The Ninja Activist Blog

The Philosophy of Liberty

2011-08-22T23:10:00.000-07:00

What is Liberty? This YouTube video eloquently and succinctly describes the philosophy of liberty. After watching this video, think to yourself where in history we have made choices that strip liberty away and therefore strip our right to life and personal property. Then ask if it is tolerable to allow others to forcibly act on our behalf without our consent. It happens everyday, but it doesn't have to. We must have the courage to think, speak, and act.

Perspective on Green Jobs

2011-08-21T21:48:00.000-07:00

An interesting blog post was recently published for The American Interest entitled "Feeding the Masses on Unicorn Ribs". With a title like that, it would not be a stretch of the imagination to guess that the article has something to do with far-fetched dreams of the liberal elite. In this post, the "far-fetched dreams" are green jobs and how millions of tax payers dollars have been used to "stimulate" the green-jobs industry-from biofuels to energy efficient windows, to solar panels.

The article is spot-on in its critique. First of all, the effort to stimulate the economy using the green-jobs industry as its vehicle to bring prosperity back into businesses is mostly a failure. The post outlines a list of failed green businesses that received millions in stimulus funds a couple of years ago. Second of all, these jobs make up such a small portion of the workforce, that it is logical to question the overall impact the green industry can have on the economy as a whole.

It then goes on to explain the "incoherent" rationale for green jobs as the beacon of new economic prosperity in America.

What is disturbing about this rationale is how the Obama administration (and its liberal press) have jumped on the green job bandwagon and driven it off a cliff--meanwhile, in the first half of August, jobless claims jumped past the 400,000 mark. Its hard to justify any job creation stimulus when the numbers are right there in black and white to disprove the effectiveness of injecting more money into the market with the Keynesian fantasy that is expansionary fiscal policy, green jobs or not.

Michele Bachmann wins Iowa Straw Poll. Now what?

2011-08-13T16:49:00.000-07:00

A lot can and will happen in 14 months, but today is Michele Bachmann's day to relish a campaign victory.

The 2011 Iowa Straw Poll results are in, and Michele Bachmann is the winner, carrying a narrow lead in votes over runner-up Ron Paul (4,671) with a total of 4,823 votes.

What comes next for Bachmann and the other candidates? Here is a tentative schedule of upcoming events and debates:

September 12th: Republican Debate, held in Tampa, Florida; which is the site of the 2012 Republican Convention

September 14th: Republican Debate, held in the Reagan Library in California

September 22-24th: Republican-held debate and straw poll in Orlando, Florida

Oct. 18 - A Republican debate in Las Vegas, Nevada

Dec. 10 - A Republican debate in Iowa

2012

Jan. 30 - Republican debate in Iowa

Feb. 6 - Iowa caucuses, first contest in presidential nominating race

Feb. 14 - New Hampshire primary

Feb. 18 - Nevada caucuses

Feb. 28 - South Carolina primary

March 6 - "Super Tuesday" primaries in 14 states

Aug. 27-30 - Republican convention in Tampa, Florida

Sept. 3-6 - Democratic convention in Charlotte, North Carolina

Nov. 6 - Election Day

Source: Reuters Factbox: http://www.reuters.com

Who Won the Iowa GOP Debate?

2011-08-12T10:02:00.000-07:00

The Fox News moderated debate hosted by Iowa State University was highly anticipated to be the first "official" debate between the eight declared GOP contenders for the Presidential nomination in 2012 (nine if you include Rick Perry, but he declared the same day as the debate and was not able to participate).

Politico News gives a break down of best and worst case scenarios for each of the candidates here:
http://www.politico.com/

The LA Times reported that Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty--who went at each other's throats for a good portion of the debate, actually scored fairly well in the debate and might just end up finishing first and second in the straw poll:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics

The Washington Post contends that of all the candidates, Ron Paul--who at times seemed a little flustered in responding to some of the questions posed to him, may run away with the straw poll win, simply due to how many people show up to vote. If there is a large turnout, this could help Ron Paul's chances of winning the first straw poll.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/could-ron-paul-wins-the-ames-straw-poll/

Fox News gave a humorous overview of how each candidate did, ranking each candidate by "bond ratings". Mitt Romney was the only candidate to receive the "AAA" rating, while Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, and Ron Paul received "AA" ratings. Everyone else received the lowly "A" rating.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/

Ron Paul: Debt Deal is a Fraud

2011-08-05T16:54:00.000-07:00

Here is a presidential candidate (Ron Paul, R-Texas) who actually admits that Republicans haven't done a very good job in Congress and need to do a better job at tackling our national debt seriously. Let's hope that in 2012, we can get a lot more serious folks in the Congress and in the White House.

