves itself too much in macroeconomic meddling.

A couple weeks ago, I introduced legislation to end the dual mandate and return the Fed to its original, single mandate – price stability. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner recently said the administration will oppose any effort to end the dual mandate arguing that it was “very important to keep politics out of monetary policy”. But Congress created the dual mandate in 1977 and getting the Fed back to its original mission of price stability is precisely how we get politics out of monetary policy.

It’s time that the Federal Reserve focus exclusively on price stability and protecting the dollar. And it’s also time that policymakers in Washington D.C. embrace the kind of reforms that will promote real growth.

Before I move on, I would like to note that in the midst of all that has happened recently – massive government borrowing and spending, quantitative easing – a debate is starting anew over an anchor for the global monetary system.

My dear friend, the late Jack Kemp probably would have urged me to adopt a gold standard here and now.  Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank, encouraged that we re-think the international currency system, including the role of gold and I agree. The time has come to have a debate over gold and the proper role it should play in our nation’s monetary affairs. 

Tax Relief and Reform: Flat Tax

The first principle of a tax system in a free society must be certainty.

Uncertainty is the enemy of our prosperity. For too long on tax policy, uncertainty has been the order of the day.

To end the uncertainty that is stifling investment, innovation and growth, we must preserve current tax rates and promote permanent tax reform.

For starters, of course, Congress must permanently extend the 2001 and 2003 tax rates to ensure no American faces a tax hike on January 1st, and I have introduced a bill with Sen. Jim DeMint to do just that.  Most Americans know that higher taxes won’t get anybody hired. Raising taxes on job creators won’t create jobs.

But, preventing a tax increase is not enough. If the current tax rates were sufficient to get this economy moving again, it would be and it’s not. 

The time has come for Congress and this administration to take bold action to simplify our tax system and lower people’s taxes.

The tax code has grown too large and complex.  It has 3.8 million words.  The forms are dizzying.  And nothing about it seems fair. 

People are taxed on their income.  Then after they pay their bills, they take the leftover money and put it into savings or an investment.  If their savings or investments make any money, they are taxed again.  If they buy stock in a company, the company pays taxes on its profits.  Then it takes those profits and provides a dividend to shareholders and it is taxed again.  The final outrage occurs at death, when your estate pays taxes once again on all the money you’d previously paid taxes on while living. 

All I really know about economics is what you tax you get less of and what you subsidize you get more of.  We need a tax system that will encourage income, savings, investment and growth, but our tax code does the opposite. It punishes savers and investors by taxing them twice and in some cases more times than that. 

To promote income, savings and investment, we need a system built on the principle that income should be taxed once and just once. We need a fair and effective method of taxation that will make doing your taxes easy and remove the confusion of the present tax code. 

In an upcoming study written by the legendary Dr. Art Laffer, Wayne Winegarden and John Childs, they found the cost of compliance with today’s tax code to be over $540 billion annually and that individuals and businesses spend 7.6 billion hours on their taxes. 

Just imagine if Americans were putting that time and money into enjoying their lives or growing their businesses.  The Laffer study predicts that by simplifying the tax code and cutting complexity costs in half, our economy would grow $1.3 trillion more over ten years than if we maintain the status quo.  That means each person in this country would be approximately $4,200 wealthier.  And that’s just from simplifying our tax code by half. 

But we can do better than that. How about a system where could file your taxes on a Blackberry, or a system where you might even be able to file a return with 140 characters or less?  How would you like to tweet your taxes?

We can create a twenty-first century American tax system that will provide government with the revenue it needs without discouraging growth or placing an undue burden of compliance on our citizens.

There is one system that meets all of these criteria: the best option, the most pro-growth option is a flat tax. I believe it is time that America adopted a flat tax and scrapped the current system once and for all. 

A flat tax would release enormous amounts of capital into the system, and it would operate under a simple principle: what you take out of the economy is taxed, like wages and business income, and what you put into the economy is not, like savings and investments.

Individuals and businesses would pay taxes at the same rate.  Individuals would pay taxes on their wages or salary after receiving a basic income exemption and an exemption for any dependents, including children and elderly family members and others who you care for in your home.  Imagine how easy this would be for people.  Gross income minus a generous standard deduction minus any dependent exemptions and you’ve got your taxable income.  Apply the rate and your taxes are done.  Everyone pays the same rate, and the more money you make, the more you pay.  It’s fair, simple and effective. 

If you are a business, you pay tax on your gross income for the year minus one hundred percent of your expenses: rent, wages, fuel, supplies, etc.  Depreciation is no longer necessary because the entire cost of investment spending can be deducted in one year. 

The flat tax eliminates all of the credits and deductions and special preferences and tax loopholes that Congress and an army of lobbyists have built into the tax code over time.  These fuel special interests and generally benefit one person, business or industry over another.   Our tax system should not pick winners and losers, but should treat every business, small and large, with the same basic rules. 

