BLACKSBURG, S.C. — The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of a 73-year-old Virginia resident who was allegedly ordered by a park ranger to remove his car from a national military park in South Carolina because of political messages attached to his vehicle. Jack Faw, whose ancestors fought in the historic battle memorialized at Kings Mountain National Military Park, contacted The Rutherford Institute after being told by a park ranger that the decal promoting a political organization associated with Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), which was displayed on the back window of Faw’s car, was not allowed in the park. In a legal letter to Park officials, constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead warned that the ranger’s directive, which resulted in Faw being forced to leave the park, violated Faw’s First Amendment rights, as well as National Park Service regulations. Whitehead also demanded assurances that Park employees will be properly instructed in how to respect the constitutional rights of visitors to the Park so that Faw and others will not face similar restrictions in the future.
Whitehead’s letter to officials at Kings Mountain National Military Park is available here.
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
“The display of political messages from a vehicle is unquestionably expression protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “This type of censorship is what you would expect in some foreign regime, not a public park in America.”
Jack Faw is a frequent visitor to Kings Mountain National Military Park in Blacksburg, S.C., which marks the site where three of his ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War. Faw visited the park on May 6, 2011, en route to his home in Virginia. Soon after arriving and in the midst of his tour through the exhibits, Faw was approached by a park ranger who asked Faw to come into the ranger’s office. The ranger informed Faw that he must remove his car from the parking lot because it displayed a political decal that is not allowed in National Parks. On the rear window of Faw’s passenger vehicle is a translucent decal promoting “Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty,” an organization dedicated to reestablishing and furthering the principles embodied in the United States Constitution. Although Faw protested that he had a right to display the decal and asserted it was not causing any disturbance, the ranger insisted that the car be removed from the park, at which point Mr. Faw felt compelled to comply with the order and left the Park.
Insisting that National Park employees be properly educated about basic constitutional precepts in order to ensure that this incident is not repeated, attorney John Whitehead reminded Park officials that visitors to National Parks do not forfeit their First Amendment rights to speech and expression. Indeed, noted Whitehead, Faw’s political messages on his vehicle appear to be wholly consistent with and allowable under regulations promulgated last October by the National Park Service concerning expressive activities by the public within National Parks. Furthermore, not only is the display of a political message on a vehicle unquestionably expression protected by the First Amendment, but a federal appeals court recently ruled that the right of citizens to freedom of speech applies within the confines of National Parks.
Glorified Tea Party candidate Cain holds establishment values: pro-war, pro-Federal Reserve, pro-bailout and more
Infowars.com May 6, 2011
The Fox News-led GOP debate last night in South Carolina gave the first formal glimpse of the emerging 2012 GOP presidential field, though more thought was perhaps spent on the presumptive (selected & vetted by the establishment) big name contenders who have yet to enter or debate. Congressman Ron Paul was perhaps the most well-known face next to a field otherwise unseen in 2008. With him were former Senator Rick Santorum, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, businessman and former KC Federal Reserve chair Herman Cain and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.
After the debate, an artificial-esque buzz quickly centered around Herman Cain, who has positioned himself as a Tea Party candidate and gained popularity for his ‘tough’ rhetoric.
A Fox-focus group fielded by the notorious Frank Luntz quickly established that Herman Cain had won the debate (in lieu of a poll, apparently). Cain charmed a majority of the 29 handpicked and carefully-handled likely Republicans in Luntz’s focus group. After all, he’s a fresh face, he talks about smaller government, ending the economic crisis and he’s a successful businessman.
Frank Luntz Focus Group Names Herman Cain Winner of First GOP Debate
Just as in 2008 with dud-candidate Fred Thompson, Luntz used the perception of a quick turn-around of support to promote the candidate as a possible front runner. Luntz declared the reaction to Cain as “unprecendented” and suggested a spontaneous surge in his viability.
Fox News’ website coverage of the debate features a poll– but on top issues rather than candidates. This effectively obscures the already existing base of substantial support for Ron Paul, which does not exist for the other candidates on the stage. A CNN poll released Thursday (prior to the debate) found Ron Paul did best against President Obama, garnering 10% next to potential candidates like Gingrich, Huckabee, Romney, Trump and Palin.
Fox New’s hoax that Herman Cain won the debate is but an opening salvo in a familiar pattern of downplaying Ron Paul’s bid for the presidency to restore sound money and the Constitution. Perhaps that is why Ron Paul snubbed a post-debate interview with Ron Paul, instead going to a Tea Party event.
However, a sober look at Cain’s statements tonight and his past record show little to be enthused about. He stands diametrically opposed the fundamental positions of pro-liberty candidates like Ron Paul. Cain is pro-war and appears to be pro-Empire, against a Federal Reserve audit, and has been supportive and apologetic about the bailout. Free market is incompatible with crony capitalism and Fed intervention.
5/5/2011 South Carolina GOP Debate – Part 1
Ron Paul and Gary Johnson were distinct in their libertarian-edged stances on an immediate end to wars and the overseas empire, foreign aid, economic solutions, drug decriminalization and other issues, but received no doting from media ‘analysts’. Paul, however, drew heavy applause for most of his answers, including a call to bring the troops home from Afghanistan. Johnson had to speak out just to be fielded a question every now and then.
5/5/2011 South Carolina GOP Debate – Part 2
Paul has already been cheaply attacked over being supposedly pro-Heroin due to his stated position about drug decriminalization.
5/5/2011 South Carolina GOP Debate -Part 3
Cain, Santorum and Pawlenty lined up to regurgitate the typical hawkish position for war, torture, military adventures, and beyond. Big talk about budgets and deficits, but no serious talk about military spending. Typical social-wedge issues also came up including abortion, stem-cell research and gay marriage.