Obama: A Lost Hope

2011-08-04T23:08:00.000-07:00

Gone are the days of hope and change. At least, not in how most of us envisioned. We got change all right. It has come in the form of 3 years of poor economic growth, joblessness, a fear of investing by the corporate sector, and a expansionary fiscal policy that has left our country on the precipice of bankruptcy.

This is the crossroads folks. There are times in history which test patience, courage, will, and discipline. But what good are these if the root problem is a lack of these traits?

We, the American people, have failed ourselves. We have mindlessly allowed our leaders to abuse our fundamental human rights in exchange for the illusion of health, safety, and prosperity.

Our economic system, founded on the principles of a free-market exchange of goods and services, has been replaced by a mixed economy bound by the chains of Keynesian voo-doo science. The men and women in charge of regulating the flow of goods and services have done us great harm. We allow them to abuse the system because we fear that to stand up to them would result in our way of life being dismantled. In truth, it is the opposite. The longer and steadfast we are in our complacency, the worse off we will be.

Our political system, founded on the principles of checks and balances, was intended to be a republic--NOT a democracy. A republic and a democracy are the same in every aspect except for one: In a republic, the sovereignty (freedom from rule) lies with the individual. In a democracy, sovereignty lies with the group. This is such an important concept lost on the majority of Americans--and this ignorance is why no one has fought violently nor vigorously for it.

The alternative to a Republic in the United States is a pseudo-Democracy, which has been replaced by a plutocratic survival of the elite. Quite simply--those who have the money, and the backing of the world's wealthiest individuals, will be the ones who rue the day. With no individual sovereignty, a group can make decisions on your behalf, with little regard on how these decisions affect your personal life, choices, and freedom.

Our social system, with its noted flaws, was founded on the principles of individualism and faith-based charity. It has been replaced by conformism, demagoguery, and a morally bankrupt godless society focused more on trying to make "everyone feel good" than to empower people to not only make the correct choices to lead them down the path of goodness, but to help others achieve the same along the way. God or no God, there is no denying the need for orderliness, for respect, and for kindness. In a society that has lost its concept of these traits--that cares more about what Snooki does than how many children in their neighborhood are being abused, or go to bed without a meal...not only are we morally inefficient, we are morally corrupt.

There are no easy shortcut ways out of these problems. After all, it has taken us 235 years to get to this point. But if there is one thing to say about the American people: We have resolve. We can take it. We can be better. Ultimately however, it starts with singular you. Take action. Get involved. And no matter how "crazy" your naysayers call you, never back down. .

Obama Racist Flow-Chart

2009-10-01T22:40:00.000-07:00

It seems like there are a lot of liberals and progressives on television and in the press grousing about how the genesis of "many" people's disagreements with Obama and his Administration are founded is deep-seated racism. This is a disingenuous claim. While there is no question that there is a segment of the population that is racist, to come to the conclusion that "people who disagree with Obama are racist" is an intellectually lazy way of skirting around the true nature of why people (on both sides and in between the political spectrum) are disagreeing with Obama's policies and decision-making skills.

Making broad-stroked claims such as this only degrade the conversation and fact-finding we should be engaged in.

With that said, a humorous flow-chart to determine if you are a "Obama-Racist"

http://www.missourah.com/2009/09/15/obama-criticism-flow-chart

Glenn Beck is Arguing with Idiots (Again)

2009-09-22T22:24:00.000-07:00

I just started Glenn Beck's "Arguing with Idiots: How to stop Small minds and Big Government". I love Glenn Beck. I am sure all of my liberal friends despise him or just simply disagree with him. To each his or her own I suppose. But Beck is a very astute student of the American political system. It would be a shame if someone disregarded Beck as an "idiot" himself just by making a snap judgement, so I will quote him from the preface of his book: "Being an idiot has nothing to do with your party affiliation, it has to do with whether you are able to look beyond that affiliation and follow the facts, wherever they may lead."

