I do not believe there are any federal statutes that define the kinds of clothing, or what part of the anatomy must be covered, that should be enforced.  I know of no states that have laws defining the kinds and extent of clothing worn by citizens, and if not worn, the extent of penalties.  So, where does all this come from?

It would appear the original governments from the earliest American frontier settlements, the towns and counties, decided the moral issues and wrote laws to cover them, such as the blue laws, prohibition, vagrancy, public intoxication, each of which implies grades of behavior are punishable even if no harm comes to others.  In short, these local governments decided, by majority votes of citizens obviously lacking compassion, that violating moral insensitiveness should be limited and punished.  If running down the street without clothing harms no one, why should there be laws prohibiting it?  If we have nude beaches now, why not allow them to encompass the entire community?

The only way these things could be justified, is by accepting the original concepts of local government, something once prized by all Americans.  Those were governments established no further from the people than a days ride on horse.  Local government made America what it is, even with clothing requirements. All the laws impacting individuals existed on the local level and expressed the majority views of good behavior.

The States handled more commercial laws while the federal laws dealt with international conflicts, foreign and interstate commerce matters, and not the day to day behavior of ordinary citizens.  Local government, however, is no longer seen as progressive. The founders of the Democratic Party once believed local government was the core of America.  The modern Democrat believes that the local governments should be nothing more than lower departments of the federal government.

The more distant, progressive governing bodies have no desire to get into whether wearing clothing or not should be a matter for legislative or enforcement concern, as no one is physically harmed.  Emotional harm is not something a lawyer or judge can touch, and one man’s emotional upset is another man’s enjoyment, making it beyond judgment.  This should clear the legal net from imposing any limits to clothing requirements, pornography, use of drugs, alcohol or food addictions, at least not until it becomes a political need for a prominent special interest.

This is the first of several articles on Ellen Brown’s superb 2007 book titled “Web of Debt,” now updated in a December 2008 third edition. It tells “the shocking truth about our money system, (how it) trapped us in debt, and how we can break free.” Given today’s global economic crisis, it’s an appropriate time to review it and urge readers to digest the entire work, easily gotten through Amazon or Brown’s webofdebt.com site. Her book is a remarkable achievement - in its scope, depth, and importance.

In the forward, banker/developer Reed Simpson said:

“I have been a banker for most of my career, and I can report that even most bankers (don’t know) what goes on behind (top echelon) closed doors….I am more familiar than most with the issues (Brown covered, and) still found it an eye-opener, a remarkable window into what is really going on….(Although many banks follow high ethical practices), corruption is also rampant, (especially) in the large money center banks, in one of which I worked.” FULL ARTICLE

Well, Dr. Paul has tried this variants of this theme multiple times before over the past 30 years. For instance, HR 1148 was introduced in 1999 to abolish the Federal Reserve and obtained a whopping zero co-sponsors. This was repeated in HR 2755 in 2007. Result? Zero co-sponsors. Paul’s new clever strategy has been to extremely limit the scope of the bill – just audit the books of the FED, nothing more – and has been able to tap into the wide-ranging dissatisfaction surrounding the October 2008 banker bailout, the Obama stimulus plan, and the outright socialization of our banking, auto, and insurance sectors.

It only takes half a brain and a pulse to get angry about the fact that the central bankers gave the American people the equivalent of a middle finger on Bloomberg’s Freedom of Information Act request. The FED denied to disclose how they used $2 trillion dollars in open market operations that they executed outside of Congressional authority. Congress has no clue how the FED used the money either since that is not how the FED works.  Without an audit, Congress also has no clue how much gold our nation owns. (photo)

So what’s the big picture? Basically, the legislative process in Washington is usually as slow as molasses, and most bills die in committee with the obvious exceptions of very long lobbyist bills like the USA PATRIOT Act and urgent banker bailout-stimulus plans that no one in Congress admittedly even has time to read before voting on them. Ron Paul is a veteran legislator, and most of his bills this decade are quite short - HR 1207 is 446 words – and follows the K.I.S.S. Principle: Keep It Simple Stupid. Obviously he has not had a lot of success, but that’s mostly been due to lack of cooperation.

In the case of HR 1207, Paul has chosen this battleground wisely - who wants to be on the “No” side with all of the popular sentiment against it? Campaign for Liberty and Liberty Maven, two sites that publish my articles, and many more like-minded sites have thrown all their momentum into winning this one small battle. Galvanized supporters have watched in awe as the number of co-sponsors rise from 11 to 33 to 88 to 134 at present, an impressive feat.

The New American recently quoted Austrian economist Thomas Woods’s doubts as saying, “[The FED] is too complicated for most Americans. This isn’t going to galvanize people. I was wrong! He’s taken an issue that wasn’t even an issue, and he’s got a lot of Americans suddenly fascinated by the Fed, by monetary policy, by the Austrian business cycle theory.”  My thoughts are that Woods is severely underestimating both the number and intelligence of Paul’s supporters, especially when it is so apparent our future prosperity as a society is at stake.

The fight to pass HR 1207 by the House is winnable. Even if it fails, the rEVOLution will have learned a very important fact – which of the Representatives on either the Financial Services committee or in the House itself can be viewed as domestic enemies.

Disdain for what the FED has done to the American people is one of the reasons I am running for Congress in Pennsylvania’s 15th district, and also why I have contacted my current representative multiple times to co-sign HR 1207. I published my latest letter to him, and a reader asked the following questions. As a wanna-be Congressman, I thought I would take a shot at answering them!

