Our cowardly Congress was derelict of duty with Iraq.  They passed a resolution that shrugged their responsibility to discuss the who, where, why, and when a war was necessary to protect our national interest.  The cowards allowed this administration to take our country into war, without the declaration of war from the legislative branch as required by the constitution.  Now we are in a prolonged occupation with over 4000 American soldiers dead, and 900,000 civilians killed, since we destabilized the Iraqi government.

Have we learned nothing?

Pat Buchanan’s commentary, “Who’s Planning Our Next War?”  quotes Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, on his return from a June meeting with Bush. “George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term.”

Buchanan then questions, “Is it not time the American people were consulted on the next war that is being planned for us?”

Congress should stop Bush from ignoring the Constitution’s directive on War Powers.  Before they pass another resolution to unconstitutionally yield their power to the President on paper, or in a naval blockade, they should come clean with the American people.  Their discussion should clearly answer two questions: How does Iran threaten the U.S.?  And, how many Nuclear missiles does Israel have?

Upside-down mortgages. For those who are blissfully ignorant, an upside-down mortgage is when someone owes more money on their mortgage than the house is “worth.”

In other words, Mr. and Mrs. Nervous J. Panic decide, at the very height of the housing market, to buy a house for $500,000. A year before, the house was $410,000, and 5 years ago, it was $250,000 - but no matter, Mr. and Mrs. Panic are happy to buy the house for $500,000.

They’re enthusiastic, in fact, because in 5 years, the “value” of the house has doubled. Now that’s an investment anyone can bank on. In another 5 years, they’ll be sitting on a million dollars!

And it is a nice house. After all, it’s half a million dollars, ipso facto.

But then a year later, they go to refinance their mortgage because they’ve just discovered that their adjustable rate mortgage has somehow adjusted itself higher. That’s strange. Well, no matter…

But oh no! Their house is only “worth” $380,000! That rotten bank screwed them out of $120,000! What happened to their equity? Their investment?

Their in-house-retirement-account is gone!

Well, what the hell should they do?

Wait…I know. They should default. There’s no sense in throwing good money after bad, after all.

Okay. That’s fine. It’s not illegal to default on a loan. But here’s the problem:

A house is a place to live. It’s not an investment, and people who treat a house like an investment deserve to get burned just as much as the people who went waaay upside-down leveraging sub-prime mortgages. (Bear Stearns debt-assets ratio was 30-1)

So, if you don’t like a house at 500 grand - don’t buy it. Only your willingness to pay half a million dollars makes that asset worth half a million dollars. That’s how every single (legal) monetary transaction has ever transpired. The buyer agrees to the price.

A house is not a CD, a bond, a stock or a piggy bank. It can lose value, and even if it doesn’t, if you own the house for any period of time, you will end up paying a multiple of its value in taxes, repairs and other related expenses.
You wouldn’t default on a car loan because it’s not worth what you’re paying for it. And all cars lose value when you drive them off a lot - guess what - you’re upside down on your car loan within minutes.

Almost everything loses value once you buy it. There are few exceptions, like collectibles - but even the world’s safest savings account can suddenly lose value - and the FDIC only insures balances up to $100,000.

Now, you’ll likely start hearing about vastly generous plans from Obama and McCain on how to “fix” the problem of “hardworking Americans not being able to afford their own homes.”

There will be lots of calls for reform. And once again, it will be heartwrenching to hear about the thousands of Americans who have lost their homes. A little less so because the prices are starting to come back down to levels that make sense for someone like myself who still rents.

Bureaucratic overhaul never being a pretty sight, and always taking longer than desired, Matthews will propose a quicker partial remedy on our way to full tax reform. Upon election Richard Matthews will introduce and/or sponsor a bill in congress to exempt all military retirement pay from Federal Income tax. If any class deserves tax simplification and relief first it is our veterans.

This will have a multitude of positive effects:

But most folks probably don’t know how it got started.