In other words, people should take some time to fact check the fact checkers. When ever I see those "fact check" articles put out by the Associated Press, I read them with a critical and skeptical mind. For example, when the AP put out an article with regard to fact checking the health care bill, they did not go as far as to point out that much being mandated in the health care pertaining to illegal immigrants and abortions is NOT in the health care bill BUT IT IS in the amendments piggy-backing on the health care bill. If the bill were to pass today, these amendments would allow for these provisions.

Is it too much, as Glenn Beck does every night on his Fox News television show, to "Ask 'reasonable' questions? In my opinion, everyone should be asking the same questions that Beck does. When we fail to ask questions that prod deeper into an issue, we as a people and nation are just like the Titanic, seeing the tip of the iceberg, but failing to see the monster lying beneath.

But most people don't ask these questions. They accept "facts" and "truths" at face value, with little regard to the history or backstory, often times hidden on purpose because in knowing the connections, we see things how they really are, and not as some would like us to see them. I think this is an awfully lazy (albeit immoral) way to formulate opinions and espouse these opinions as "the truth".

When I watch and read Glenn Beck, I am reminded by the author James Burke and his "Connections" television series. In "Connections", Burke starts with one single (seemingly random) piece of trivia from the past. He then "connects the dots" by starting at a "seed point", the genesis of an invention or other historically significant moment in human civilization. At the beginning, you have no idea where this guy is going. You have to listen carefully and follow along from beginning to end, or you just won't "get it". But, knowing something about Burke and his writings, you have faith that he will eventually lead you on a circuitous journey to a greater understanding and knowledge. Its kind of like Paul Harvey "and...Now you know the REST of the story."

I am sure many critics of Beck scratch their heads because they tune in at random moments. They fail to see the show where Beck plants a seed by asking a question, and follows it through to the end. Beck started to unravel the Van Jones inquiry in this fashion. He did so again with ACORN. Yes it is circuitous. There is nothing wrong with taking the long path to a destination, if the ultimate destination leads you to greater knowledge and wisdom.

I will conclude by saying that unlike Beck, I don't believe people who fail to look beyond their party affiliation are idiots. I think they are horribly misguided, and that is a shame. I actually think most people, despite their party affiliation, do make a concerted effort to look beyond their affiliation. However, I think some people use their affiliation as an excuse to not dig deeper and ask questions. Party affiliations in general are crutches for those who need to stamp a label on themselves and their beliefs, as though a party affiliation alone justifies their beliefs as "right". It is a physiological mechanism for achieving "belonging" in Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

With that said, borrow a copy of Beck's book. It is a worthwhile read. At the very least, you can use it to arm yourself the next time one of your Beck-loving friends has a political debate with you.

Bye-Bye to The Cookoo-Berry Communist Van Jones

2009-09-06T15:26:00.001-07:00

Van Jones resigned from his White House post as environmental advisor, amidst growing opposition for his questionable [communist] statements he has made in the past.

What the Ninja Activist would like to know is if Jones really feels there is a "vicious smear campaign" against him, and those claims were untrue, then why would he resign?

The truth of the matter is, Jones is a vocal radical and admitted at one time being a communist. Whether or not he is now or not, is not the issue. The issue is that someone with beliefs contradictory to the Constitution of the United States and to our free-market capitalist system is developing policy and advising the President.

While everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, when you are appointed by the President of the United States, you are held to the same standards as the President of the United States. This means, you must work within the framework of the Constitution, not work to change it.

Those wishing to dissolve our nation's framing documents are traitors at best and should never be considered for a position in any of the branches of federal government.

Props should go out to Glenn Beck from Fox News who started asking tough questions no one else in the media was asking about Mr. Jones. While Beck maybe seen by many as just another "angry white male", Beck is actually one of few on network cable news that discusses the origin of the people making decisions on our behalf. Whether or not you believe in what Beck says, facts are facts. And the facts show that Jones was indeed a radical communist, bent on destroying the fabric of our free-market ideals.