Instead, everyone would be on a level playing field with certainty as to your taxes.  A taxpayer would either subtract his basic and dependent exemptions or business expenses and end up with taxable income.  It would reduce compliance costs by hundreds of billions of dollars. 

Following the principle of only taxing once, it eliminates the AMT, the capital gains and dividends taxes, and the death and gift taxes. 

And this is hardly radical.  A flat tax is in use in more than twenty countries around the world, and they have been proposed and supported by various legislators and economists in America over the past 30 years, such as Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka, Dick Armey, Steve Forbes, Art Laffer, Jack Kemp and Richard Gephardt.  We don’t think about it, but we already use flat taxes in America as taxes for Social Security, Medicare taxes, sales and property taxes.

It may come as a surprise to many, but even the New York Times wrote favorably about a flat tax saying, “…every dollar of income would be taxed once and only once.  The plan would subsidize saving, and create an exemption that would protect the poor.   [I]t is perfectly simple.”  The Gray Lady was right. 

And a flat tax will make America more globally competitive. New York City is still the financial capital of the world, but for how long will that be true?  The Wall Street Journal recently reported that in New York City in 2011, the combined federal and state tax rate will be nearly 54 percent. With government taking more than half of your money, is that an incentive to work hard or to take your business elsewhere?

A global economy means New York is now competing to keep businesses and capital from moving to Beijing or Bangalore.  Right now, our corporate tax rate is 15 points higher than the rest of the world. And more than twenty countries with growing economies have a flat tax in place for businesses and individuals. 

Hong Kong instituted its flat tax in 1947 and has no tax on capital gains or dividends.  Its tax code is short, to the point, and effective, and Hong Kong is a wealthy, thriving city with a growing economy and government surpluses.  Russia, Czech Republic, and Ukraine all have flat taxes.  The hard truth is the future is flat. The world is going flat everywhere but in America, and to lead the next American century, our nation needs to lead in capital formation and tax reform again.

And a flat tax will mean jobs. According to one study by the Heritage Foundation, the flat tax would result in tremendous economic growth with GDP potentially growing by as much as 7 percent within 3 years and nearly 1.5 million jobs being created. 

Not that this should come as a surprise.  If you look back at history, the Kennedy, Reagan and 2001/2003 tax reforms were all followed by strong economic growth.  The flat tax goes beyond these tax cuts and provides not just lower taxes but a greatly simplified system. 

After the Kennedy tax cuts, the top rate went from 91 percent to 70 percent.  Economic growth soared: unemployment went down by more than 2 percent and tax receipts increased by 33 percent. 

Two decades later, President Reagan’s across-the-board tax cuts brought America back from a devastating recession.  In 1981, unemployment was at 7.6 percent nationally.  The Dow Jones was at 777.  Mortgage interest rates were over 20 percent.  By 1987, the prime rate was down to 8.2 percent.  The Dow was up to 3,000 by the end of Reagan’s term, and 17 million new jobs were created.  That’s real growth.  It created true opportunity and improved the lives of average Americans.

And after the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, the economy again grew, as did government revenues by $785 billion from 2004 to 2007, a record.  There is an indisputable historical case to be made that tax relief and reform creates jobs and incentivizes growth in our economy. 

American Energy

 

A source of American greatness observed since our founding has been our abundant natural resources. As Daniel Webster said, in words inscribed in the chamber of the House of Representatives:

Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests and see whether we also in our day and generation may not perform something worthy to be remembered. 

A policy for developing American energy must be a component of any plan for growth. We must embrace an all-of-the-above energy policy that promotes energy independence in an environmentally responsible manner. An all-of-the-above energy policy should not mean subsidizing all-of-the-above.  It means allowing all types of energy to be developed and compete honestly in a free marketplace. 

We can and should wisely use these resources to better the lives of our citizens.  Our environment can be protected while we increase energy production, encourage greater efficiency and conservation, and promote the development and use of alternative fuels, and innovative new technologies like we’re seeing developed right here in Detroit.

It also is time for a nuclear energy renaissance in America.  The regulatory process for new applications can be accelerated, and we can safely store and recycle spent nuclear fuel.  Nuclear energy not only means a source of clean emissions-free energy; it also means construction jobs, manufacturing jobs, and science-based economic growth.

Developing our own sources of energy here at home will provide certainty about our future, ensure that energy remains affordable and create jobs.

Regulatory Relief and Reform

Next, to restore incentive and encourage growth we must reduce the regulatory burden on our economy.  There is a place for regulations that ensure safety and soundness and protect people from danger, but our regulatory structure has grown out of control. 

Today we have too many regulations and too many regulatory authorities that have expanded the reach of the federal government too far.  These regulations add billions to the cost of doing business and in their wake they kill jobs.