I found out when I made a recent business trip to Jekyll Island - a small island off the coast of Georgia. It’s a remarkable place with lots of natural beauty, a great golf course and huge Golden-Age era mansions. They filmed “The Legend of Bagger Vance” there to give you an idea.

I played a few games of tennis on the best clay courts I’ve ever laid eyes on.

During the conference, my coworkers and I were treated to elegant multi-course meals, complimentary cigars and more single-cask bourbon than I would care to remember.

We stayed at the Jekyll Island Clubhouse, the original building where 7 men (one Senator and the 6 richest men on the planet) met - in secret, with fake names, no less - to lay out plans for the Federal Reserve.

Rational thinkers can disagree on the legitimacy of the Federal Reserve as it stands - whether it is “good” to have such an economic construct to regulate money supply by setting interest rates and governing financial policy.

Then there’s also the rational question of whether such a construct should be left to the whims of a strict democracy, or if its officers should be elected by a republican house and senate - or whether these officers should be appointed by the executive branch and then confirmed by the senate, or whether their names should be drawn from a national lottery.

In any event - the Federal Reserve Bank exists, and it doesn’t appear to be going anywhere, no matter how bad of a job it does. It’s THE bank in charge of economic policy. We don’t have any other banks waiting to take over.

The real problem, is that the matter of creation of this bank was completely illegitimate.

That’s a couched statement for most people, but one that even Frank Vanderlip - one of the framers of the Federal Reserve - agrees with.

He wrote an article 22 years after the fact, saying:

“If it were to be exposed publicly that our particular group had gotten together and written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever of passage by Congress.”

At the meeting, it’s said that 1/4 of the world’s wealth was concentrated in one tiny room.

I ate breakfast in that room several times, and it’s quite unremarkable - very reminiscent of any breakfast nook at any decent hotel in the world.

It’s amazing to think that the very central bank responsible for printing our money was started in secret, by the Federal Government by the world’s richest men, who would then be in charge of that central bank.

I’m not even going to try to come to any specific conclusions, because it’s such a mind blowing event that 99% of people probably don’t even know about.

However, it seems to me that this Government supported monopoly should be on the top of the list for any progressive movement that seeks “change” in government.

When misused, alcohol is still a deadly drug, and human weakness and disease enable alcohol to destroy families. We live in a society though, that strives to be free with minimal local regulations. The federal prohibition against alcohol became a prohibition against liberty.

Illegal drugs, or our government’s attempt to solve the problems resulting from these substances has affected many Americans. These substances known as “drugs” are not all equally dangerous. In the late 1960’s the anti-war, anti-government mentality was endemic, resulting in a popular anti-establishment statement of marijuana use. Medical marijuana is the easiest example of how liberty and common sense blend. Full drug legalization though, is the tough question. Drug laws against physically addictive substances may be necessary, but at the federal level? Constitutionally, the federal government does not seem to have this power.

As a father of four, and a grandfather of two, I understand the fear associated with raising families in this culture. Having practiced dentistry twenty-five years in Baltimore City, I have witnessed patients merely existing from one drug program to another. Any substance that disassociates someone from truth, whether it is alcohol or some other drug, is counterproductive. But, is it the Federal Government’s role to declare war on it, and is the war working? I would call for a study of how to transition from a federal war on drugs, to a system that would support liberties, protect our citizens, and encourage a sober populace. This should be a State matter, not Federal.

One interesting topic on the show recently was a civil disobedience event that they were planning along with the Free State Project activists. To protest hypocritical New Hampshire state laws against gambling they are going to hold an open poker game out side in a public area. This is intended to be a challenge to the local authorities to see if they will arrest the participants. They intend to challenge in court the laws against allowing members of the public to take wagers with each other, while simultaneously allowing the public to take wagers with the state in the form of the lottery. Even if they are not successful in court, they hope to point out the hypocrisy of the situation to the general public with any media coverage they may garner.

