PoliticalAction.com Blog

Jake Towne, independent candidate for US Congress in PA-15, today announced his support of HR 4248, the Free Competition in Currency Act of 2009, and urges the current incumbent to co-sponsor the bill. The short 374-word bill is inline with the campaign’s theme of sound money and would revoke legal tender laws enabling Americans to use other currencies if they so choose to compete with the unbacked script currency issued by the Federal Reserve.

Towne just released his “Sound Money and Jobs” campaign plank (attached in PDF) which explains to all residents the dire importance of sound money, and provides evidence linking the troubles of the American economy to the governments’ actions to devalue the dollar and suppress the gold price. While unknown to most Americans, gold is one of the world’s largest financial markets, trading over $20 billion USD per trading DAY on the London exchange alone.

The campaign’s last “Towne” Hall was well attended by many newcomers, and the next event open to the public at no cost is Monday, February 1, 2010 at the Bethlehem Township Community Center, 2900 Farmersville Road at 7 PM. (Details here.)

Towne is not endorsed by nor affiliated with the sponsor of HR 4248, Pennsylvania-born Dr. Ronald Paul. Paul also recently introduced HR 1207, a bill to audit the Federal Reserve – which has never been thoroughly audited since its founding in 1913. Towne successfully petitioned the incumbent Congressman for several months before he agreed to co-sponsor this no-brainer piece of legislation and hopes the same can be done here. (The incumbent’s fundamental lack of understanding on monetary policy is demonstrated in this question I asked at a town hall.)

January 21, 2010

Contact: Jake Towne

Email: TowneForCongress@gmail.com

Website: TowneForCongress.com

Full Page Article

Vote NO on H.R. 3962 (Health Care Reform) — Consider the 2010 Campaign

Let’s face it. We’re all tired of this health care reform debate. We know what’s at stake — an eventual complete government takeover of our health care system.

We know that the various health care reform bill price tags of just below one trillion dollars are all deceptive. Government health care programs always end up costing much more than initially advertised. And, as for the ten-year CBO estimates, the system is being gamed by starting the taxes immediately and phasing in the benefits later in the ten year period, not to mention separating the Medicare doctor payment fix (hundreds of billions of dollars in new costs) from the main health care reform bills.

Let’s call it what it is: socialized medicine. And, it’s not just the Democrats. Many Republicans are itching to give us socialized medicine-lite.

In light of the horrible fiscal situation our nation is in, it is utterly fiscally irresponsible to vote yes for one of these trillion dollar health care reform bills, such as the 1900-page H.R. 3962, which is currently being considered by the House.

Furthermore, in light of the rampant congressional disregard for constitutional restraints on the federal government, it is utterly irresponsible to vote yes on one of these bills, which would establish a huge, new unconstitutional activity of the federal government.

Bottom line, whether H.R. 3962 passes or not, how each congressman votes on it will be a top issue in the congressional election campaign of 2010. This is a good time to let your congressman know what impact his vote on H.R. 3962 will have on your participation in the campaign of 2010. This is ultimately the only leverage you have on your congressman. Use it!

Contact your congressman in opposition to H.R. 3962 via his DC and district offices by means of personal visits, phone calls, faxes, and emails. Debate on the House floor is expected to begin late on Friday, November 6; a vote is expected on Friday or Saturday, the 6th or 7th.

Click here to take immediate action by sending an email to your representative.

Thanks.

Your friends at The John Birch Society

Texas Straight Talk – A weekly Column
Rep. Ron Paul (R) – TX 14

During August recess, many legislators have heard an unexpected amount of discontent from their constituents about what is happening on Capitol Hill, particularly regarding healthcare. Some people are justifiably terrified at what the government could do to healthcare, should it get its claws even further into it. Others demand a public option for health insurance and are adamant that healthcare be treated as yet other absolute entitlement. One thing everyone agrees on is that the final bill needs to be read and understood by all legislators before a vote is taken. To any American, this is common sense. In Washington, that is unlikely to happen.

There is much confusion and debate over what is and is not in the reform plan being considered. Are there or are there not so-called death panels? What are the end-of-life consultations really for? How will private insurance be affected? Can you keep your current plan or will you eventually be forced into a government plan? Will it pay for elective abortions or not? What are the implications for medical privacy? The truth is no one knows what will be in the final bill until it is on the House floor, and provisions could be added in and taken out in the wee hours of the morning before.

In February, the House was forced to vote on an over 1,000 page “stimulus” bill that had first been posted on the internet just after midnight the morning of the vote. It passed. Then in June, House leaders rushed a vote on the cap-and-trade bill, even though an over 300 page “manager’s amendment” making substantive changes to the bill, was introduced shortly after 3:00 a.m. the morning of the vote.

Washington thrives on crisis. If enough people can be convinced that we are in an emergency, they will more likely tolerate rushing legislation to the floor like this. Last minute changes will be slipped in, benefitting who knows what special interests and at what expense to the taxpayer. But the mantra is repeated over and over: We are in a crisis. We must act immediately.

It should be unconscionable for legislators to vote in favor of legislation they have not had the opportunity to read. This is why I have re-introduced the Sunlight Rule, H.Res 216. The Sunlight Rule prohibits any piece of legislation from being brought before the House of Representatives unless it has been available to read for at least 10 days.

The Sunlight Rule allows citizens to move for censure of any House Member who votes for a bill in violation of this act. Because the Sunlight Rule could never be waived, any Member could raise a point of order requiring any bill in violation to be immediately pulled from the House calendar until it can be brought to the floor in a manner consistent with this rule. This rule does not require that Members read the bills. It merely guarantees the opportunity to do so. It has 4 cosponsors.

Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” The Sunlight Rule would do much towards negating the cycle of pseudo-crises and cleaning up the legislative process here in Washington. I sincerely hope this is the year Congress remembers its deliberative duties and passes it.

111th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 2629

To protect the American people’s ability to make their own health care decisions by ensuring the Federal Government shall not force any American to purchase health insurance.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 21, 2009

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

---

A BILL

To protect the American people’s ability to make their own health care decisions by ensuring the Federal Government shall not force any American to purchase health insurance.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Coercion is Not Health Care Act’.

SEC. 2. NO FEDERAL REQUIREMENT FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.

Participation in, or access to, any program of the Federal Government or eligibility to receive any benefit under Federal law shall not be conditioned on the purchase or maintenance of health insurance coverage.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON FEDERAL AUTHORITY.

No individual or agency of the Federal Government shall ever require any individual to purchase health insurance coverage.

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2630

To protect the privacy of patients and physicians.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 21, 2009

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To protect the privacy of patients and physicians.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Protect Patients and Physicians Privacy Act’.

SEC. 2. PATIENT RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS SYSTEM.

All individuals shall have the ability to opt out of any Federally mandated, created, or funded electronic system for maintaining health care information.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF STANDARD UNIQUE HEALTH IDENTIFIERS.

(a) In General-

(1) Section 1173 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2) is amended by striking subsection (b).

(2) Section 1177(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-6(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (1).

(b) Prohibition of Federal Expenditures- No Federal funds shall be used to support, encourage, or otherwise promote the use of standard unique health identifiers (such as those described in section 1173(b) of the Social Security Act, before the amendment made by subsection (a)(1)) in any Federal, State, or private health care plan.

SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT FOR SHARING INFORMATION FROM ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS.

(a) Limitation on Sharing Information From EMRs-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), no information from any electronic medical record maintained by a health care provider and created pursuant to a Federally mandated, created, or funded program may be shared with another health care provider absent a signed, informed consent from the patient involved.

(2) EXCEPTION FOR EMERGENCIES- Paragraph (1) shall not apply in a medical emergency.

(b) Limitation on Merger of Information- No health care information from an individual medical record shall be placed in a Federally mandated, created, or funded electronic system of health care information, absent a signed, informed consent from the patient involved.

(c) Definitions- In this subsection:

(1) INFORMED CONSENT- The term `informed consent’ means, with respect to the sharing of information concerning a patient, a written document certifying that the patient gives permission to such sharing of information.

(2) MEDICAL EMERGENCY- The term `medical emergency’ means any situation where the failure to provide immediate medical treatment or assistance could result in serious injury, loss of life, or both.

SEC. 5. PROVIDER FREEDOM FROM REQUIRED PARTICIPATION IN AN ELECTRONIC HEALTH CARE RECORDS PROGRAM.

(a) In General- The Federal Government may not require a health care provider to participate in any Federally mandated, created, or funded electronic system of maintaining health care information.

(b) Limitation- No health care provider shall be denied participation in, or otherwise sanctioned with respect to participation in, a Federal health care program because the provider refuses to participate in a Federally mandated, created, or funded electronic system of maintaining health care information.

HR 1866 IH
(Introduced in House)

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1866

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marihuana, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 2, 2009

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. CLAY, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. STARK, and Ms. WOOLSEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marihuana, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009′.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP FROM DEFINITION OF MARIHUANA.

Paragraph (16) of section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(16)) is amended–

(1) by striking `(16)’ at the beginning and inserting `(16)(A)’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(B) The term `marihuana’ does not include industrial hemp. As used in the preceding sentence, the term `industrial hemp’ means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.’.

SEC. 3. INDUSTRIAL HEMP DETERMINATION TO BE MADE BY STATES.

Section 201 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 811) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(i) Industrial Hemp Determination To Be Made by States- In any criminal action, civil action, or administrative proceeding, a State regulating the growing and processing of industrial hemp under State law shall have exclusive authority to determine whether any such plant meets the concentration limitation set forth in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (16) of section 102 and such determination shall be conclusive and binding.’.

111th CONGRESS 

1st SessionTo amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes.

 

February 26, 2009

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. KAGEN, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. JONES, Mr. REHBERG, Mr. POSEY, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. POE of Texas, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, and Ms. WOOLSEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

---

To amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes.

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

 

This Act may be cited as the `Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009′.

 

SEC. 2. AUDIT REFORM AND TRANSPARENCY FOR THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.

 

(a) In General- Subsection (b) of section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking all after `shall audit an agency’ and inserting a period.

 

(b) Audit- Section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

 

`(e) Audit and Report of the Federal Reserve System-

 

•  
  `(1) IN GENERAL- The audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks under subsection (b) shall be completed before the end of 2010.

 

•  
  `(2) REPORT-

 

•  
  •  
    `(A) REQUIRED- A report on the audit referred to in paragraph (1) shall be submitted by the Comptroller General to the Congress before the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date on which such audit is completed and made available to the Speaker of the House, the majority and minority leaders of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the committee and each subcommittee of jurisdiction in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and any other Member of Congress who requests it.

 

•  
  •  
    `(B) CONTENTS- The report under subparagraph (A) shall include a detailed description of the findings and conclusion of the Comptroller General with respect to the audit that is the subject of the report, together with such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the Comptroller General may determine to be appropriate.’.

A BILL

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

H. R. 1207