Take the requirement from ObamaCare that businesses must file with the IRS a form 1099 for any purchases from a vendor for goods or services over $600 in a year.  Seriously, that is in the law. Of course, this is ridiculously burdensome and just adds to the red tape that small businesses face across the country.  It should be repealed immediately. 

According to the Small Business Administration, the average small business faces a cost of $10,585 in federal regulations per employee each year.  These small employers represent 99.7 percent of all businesses and have created 64 percent of all new jobs over the past 15 years. 

Imagine if small businesses could put the $10,000 per employee they spend each year on federal regulations directly back into new jobs. 

Ronald Reagan once said “A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”  It’s time to change that, at least when it comes to regulations. 

I propose that any existing regulation with an economic impact of $100 million or more must be reviewed and if still necessary, re-promulgated every ten years to allow for public comment and a reassessment of the cost of the regulation.  Instead of eternal life, these regulations will get ten years. 

After ten years, there is no reason not to review, modernize, improve and reduce the cost of existing regulations.

Further, I believe that all new regulations that impose an economic cost on families, businesses or local governments should be subject to a regulatory “paygo” procedure before implementation.  If government wants to issue a new regulation that is going to impose an economic cost, then it needs to reduce another regulatory burden elsewhere so that there is no new burden on the economy. 

Some regulations, and some bills that have passed Congress, however, impose costs that are too great and can never be offset and must be repealed. 

ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, TARP, and Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley fall in that category.  Also, Congress must override the EPA’s endangerment finding so that regulatory cap and trade cannot be forced on the American people against their will.

Increased Trade

 

As most Americans know, trade means jobs, and that is especially true in places like Indiana and Michigan where we grow food that the world consumes and make cars and other products that are used around the globe.  Encouraging free trade lowers barriers to entry for our goods, and that in turn allows U.S. companies to create more jobs. 

Protectionism and closing our doors to other countries does not help us, or people in the rest of the world.  We must support expanded free trade to renew American exceptionalism and create jobs.

Despite the president’s stated objective of doubling American exports in the next five years, trade has largely been ignored by Democrats in Congress and the administration in recent years. With a new Republican majority in the House, I am hopeful that the free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and South Korea can move forward.  We need to get those deals done, and done right, but it should not end there.  We must promote increased trade at every opportunity around the world. When the world “buys American,” Americans go to work.

Renewing the Character of the Nation

Finally, to renew American exceptionalism, we must recognize that our present crisis is not merely economic but moral in nature.  At the root of these times should be the realization that people in positions of authority from Washington to Wall Street have walked away from the timeless truths of honesty, integrity, an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay and the simple notion that you ought to treat the other guy the way you want to be treated.

As strongly as I believe in the economic policies in this address, I know we will not restore this nation with public policy alone. It will require public virtue. ‘When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?’ As we promote policies to restore American exceptionalism, we must also reaffirm our nation’s commitment to the values that have made our prosperity possible. As we seek to build national wealth, we must renew our commitment to the institutions that nurture the character of our people- traditional family and religion.

Conclusion

In 1977, my brother and I went backpacking through Europe and found our way to West Berlin. I will never forget the day I walked past the barbed wire and tank traps that barricaded the Berlin Wall, passed through security at Checkpoint Charlie and took my first steps into a wider understanding of the world. 

Standing in West Berlin I saw the energy, bustling streets and glass towers of a big city built on freedom and free market economics.  The strassen were filled with stores, people, and bustling commerce. 

When we crossed through Checkpoint Charlie, past the harsh glare of uniformed East German guards, everything changed.  The excitement and energy of West Berlin gave way to the dour reality of Soviet controlled East Berlin.

The buildings were drab – concrete block tenement structures.  Damage from World War II was still evident in many buildings.  The cars were vintage 1950’s and people all seemed to be wearing the same colorless apparel. It was a gray, harsh reality. 

In that moment, I saw the difference between East and West, between a free market economy and a planned economy run by the state. Freedom and personal responsibility contrasted with socialism and decline. 

The problem with our economy today is that, after years of runaway spending and growth of government under both political parties, America is on that wall between West and East. No longer the vibrant free market that built cities like Detroit but not yet overtaken by the policies that have engulfed Europe in a sea of debt and mediocrity.

To restore American economic exceptionalism, we have to decide that we believe in it again and turn and pursue a free market economy again with all our hearts.

We have to choose. Ronald Reagan said it best:

You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream–the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order — or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. 

I choose the West.  I choose limited government and freedom.  I choose the free market, personal responsibility and equality of opportunity. I choose fiscal restraint, a sound money, a flat tax, regulatory reform, American energy, expanded trade and a return to traditional values.

In a word, I choose a boundless American future built on the timeless ideals of the American people. I believe the American people are ready for this choice and await men and women who will lead us back to that future, back to the West, back to American exceptionalism. Here’s to that future. Our best days are yet to come.  Thank you. 