Fact-Checking the Fact Checks

2009-08-19T19:53:00.000-07:00

It seems like everyone has become an "expert" on health care lately...especially the media.

The Associated Press released an article today titled FACT CHECK: Health Overhaul Myths Taking Root

True, President Obama has failed to deliver a coherent and detailed health reform plan. Rather, his proposal is chockful of vague descriptors that leaves much to be interpreted by everyone: The Left, The Right, and The Media. The unfortunate thing is, not even the fact checkers themselves seem to be able to get the "facts" straight.

A proposal as serious as health reform demands seriously detailed analysis by a independent and apolitical lawyer. The proposal after all, was written by a lawyer. Should we not be demanding that it be read and dissected by a lawyer so we are not missing anything that is lurking
in between the lines?

Here's the issue: Legal language is by nature, vague.

Unless you are skilled at reading case law or legislative bills, it is very difficult to accurately intepret the language and translate it into "plain talk". The average reader then, must be very critical of those claiming to offer the "facts" of a bill that the majority of representatives fail tail to interprete correctly themselves (or admit openly that they have not read the bill).

Expounding on poll data, as the AP did in their factchecking article is not adequate at debunking proposed "myths" unless they can go over the bill line for line and cite language that backs their claims.

In the meantime, all we can do as average American citizens is take "their" word for it. Now, do you trust the media to give you all the facts, especially when its clear that the majority of cable news networks are liberal leaning and liberal funded? Or do you trust the government, which its pretty clear by now, has done a poor job at being straight forward with us?

Case in point: The death-panel discussion has been wildly blown out of proportion, not because it is a myth, but because the media has failed (or refuses) to nail down this issue with the correct facts. True, there is not one phrase in the bill that states verbatim that there will be a "death panel". And no, the government would not force you to have end of life care. But notice that no one has mentioned the phrase "consensus organzizations" in the same line as "death panels." Why? Because the liberal media knows and those who have read the bill know, that a "consensus organization" (first mentioned around page 420 in the bill) IS a death panel!

Dear readers, what you are witnessing is a very sneaky attempt at pulling the wool over the eyes of the American public. If you want to continue being led down the yellow brick road that is Obamaland, then go right ahead. But if you wish to see the truth for what it really is, do yourself a tremendous favor and read the bill yourself and start asking questions and DEMANDING answers. If someone at work is espousing these "facts", read the bill and offer a counter arguement and ask them to prove it. If your representative is supportive of the health care reform bill, email them and ask if they have read the bill and ask your questions. If they give you an auto response email, then call their office and ask if there is a time when your representative will be in his or her office and set up a meeting to discuss it. Remember, these folks work for you, so make them work!

Or, you could take the media's word for it. The choice is yours.

Thanks for the BILL United States Government!

2009-08-18T18:35:00.000-07:00

The Government wants you to foot an enormous bill for services you may never receive. What's more, the government wants you, you're family, and family that hasn't even been born yet to take on an enormous amount of debt over the next 3 decades. If the following bills were to pass, this is how much YOU yes YOU would have to pay to our esteemed federal government. The next question is, can you afford it? If you have a problem with this, please write your representatives and senators immediately and tell them you can't afford it! If you don't have a problem with it, kudos to you for being able to afford such lavish services for every American. I guarantee you, you're in the minority.

The most expensive (cost per person) legislative bills according to WashingtonWatch.com