5/5/2011 South Carolina GOP Debate -Part 4
5/5/2011 South Carolina GOP Debate -Part 5
5/5/2011 South Carolina GOP Debate -Part 6
5/5/2011 South Carolina GOP Debate – Part 7
FLASHBACK: Herman Cain, 2012 hopeful: “There’s No Reason To Audit The Federal Reserve”
You Tube
Herman Cain, former Chairman and Member of the Board of Directors for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, flippantly denies the need to Audit the Federal Reserve while hosting the Neil Boortz Radio Show on 12/29/10
I’ve noticed that Herman Cain, who is already an announced candidate for president, seems to have a close association with the Koch brothers. He attended the recent Koch conference in Rancho Mirage and he has been a speaker at the Koch-funded rightonline.
I have seen clips of him speak, but never anything of substance. He sure can deliver a speech though (see below). So I was excited to see that he was going to appear on Eliot Spitzer’s CNN show last night. True to form he gave one hell of a performance. Lot’s of talk about cutting government down to size (all generalities though), and he threw out the fact that he was a former exec at Pillsbury and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza for 10 years. But then Spitzer zeroed in. He asked Cain about the war in Iraq. Cain said he supported it because, get this, Saddam was using weapons of mass destruction against his own people. Cain also said that he was in favor of food stamps (Though the program needs to cut out fraud). It also sounds like Cain is in favor of some kind of “fair tax”, whatever that is.
And, oh yeah, he’s a former chairman (1995-96) and deputy chairman (1992-94) of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
What the hell are the Koch brothers thinking?
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
When you compare Ron Paul to Herman Cain, the choice is obvious. Congressman Paul says, let’s start by bringing U.S. troops home from overseas to help reduce the budget deficit and shift priorities to Americans. He is like that on every issue. He is always about details and specifics He doesn’t talk in generalities such as “Well I’m a great manager”, like Cain does. Everybody says that, from Mitt Romney to Rudy Giuliani. Who needs more of that?
Congressman Paul is also more principled. You would never see Congressman Paul, as a libertarian, ever say that the food stamp program is a good program. And it appears he has a different view about the Fed, than does the former Fed insider Cain.
So what are the supposed libertarian Koch brothers up to here? It sure isn’t about backing the most libertarian candidate. That’s clearly Ron Paul. It really strikes me that Cain is likely more controllable than Congressman Paul. You know in advance where Ron Paul is going to stand on issues. He is not about to change anything for a couple of billionaire brothers playing Kochopoly with the world.
If I’m a billionaire playing Kochopoly, I like this guy. He seems to have that ability to fine tune his thinking to the greater good of the billionaire game. I’m thinking, we may have another Paul Volcker or Colin Powell type. Volcker and Powell, I’m convinced, if called upon by their controls, could justify doing pretty much anything.
For the past three decades, the Federal Reserve has been given a dual mandate: keeping prices stable and maximizing employment. This policy relies not only on the fatal conceit of believing in the wisdom of supposed experts, but also on numerical chicanery.
Rather than understanding inflation in the classical sense as a monetary phenomenon– an increase in the money supply- it has been redefined as an increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI is calculated based on a weighted basket of goods which is constantly fluctuating, allowing for manipulation of the index to keep inflation expectations low. Employment figures are much the same, relying on survey data, seasonal adjustments, and birth/death models, while the major focus remains on the unemployment rate. Of course, the unemployment rate can fall as discouraged workers drop out of the labor market altogether, leading to the phenomenon of a falling unemployment rate with no job growth.
In terms of keeping stable prices, the Fed has failed miserably. According to the government’s own CPI calculators, it takes $2.65 today to purchase what cost one dollar in 1980. And since its creation in 1913, the Federal Reserve has presided over a 98% decline in the dollar’s purchasing power. The average American family sees the price of milk, eggs, and meat increasing, while packaged household goods decrease in size rather than price.
Loose fiscal policy has failed to create jobs also. Consider that we had a $700 billion TARP program, nearly $1 trillion in stimulus spending, a government takeover of General Motors, and hundreds of billions of dollars of guarantees to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD, FDIC, etc. On top of those programs the Federal Reserve has provided over $4 trillion worth of assistance over the past few years through its credit facilities, purchases of mortgage-backed securities, and now its second round of quantitative easing. Yet even after all these trillions of dollars of spending and bailouts, total nonfarm payroll employment is still seven million jobs lower than it was before this crisis began.
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
In this same period of time, the total U.S. population has increased by nine million people. We would expect that roughly four million of these people should have been employed, so we are really dealing with eleven million fewer employed people than would otherwise be expected.
It should not be surprising that monetary policy is ineffective at creating actual jobs. It is the effects of monetary policy itself that cause the boom and bust of the business cycle that leads to swings in the unemployment rate. By lowering interest rates through its loose monetary policy, the Fed spurs investment in long-term projects that would not be profitable at market-determined interest rates. Everything seems to go well for awhile until businesses realize that they cannot sell their newly-built houses, their inventories of iron ore, or their new cars. Until these resources are redirected, often with great economic pain for all involved, true economic recovery cannot begin.
Over $4 trillion in bailout facilities and outright debt monetization, combined with interest rates near zero for over two years, have not and will not contribute to increased employment. What is needed is liquidation of debt and malinvested resources. Pumping money into the same sectors that have just crashed merely prolongs the crisis. Until we learn the lesson that jobs are produced through real savings and investment and not through the creation of new money, we are doomed to repeat this boom and bust cycle.