From http://pence4president.com/?p=32

MSM efforts to indoctrinate America

Freedom News, Freedomist, Top Freedom Report, Progressive, MSM, Bill Collier

Bill Collier 

Bill Collier- Co-editor- The Freedomist

 

The Tree of Liberty has deep roots, going to our God-given inherent rights which transcend any law, edict, ruling, rule, or charter.

It has many branches, including free speech, freedom of religion, the free market, the rights of free association, the rights of electoral participation, and the rights of self-reliance and self-preservation.

Its trunk is composed of freedom based on virtue, thrift, and independence.

There is never any reason or justification for hewing away at the trunk of this Tree, of trying to hack off any of these branches nor for assaulting the roots of this tree by denying that our rights are inherent and God-given. No good that is sought and no evil that is confronted can justify or excuse any effort to cut down this tree!

That is why our motto is “Whoever Tries To Cut Down This Tree Is an Enemy of the People.” Such a sign as this was posted on “Liberty Trees” all over the 13 Colonies where “Patriots”, who saw British Imperialism as threat to their Liberty, would gather.

The Tree of Liberty is even now under assault, from Pan-Islamic powers and their proxy terror attacks to Progressives and their subversion and co-opting of our leading national institutions towards ends never intended by our Founders and opposed by most of our People.

The real enemy, however, is not who you might think it is, namely the pawns used to push through measures that assault the Tree of Liberty. The real enemy, the puppet master and king-makers behind the scene, have two primary branches- the news-shapers and the professors.

It is through news-shapers who control the dissemination and publication/broadcasting of news that most Americans learn what is happening and why and, since few Americans truly grasp how much their “news” is doctored so at to manipulate them and deceive them, this allows the news-shapers enjoy a very high degree of power.

The professors use their “credentials” to create an “appeal to authority” that is meant to censure critics and opponents of their Progressive ideology and all of the front-causes, like racism, global warming, or what have you, that are a cover for their true intentions.

It is the news-shapers and the professors who are the enemy o the People, because every day they do their best to assault the roots of that Tree, to hew at its trunk, which is virtue, thrift, and independence, or to hack away at is branches.

Rather than targeting the puppets, the politicians, we need to shift our response to the real enemy- the Progressive Elites who play the roles of news-shapers and professors, and we need to deny them any sanctuary or safe haven as they use claims of freedom of the press, academic freedom (that extends to them but neither their students nor non-Progressives), their so-called “authority”, or their “tenure” to shield themselves from the accountability they richly deserve to “suffer.”

Mike Pence for President 2012

Mike Pence, Election 2012, Freedom News, Politics,, GOP

The Pence Presidential Campaign?

Mike Pence, Congressman from Indiana, appears poised to launch a bid for the Presidency in the 2012 election. This is not just another ego trip by a puffed-up politico, Pence enjoys growing support from a groundswell of freedom movement activists and is a favorite son of the Tea Party Movement.

Pence is a solid vote for the things that are near and dear to most Tea Partiers, including his long-standing advocacy for first amendment protections, his opposition to “the fairness doctrine”, low taxes, limited government, and pro-life/pro-family issues. What is more, Pence does not have any scandals or peccadilloes to be worried about.

When Pence stepped down from leadership positions in the House, where some saw him as the primary Tea Party alternative to Boehner, it was thought that he might consider a run for Indiana Governor or President.

Mike Pence’s star began to rise when he made a stand with John Culberson and other Representatives during the “Texas Tea Party” in August 2008, when Pelosi, still in the height of her power, arrogantly shut down the House in order to end debate on a bill to allow oil drilling off the US coast. The oil bans were allowed to expire, after it was revealed that Pelosi was in bed with T Boone Pickens and stood to make millions, but only if the drilling ban remained in place.

Pence, like Senator Jim Demint, was one of the few voices that was stridently raised against the “stimulus” package that John McCain suspended his campaign to support.

While Pence has not announced his intentions, the Freedomist has reliable intel that he is being urged to do so and, as it stands now, we can expect to know definitively what he will do by mid-January or sooner.

Freedom News, Freedom Czar, Freedom report, Samuel Adams, William Penn, State of Freedom, Politics, Obama News, Obama Watch, Upadaria, Editorial

What will motivate Americans to resist the Freedom Takers?

The Freedom Czar Report- Bill Collier

Bill Collier- Co-editor- The Freedomist

The State of Freedom In 2010
When right or rights are called into question, then is the time to assert them all the more! -William Penn
PART ONE- Upon WHAT Is Our Freedom Founded?
Is our freedom an individual thing defined by courts and laws and government or is it the power of a People to create a society after its own conscience and consensus to preserve the rights, persons, and property of its People in a manner that fits its religious or other sentiments and that reflects its consensus and, what is more, WHO or WHAT has the final say in how this question is answered?