Q: “What does it take to get this bill out of committee and on the floor of the House for a vote?”

A: The bill is currently in committee and must pass before a House vote can be called. It is possible the bill will be tabled, or die, while in committee. To pass, the committee must have quorum – the necessary amount of representatives present to vote on it. The exact number needed to obtain a quorum is determined by each committee. Passing requires a majority of those in attendance at committee before moving to a House vote where a simple majority is needed – this is democracy at work! This process is described here, see page 21/67.

Q: “How many co-sponsors does it need to force that? Or does that even matter?”

A: The number of co-sponsors does not matter. However, it does indicate the expected minimum support a bill will receive on the House floor, so is a key indicator while in committee. While bills are in committee, they can be marked up and amended, which is why the simplicity of Paul’s bill is key.

Q: “Is it really a matter of getting Barney Frank to move it to the House for a vote? What’s the process? Does anyone know?”

A: Representative Barney Frank, D-MA, is the chair of the Financial Services committee of 70 representatives. He has not co-signed the bill, and traditionally is allied closely with the banking special interests and the FED, so no cooperation can be expected from him.  Several weeks ago, Frank spoke about Paul, HR 1207, and committee politics - while boldly proclaiming that there is no inflation.

It is my guess that Campaign for Liberty and Ron Paul will take their time to have their supporters keep banging away on their local representatives to rachet the number of co-sponsors higher. Over 150 would be impressive, to say the least. At this point, page 20/67 states:

“Three or more members of a standing committee may file with the committee a written request that the chairman call a special meeting… If the chairman does not call the requested special meeting within three calendar days after the filing of the request, to be held within seven calendar days after the filing of the request, a majority of the members of the committee may call the special meeting by filing with the committee written notice… “

Since there are already three co-signers, the first step can be completed at any time. However, I think it would be best to target the remaining 6 of 29 Republicans on the committee who have not co-signed and try to pick up more than one Democrat (the other 40 have not co-signed) before proceeding. These six possible Republican banker-buddies are located in the states of NJ, NY, CA, and PA and here is a downloadable interactive list. Supporters of HR 1207 should contact any red-listed member as a top-priority (see below).

Rely on sites like Campaign for Liberty and Liberty Maven to keep up with the current status. When the bill goes to committee, it will be time to melt the phone wires on the phones of those Financial Services members still in red.

HR 1207 is not just an audit of the FED, it is an audit of your local Representative!

Featured Post for 05/08-05/14 I wrote this to Mr. Obama after reading the following article. I guess we’ve got to keep trying.

Red Cross Confirms Dozens Dead in Afghan Air Strikes

Mr. Obama,

I do not understand what is going on. When you inherited the White House, did you also inherit the bubble that your predecessor lived in?

You campaigned for change. We the People, after eight years of Cheney/Bush flouting the Constitution, causing a million or more deaths in their endless search for oil, thought we might have a new broom in Washington that would sweep these people into the dustbin of history and reverse the draconian laws that were put in effect.

Instead, what do we see? On the home front, the billionaires get richer and the poor, the retired, the workers whose jobs have been outsourced are winding up living in the streets. There is more surveillance, more restrictions on our individual lives. Habeas corpus is still a corpse, NorthCom’s combat brigades are still getting intensive training on suppressing civilian unrest. Now you want to keep the Military Commissions for Gitmo because, apparently, the fear is that the civil courts might not allow hearsay evidence, and evidence obtained by torture into their courts, and that the attorneys might have the right to cross examine witnesses, or actually see the evidence!

Our endless wars, which we thought would finally end, are expanding. Iraq gets a change of occupiers from combat troops to “advisors.” Same troops, different name.

We are upping the killing in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Every time we bomb a village full of civilians on the off chance of killing what we term insurgents, we create still more Afghan and Pakistani patriots yearning for the end to occupation, as I hope we would if we were occupied. What we consider insurgents, they consider freedom fighters trying to rid their country of yet another foreign invader,

Look at the number of bases we have worldwide. We cannot spread ourselves over the earth like peanut butter on a slice of bread. Especially if the jar is getting moldy.

We have horrible problems here in the US to deal with, yet you sidestep any suggestion that those who committed unconstitutional actions such as violating the treaties which we have signed and which are therefore the Law of the Land (read the Constitution) against torture, indefinite imprisonment, and treatment of prisoners, should be tried and punished. These people were not ignorant, they knew what they were doing and that, if the United States ever became a Constitutional Republic again, tthey would face trial and punishment. According to you, they will not, but their victims, here and abroad, will continue to suffer.

We are still dealing ineffectively from the effects of Katrina, yet we can continue to allow misappropriation of funds and no-bid or fixed contracts with the big money contributors. Veterans, destroyed mentally or physically, and their families, are living in the streets. Runaway inflation and the depression are destroying the lives of retirees.

The Military Industrial Complex has billions and billions in war profits. Can’t you stop feeding them and start caring for We the People who elected you? So far, all that those of us below the rank of Congressman or CEO have seen is Bush Lite and Bush style lies.

Please! Show enough gumption to get rid of these old parasites and turn the country around. We the People will be glad to help. That’s what we elected you for!

Sincerely,

Steve and Adrienne Osborn

From the Editor: Please watch the following video - Ron Paul questioning Richard Holbrooke on war, empire and foreign policy