Source: http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/greatest_cost/

1. H.R. 2998, The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

Cost per person: $3,962.30

2. H.R. 3200, The America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009

Cost per person: $3,862.75

3. H.R. 3293, The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

Cost per person: $2,382.72

4. S. 1390, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010

Cost per person: $2,001.92

Total cost per person for these four bills: $12,209.69

The Ninja Activist encourages everyone to be politically aware of what the government is doing. These aren't just words...they are LAWS, which if passed, we must abide by. If your bank were to create a new rule that subsequently debited a certain amount of money from your bank account, wouldn't you want to know why and how much? The federal government works the same way. They tax us and most of us don't even understand why or how much! Take control of your future by reading about legistaltive bills that translate to bills you must pay. If you don't like what you see or don't understand it, EMAIL your local and state representatives and ask them to explain it. If they cannot explain the bills they vote on, then kindly respond by requesting the abstain from voting or read the bill in its entirety. Most of your representatives do not even read the bills they vote on! Why? Because many pieces of legislation are hundreds of pages long. Most of these pages are used up by changing phrasing. What happens is that lawmakers speed read through the bill, often times "cherry picking" what they want to read. Hold these men and women accountable! Make sure they don't just vote on what they want to vote on, but what you want. The only way that will happen is if you get involved somehow. Don't try to focus on everything. Pick one or two things you feel strongly about and focus on that. It all starts somewhere, but if no one speaks up, your liberty and freedom will be at the mercy of others.

Research:

http://www.washingtonwatch.com

http://thomas.loc.gov

http://www.projectvotesmart.org

Email your House Representatives:

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Email your Senators:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Email your State Representatives:

http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=17173

Health Care Reform: Do we have a choice?

2009-08-03T13:23:00.000-07:00

With all of the debate about Obama's current health care reform proposal, I thought I would shed some light over other reform proposals circulating around the Senate. Specifically, Senator Ron Wyden's Free Choice proposal.

For a complete synopsis, visit http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/free_choice_proposal.pdf

And, another proposal again by Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and fellow Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah)

http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/Legislation/Healthy_Americans_Act.cfm

The Healthy Americans Act was deemed as "budget neutral" in 2014 by the Congressional Budget Office. Eventually, the care proposal would pay for itself via tax outlays.

http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/Healthy%20Americans%20Act/091708lewin_report.pdf

Politics and the Pendulum

2009-07-18T10:44:00.000-07:00

In Edgar Allan Poe's classic tale, the Pit and the Pendulum, the main character, a prisoner of the Spanish Inquisition, is strapped to a table n a pit, watching in horror as a bladed pendulum sways back and forth, and with each pass, drops lower and lower, closer to slicing the prisoner into pieces. Toward the end of the tale, the prisoner manages to escape the burning walls, as at the very end, the French Army has rescued him.

The current state of our American political system is very much like the Pit and the Pendulum tale. Except the prisoner trapped in the pit is the American people, and the Pendulum is the United States Government.

Every four years, the American people have the opportunity to vote for people they feel are the best to represent their personal values, beliefs, and desires. The pendulum swings to the right (conservatism) when there is a feeling that our nation needs stability, focusing on individual freedoms, sometimes neglecting social services. The pendulum swings to the left (liberalism) when there is a feeling that too much freedom has been given to those who need it the least (such as big corporations and the military industrial complex). Freedoms are stripped away from the "haves" and given to the "have-nots".

In both cases, a swing to the left or swing to the right always results in a drastic rebound affect. And each time this happens, the pendulum drops lower, closer to slicing the American people in half. Neither choice is better. Both choices hurt Americans.

Polls show that Americans are becoming increasingly skeptical that the Obama Administration can deliver on all of the promises (Unemployment less than 8%, when now it is predicted to be over 10%; health care; affordable clean energy; no tax increases for those who earn less than $250,000 per year). All the while, our national debt has ballooned to over $10 trillion dollars. And Vice President Biden argues at town hall meetings that we must spend money so we as a nation don't go bankrupt? We need only to look at the State of California to realize that spending more doesn't always bring a return on investment.

The pendulum rebounded to the left, and it just dropped closer to killing us.

In 2010, the American Political Pendulum will once again swing, but it will not be in the direction that liberals and statists will want it to go. We have several gubernatorial races that are predicted to go the Republican's way. This will be a key indicator that our political pendulum is equalizing. Other congressional elections are sure to follow suit.

And then, Americans will once again become disillusioned, and fail to realize that the pendulum has swung the opposite direction, dropping even lower and closer to slicing our liberty in other ways.

While it would be unwise to say that the existence of a swinging political pendulum is entirely a bad thing, one could argue that the United States, its people, and its economy do better when the pendulum is somewhere in the middle, and thus, does not drop a notch or two closer to impending doom. Because while each swing brings with it change, this change is often very costly. Moderate change that preserves and protects liberty and freedom is better than change that brings one side down in order to lift another side up.