It seems to us that the very notion of freedom, as the People’s authority to govern themselves in a manner most suited to their values and towards the end of protecting and preserving their rights, persons, and properties against all violators, foreign or domestic, private and public, are being assailed by a barrage of legalistic and intricate doublespeak and other devices of sophistry so as to confuse most people as to the true nature of their freedom and so as to conceal instruments of the destruction of those freedoms, especially under the guise of cries of racism, appeals to the so-called supremacy of Federal law, and appeals to help this or that disadvantaged group at the expense of other’s rights, persons, and property who in no way made or caused to be made the circumstances by which the disadvantaged are so disadvantaged.

We must in all instances, for every Town or Township, County, or City or State, appeal to the People and ask them- what think ye, that YOU in your wisdom and by the lights of your conscience and beliefs and for the cause of your values and your interests, should effectively have supremacy over ALL other powers, including the Federal, or that the Federal Power, by whatever claim or doctrine or logic it may contrive in its defense, shall be so empowered as to thumb its nose at your sentiment, your values, your beliefs, and your wishes and desires as to the type and nature and structure and rules of the society you think best suited for your children and your progeny’s preservation?
Is freedom, the power we own to govern ourselves in our own communities first, and then extending all the way to the highest levels, now to be ridiculed as some have done on the basis of the abuse of that right by others who defended slavery, which is so obnoxious to freedom as to be indefensible on ANY grounds?

Shall we the teeth of the children be set on edge because of the bitter grapes their father’s fathers have eaten?

Shall we surrender our freedom, the local power to govern ourselves as we see fit for the preservation of our rights, our persons, and our property, because others have trafficked in human beings and used the sophistry of defending such freedom as their excuse and justification for denying freedom to others?

Upon what basis do the violators of our rights, our persons, and our property assail our sacred freedom but upon arguments that lack moral, Biblical, logical, or any kind of just foundation? They use lies and slanders and accusations, they use bigotry against people of certain persuasions, accusing the ones against whom their plans discriminate, and all the while call the victims the victimize3rs and use the so-called victims as a mass mob of votes to fling agai8nst the will of free men and women in election after election until the whole land is filled with rancor and hate and schism!

All this they do while denying the very existence of any higher law than the counsel of their own designs and ambitions emanating from their back room parlors and country clubs!

In short, does the doctrine of supremacy of the Federal Power extend now so far, using the commerce clause and other new interpretation of our Constitution, nullify the originating authority of our Declaration of Independence or the Higher Laws of the Creator which alone are the legal and moral foundation of our self-government as a People?

If the Federal Power has NO LIMIT, not before men nor even before God, as the cabal of progressive eltists now claim, then where do the People Stand and where does our freedom to self-govern ourselves in protecting our rights, persons, and property now stand in relation to this progressive slave machine that is discarding everything sacred, from marriage to unborn children, in favor of everything that is evil and obnoxious to the Christian sentiments of most all of us?

If then this progressive slave machine shall go unhindered and if now, while there remain yet lights of freedom shining in this land, we do nothing or we do little, or less than we may, who shall not blame our future progeny when they are born into a land where God is a byword and faith is an epthet and where rights are only what the STATE says they are when these cursed heirs of once free people shall curse our names with bitter hatred and call on the God who once made this land free to increase our punishments in the hell we truly deserve to suffer in?

Do not say you love God and then show your hatred for the future generations who will surely suffer because of our inaction now, because we gave more credence to courts and media and the vain philosophies of men than to the common sense truth of the matter- which is that this land is ruled by a cabal of progressive slave masters who hate our forefathers and foremothers and their God and all who name that God, who is Jesus the Christ, Lord of ALL, and whose minds are reprobate and set on their course by the lies of hell! Shall we choose freedom, which is from God, and refuse to hear or contemplate any argument or so-called logic or ruling or what have you that denies our freedom to govern ourselves in our communities as we see fit?

If we do not do this, if we accept anything less than that we own our freedom and do not need anybody to define it for us nor do we owe to any power on earth more loyalty then to our God, our conscience, and our freedom, which we are obliged to preserve and pass on as a patrimony to future generations, we face God’s just wrath and eternal damnation! We do not honor our parents and we do not honor our God and how think we then that we can be right with a God who has given us such a mandate and a blessing when we dishonor Him so?

We bid you to contemplate these things by reading a few missives from Samuel Adams who, having no such firm Constitution nor Bill of Rights as ours, presented, defended, and singularly agitated for the practicing of our inherent freedom to be self-governing as we see fit, according to all of our values and beliefs, in order to protect our rights, our persons, and our property, and that without the slightest hint of needing any Crown our Court or any human authority to grant it or give us permission to do it!

FIRST MISSIVE

Where did you learn that in a state or society you had a right to do as you please?
And that it was an infringement of that right to restrain you? This is a refinement which I dare say, the true sons of liberty despise. Be pleased to be informed that you are bound to conduct yourselves as the Society with which you are joined, are pleased to have you conduct, or if you please, you may leave it. Samuel Adams 1770
Missive TWO

Every Attempt to enforce the plan f Despotism will certainly irritate them; While they have a Sense of freedom they will oppose the Efforts of Tyranny; and altho the Mother Country may at present boast of her Superiority over them, she may perhaps find the Want of that Superiority, when by repeated provocations she shall have totally lost their Affections.TO STEPHEN SAYRE.1 [MS.,
Samuel Adams Papers, Lenox Library.]
BOSTON NOVr 16 1770
MISSIVE THREE
By an Act of this Province made in the fourth year of William & Mary it is enacted, that “when and so often as there shall be Occasion of a Town Meeting for any Business of publick Concernment to the Town there to be done, the Constable or Constables of such Town, by Order of the Selectmen or major Part of them, or of the Town Clerk by their Order in each respective Town within this Province shall warn a Meeting of such Town” &c.2 And by another Act made in the 2 Geo. I. it is enacted that “When and so often as ten or more of the Freeholders of any Town shall signify under their hands to the Selectmen their desire to have any Matter or thing inserted into a Warrant for calling a Town Meeting, the Selectmen are hereby required to insert the same in the next Warrant they shall issue for the Calling a Town Meeting.”3

But were there no such Laws of the Province or should our Enemies pervert these & other Laws made for the same Purpose, from their plain and obvious Intent and Meaning, still there is the great and perpetual Law of Self preservation to which every natural Person or corporate Body hath an inherent Right to recur. This being the Law of the Creator, no human Law can be of force against it: And indeed it is an Absurdity to suppose that any such Law could be made by Common Consent, which alone gives validity to human Laws. If then the
“MATTER OR THING” viz the fixing Salaries to the Offices of the Judges of the Superior Court as aforesaid, was such as threatned the Lives, Liberties and Properties of the People, which we have the Authority of the greatest Assembly of the Province to affirm, The Inhabitants of this or any other Town had certainly an uncontrovertable right to meet together, either in the Manner the Law has prescribed, or in any other orderly Manner, joyntly to consult the necessary Means of their own Preservation and Safety.
REPORT TO THE TOWN OF BOSTON, MARCH 23, 1773.

Constitutional Mandate- Election 2010

Election 2010, 2010 Election Results, Politics, GOP, Constitution, Mandate, Agenda, Bill Collier, Constitutional Mandate

Was 2010 About Ideology Or Weirdness?

The GOP MANDATE For Popular Constitutionalism

Bill Collier

 Politicians love to claim a mandate and often use the term “the American People want…” (fill in the blank). This kind of “speechifying”, at its most basic level, is a “polite” way of saying, “I’m right because The People say I’m right!” It doesn’t matter whether, logically or morally, that politician is right, much less whether or not the People who gave that politician the votes to win REALLY support their whole agenda, or even whether the People are simply tossing out the other politicians who disappointed them!

 Today, the new majority party for the House and for State governments overall, the GOP, is sounding not much different in its grandiose claims than the old majority party, the Democrats, who still control the Senate and the White House, and most of the media and education establishment.

 Did “the American People” choose one set of ideological principles over another in the 2010 mid-term elections?

 In Delaware, the “People” surprised even the Freedomist, with our prediction of an upset based on polling data from multiple sources, and chose a crony capitalist who uses “Progressivism” as a cloak for his, well, cronyism, all because the Democrat controlled media used high school popularity contest tactics, essentially calling his opponent, Christine O’Donnell, “weird.”

 Did ALL the voters decide to support the crony insider simply because the media made O’Donnell seem “weird”? NO, many of these voters lean to the Progressive side of the aisle and genuinely believe in limited economic freedom in exchange for public guarantees of their welfare and “freedom from morality.” Most of the Coons voters were, in fact, genuinely voting their ideological tendencies, or at least for their own self-interest (for largesse at public expense) but many of them knew nothing more than that O’Donnell was “weird”, because that’s what their local journolist media SAID she was!

 Can the same be said on the other side, that voters rejected Democrats, who took a shellacking in the race for the House and the State gubernatorial races, simply because the media portrayed them as “weird?”

 The fact is, the progressive journolists portrayed almost the entire Tea Party movement, and as many of the GOP contenders as they COULD, as “weird.” They did not throw one single punch at the other side. It was as if the only “weird” people were on the side of the aisle that thinks excessive government power over our lives and wealth is itself “weird” in relation to Constitutional norms.

 It is not weird, according to this model of weirdness, to think that the commerce clause can pretty much mean anything you want, thus nullifying the entire Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence, but it is weird to think, for instance, that fantasying about having sex with someone you’re not married to is the same thing as adultery.