But as long as we continue to have a polarized political system, the pendulum will continue to sway back and forth, drawing closer to destroying the American people. How can we solve this problem, other than full-fledged revolution? And by the time the majority of the population comes to this realization, will it be too late?

New post on Bureaucrash Social

2009-07-14T21:41:00.001-07:00

I just wrote a blog post on Bureaucrash Social on the confirmation hearing of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

O'Reilly Exposes Cap and Trade Con-it's a big con too!

2009-07-14T21:33:00.001-07:00

O'Reilly Exposes Cap & Trade Corruption and Al Gore | The FOX Nation

Posted using ShareThis

Finally, the truth revealed. Cap and Trade is the worst and I mean, THE worst policy being proposed today. It is full of big players like Al Gore and Goldman Sachs that will profit from this so called "climate change" policy. It's not about the climate stupid, its about money, and who can make the most of it. Don't let these big cats fool you into thinking this is good for the planet and good for you. It will put millions of workers out of business when manufacturers in this country jump ship to go overseas where the BIG polluters, China and India, accept the business with open arms.

I recently wrote my local US Representative Democrat Peter DeFazio about Cap and Trade. Democrats and Republicans have a big problem with Obama/Gore's proposed policy. Thank goodness, some of our representatives are looking out for our best interests here, and putting aside partisan politics as usual. Here is what Rep. DeFazio said in his letter to me in response:

Dear Miss Martinenko:

Thanks for your message in opposition to a cap-and-trade system and H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. I share your concerns about the inefficiencies and unnecessary costs of a cap-and-trade. I urged my colleagues in the House of Representatives to consider alternative approaches. My efforts to improve the bill were rejected and I voted against H.R. 2454.

As you know, a cap-and-trade system would set pollution limits (the "cap") and distribute allowances to industry that can be bought and sold to meet emission targets (the "trade"). Proponents of such an approach believe that "the market" is the best way to bring down emissions levels of harmful greenhouse gases (GHGs).

Frankly, I fear that a market-based approach such as a cap-and-trade system would reward market speculation over innovation. A cap-and-trade scheme is already in place in Europe and has largely been a failure. In 2007 - the most recent year for which we have data - GHG emissions in Europe rose by 1.1%; that's three consecutive years of higher emissions. And emissions are increasing in Europe while investors and speculators make billions by buying and trading pollution credits. To this effect, I recently authored two op-ed pieces in the Oregonian and Register Guard that lay out my reservations of a cap-and-trade system, followed by my speech at the Portland City Club. You can view these at the link below or by typing the text of the link into your internet browser: http://www.defazio.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=477

I attempted to protect energy consumers from Wall Street speculators by offering an amendment to keep them out of the carbon market created by H.R. 2454. My amendment was denied any consideration. I fear exotic Wall Streetfinancial gimmicks, similar to those employed by AIG that brought our economy to its knees last year, will be used again in the burgeoning carbon market. Consider that this bill would allow AIG to create carbon offset derivatives futures tranched into collateralized debt obligations insured by credit default swaps. Such financial instruments mimic the very same actions that drove AIG into failure and led to the $173.4 billion federal bailout of AIG. We cannot subject our economy to another unregulated Wall Street bubble.

Finally, it is essential to evaluate any legislative proposal by its economic effects on the Pacific Northwest. Unfortunately, this bill disadvantages the Pacific Northwest and unfairly punishes our region's low carbon emissionsfootprint. The Pacific Northwest is blessed with low cost zero emission hydroelectric generation. To my dismay, a provision was added just days before the vote that would redirect the CO2 allocations from the Pacific Northwestto coal plants in the Midwest to protect their ratepayers.

There's no doubt that Congress needs to take bold new steps to reduce the emission of harmful greenhouse gases, but we must also guarantee that the method chosen is not subject to manipulation, doesn't discourage investment innew energy technologies, and isn't a burden on the consumer. Unfortunately, I believed H.R. 2454 fell significantly short of these goals and I opposed the bill on the House floor.

Thanks again for contacting me. Please keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Rep. Peter DeFazio
Fourth District, OREGON

Pride Blind the Foolish

2009-07-14T20:21:00.000-07:00

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." ~Thomas Jefferson

More on my favorite U.S. President: http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeffcont.htm