 Can you imagine how the Apostle Paul would be treated by the progressive journolists? TALK ABOUT WEIRD!

 Harry Reid would talk about how the Apostle Paul said “those who do not work, should not eat” was “callous and insensitive.”

 Nancy Pelosi would read the bit about not being “unequally yoked” with sinners as “extreme.”

 Ariana Huffington would read where Paul described homosexuals as “reprobates” as “bigoted homophobia.”

 Of course, as with the servant, Paul, so with the Master- Jesus Christ Himself would have been just as easily condemned and crucified for his “crimes” by the progressive journolists and their political allies.

 Would the progressive journolists crucify Jesus and the Apostles in the Roman way?

 No!

 For modern crucifixions see the way the progressive journolists treated Juan Williams and how it treats people like Sharon Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Joe Miller, and Sarah Palin! Not only do the progressive journolists seek to smear the names of their political opponents, and turn people off by portraying these people as being “weird”, but they are not happy until they have DESTROYED their lives!

 Some Americans, enough to be move an election loss for an ideologue whose policies would not in and of themselves gain popular support, were persuaded by the “coolness” argument- the other person is weird, therefore not cool, and so vote for the “cool person.” In Delaware, Nevada, and California, this “coolness” argument may have been enough to propel candidates whose ideology is shared by only 20% of the population into the winner’s circle.

 On the other hand, were the candidates who WON, and whose ideology is not unpopular, propelled to power on the basis of their ideology?

 Let’s think of it like this. If a trend is wide and broad and deep, than we might safely say that there are factors at work other than purely local factors.

 The “coolness” argument is always a local factor, because it relates to how cool, or un-cool a particular candidate is. If you say “they’re ALL un-cool because of their ideology” you now have the problem of talking about that ideology, which, if your ideology is not popular, opens you up to having to talk about your ideology.

 In 2010 the progressive journolists and their political friends and allies pretty much tried, on a massive scale, the “coolness argument.” They had some successes and probably limited their losses, and may even have saved the Senate for their CLASS of Progressive Elites.

The other side, those who rejected Progressivism, used the “ideological argument.” They tried to remind people of their opponent’s true Progressive ideology, or how they SUPPORTED that ideology by their votes, and they presented their own ideology, which was remarkably similar across the board.

What did they say?

They said their opponent’s shared or would support the ideology of Progressive Elitism, based on the premise of state-controlled and managed “solutions” coupled with some form of freedom FROM morality (especially in the areas we might consider “carnal pleasure”).

Not all of the winners from the Popular Constitutionalist side of the aisle emphasized the social morality aspect of their opponent’s ideology, but almost ALL pointed out the difference between Progressive Elitism (using terms like “liberal” or “elitism”) and the basic and fundamental ASSUMPTIONS and beliefs of the Founders of this nation.

When the Democrats ran the board in 2008, they DID NOT make an ideological argument- they made a sales pitch for all the goodies they were going give and all the beneficial things they were going to do for each special interest group in their coalition, and they exposed the rank hypocrisy of the GOP, while capitalizing on the fact that the core supporters of the GOP were themselves angry with the compromise of their leaders.

THIS WAS NOT THE CASE IN 2010! The election did not see an emphasis on the “promises to make your life better” argument, in fact the GOP almost never promises any government largesse or benefit and rarely if ever uses the “promises” argument!

In West Virginia, the one “win” the Democrats were most excited about was a product of a campaign that switched from the “coolness argument” in a state that was leaning against the Progressive Elitist Ideology, to a purely ideological argument in which the DEMOCRAT in the race claimed to be in 100% accord with the IDEOLOGY of his opponent!

While the Popular Constitutionalists argued against their opponent’s ideology, and while some also used the argument that their opponent was corrupt (this, notably, failed in Delaware and Nevada), almost all emphasized their own ideology for “lower taxes, less government, more economic freedom, and a return to the principles embodied in the nation’s founding documents.”

When progressive journolists SAY that the GOP did not “have a positive message”, what they mean, in their own code language, is that the GOP did not OFFER any “largesse.” The GOP offered an ideology, of Popular Constitutionalism, and, for the progressive journolists, to NOT make promises of largesse is an alien concept- their Progressive Elitism is not anything if it isn’t at least consistent!

For a Popular Constitutionalist, the very idea of running on a campaign of saying what government can do to make your life better seems like something that only the technocrats of the USSR or Chavez’s Venezuela would do! Government, in the Popular Constitutionalism embedded in our founding documents, and in the hearts of millions, sees government as a protector of rights, persons, and property, from all enemies, foreign or domestic, but relies on people, free associations, the free market, and local communities as the nearly SOLE vehicle and platform for meeting real needs and finding and doing what brings you fulfillment and “happiness.”

(We refer to Popular Constitutionalists as “Freedomists”.)

For Popular Constitutionalists the predominating argument was NOT promises or how corrupt the other side was, or the coolness argument. Exceptions do not prove a rule and, while there were exceptions, and notably the exceptions seemed to fail, the rule was that the GOP overall ran an ideological campaign. They made ideology the center of their argument AGAINST their opponent and FOR themselves, and they promised to follow that ideology if elected.

On that score, not very many of the voters who supported the Democrats were responding to the ideology argument made by the Democrats, because that argument was not made, except amongst the already initiated, in places like the Huffington Post or Daily Kos. We estimate that less than 20% of ALL voters OVERALL supported the Democrats on the basis of their agenda while as many as 40% of ALL voters were motivated by the Popular Constitutionalists’ appeal to ideology.

Of all the supporters of the Democrats, perhaps as many as 30% of their voters were driven by ideology and upwards to 10% by Party ID, 10% by race, and 10% by union affiliation with the remaining 30% being driven by the coolness argument or the promises argument. A more scientific analysis is begging to be done, but these are our initial estimates based in voter turnout, exit polling, and looking at the arguments made by the Democratic candidates and progressive journolists, who overtly appealed to party ID, race, union affiliation, the coolness argument, and the promises argument.

What then of the Popular Constitutionalists who ran under the GOP banner?

Clearly, the independents came over to the side of the GOP. But what is the overall breakdown?

Since 40% of the electorate considers itself a part of or in approval of the Tea Party, and since over 55% of Americans consider themselves to be Conservatives, one can logically assume that of all GOP voters, 80% or so were motivated by the ideological argument. Clearly, almost NONE of the GOP supporters were motivated by union affiliation. How many were motivated by the coolness argument, the promises argument, party ID, or race? That would be harder to sift out, because most all of the GOP’s candidates did not use these other arguments, or, if they did, few of the winners did.

In short, the 2010 mid-term elections were, largely, and demonstrably, the result of a mostly ideological argument for Popular Constitutionalism which the GOP leadership is compelled, ethically, to obey in all of its practices and policies going forward.

While the progressive journolists and their political allies will try and SAY GOP voters in the 2010 mid-terms were not motivated by ideology and were motivated by base motives, like race or the coolness argument, or even ignorance, the facts don’t bear this out. The Popular Constitutionalists who WON did not overtly or in any covert or indirect way make such appeals as were made by the Progressive Elite candidates who used race, union affiliation, party ID, the coolness argument, and the promises argument so often, and often exclusively, in their public communications.

The plain facts are clear- less than 20% of Americans embraced the Progressive Elitist Ideology, over 40% embraced the Popular Constitutionalist Ideology. Less than 25% of Americans gave support to Progressive Elitists because they wanted to see the Progressives fulfill promises of some kind for parochial reasons. More than 15% of Americans agreed that Popular Constitutionalism was in their interest for various reasons. IN SHORT- most Americans explicitly rejected the Progressive Elitist Ideology, while most embraced or accepted the Popular Constitutionalist Ideology!

Of course, the facts will not get in the way of progressive journolists who are just as happy to lie and make things up as to take any real morsel of controversy and turn it into a public crucifixion!

more on Election 2010 Results:

Election 2010 Results- Analysis by The Freedomist 

Election 2010, 2010 Election Results, Politics, Obama News, Obama Watch, GOP, democrats, Obamacare, Economy, Business News 

Link report on Election 2010: 

Election 2010 Results- GOP takes House, narrows Senate majority- Politics

Election 2010 Results 

GOP gains 7 Senate Seats, 64 House Seats, and 7 Governorships 

  

Iowa Voters repeal activist judges who voted for gay marriage- Christian News

Iowa Voters repeal Judges who struck down DOMAIowa voters beat back the godless agenda by recalling activist, godless judges 

 

Election 2010 referendum on Obamacare- message sent- gut it- Obama Watch

Will GOP gut Obamacare as promised?Boehner calls out Obamacare monstrosity- will action follow rhetoric? 

Teaparty drives Election, diversity in GOP takeover of House, Governorships- Freedom News 

Teaparty diversity comes out in force in Election 2010Teaparty- The so-called ‘astroturfing racists’ come out in droves and elect a diverse group of people to represent them 

 

Election 2010 Results- Dem supporters of Obamacare lose seats in GOP takeover

Obamacare hurts Dems in 2010 ElectionDems who passed vote for Obamacare lost vote in 2010 election- 1 GOPer who voted for Obamacare also loses 

Main

Back FREEDOM for only $4.95/month and help the Freedomist to fight the ongoing war on liberty and defeat the establishment's SHILL press!!

Are you enjoying our content? Help support our mission to reach every American with a message of freedom through virtue, liberty, and independence! Support our team of dedicated freedom builders for as little as $4.95/month! Back the Freedomist now! Click here