I applaud these Free State Activist in these activities. Seeing as we in Maryland live in the state that has as its actual official motto “The Free State”, is this a type of activity that we could emulate? What public civil disobedience type event might the liberty community suggest? Please comment below.

America’s policy on nuclear proliferation in Iran specifically, and Iran’s influence in the middle east in general, brings out the worst of American imperialist politics. First, America needs to step back from “pre-emption“. That is, the policy of invading or taking military action against a country we “think” might be planning to harm our “interests”. Pre-emption is a code word for imperialism. It means that we can attack anyone we think might be looking at us funny, as “interests” are so loosely defined as to make anything permissible. The only acceptable cause for using military force is to defend life or property of our citizens. Anything else opens up the slippery slope we have too often slid down, to our own peril and harm.

When a politician is asked, “Will you allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons if you are president?”, it would be refreshing and give hope for peace and freedom if the politician would answer “it is not my place, or the place of our country to decide who can have what weapons”. Unless we are currently at war with another country, we are overstepping our rights as human beings, when we presume to tell them how they can defend themselves. We are setting ourselves at a higher position, that of demi-gods or imperials lords, when we attempt to control others in such a manner. This is bad for freedom, bad for human dignity, and bad for our own souls.

Further, if one studies history, and understands why Iran and the United States are at odds today, one can see that the problem may not be intractable. Indeed, all the arguments made by our mainstream politicians regarding the sanity of the Iranian government and religious leaders totally ignores the fact that China, and Russia, and plenty of other countries are not terrified by that Iranian government. If Iran hated us for being Christian, or immoral (smut peddlers), or free, or whatever other imagined reasons Iran should like to kill us all, one who understands Islam, would have a hard time explaining why China and Russia and North Korea and all these other atheist nations, nations that one would think, based on their horrible human rights records, and their horrible records repressing the religious of any faith, are not at all worried about a nuclear Iran. This suggests to me that our problems with Iran are primarily political, that our terrible record in the middle east of supporting brutal dictators like the Shah in Iran, like Mubarak in Egypt, like Hussein in Iraq, like Fahd in Saudi Arabia, like Musharraf in Pakistan, like any number of others there and around the world, is a much bigger problem for our credibility and relations when dealing peacefully with Iran.

Perhaps, if our foreign policy met reasonable expectations and took reasonable actions, our problems with Iran would not fill us with such fear, but then, we would have to become educated about the bad things our country has done, in the name of its “interests”. That may be too much to ask of Americans, but without that level of introspection and decency, our nation cannot stand in the face of the hate we whip up against ourselves around the world.

Now, there are clearly lines we may one day have to draw, to defend ourselves from religious fanatics who will not rest until everyone is Muslim or dead. But that day is not now, and that battle does not have to be ours alone. That war is not inevitable at this time. Before we walk down that path to destruction, that lonely path, we ought to regain the credibility and moral highground by reforming our imperialist and immoral policies around the world. We need to stop pushing our genocide against non-white people around the world (stop pushing abortion and birth control on other countries), we need to bring our troops home from countries and regions they don’t belong in, such as Japan, Germany, South Korea, the middle east, etc. We need to stop supporting brutal regimes everywhere, indeed, we ought not be giving money to foregin police and military under the cover of the “war on terror” or the “war on drugs” or the war on anything else. That money is used by bad people to oppress and subjgate their populace. We need to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries and allow them to experience self-determination. We need to embrace our own ideals, and stop our mega-corporations from enslaving the peasants of the world, China must not be allowed to continue to enslave its population so that WalMart executives get richer. The way to stop this is not through more pre-emption, the way is through proper trade tariffs and trade policy and an American government that will educate its people to make the proper and honrable choices at the marketplace.

Short of this, we are on a march to war, indeed, we are on a march to destruction. One country cannot control the world, many have tried, they have all failed. Our history cannot be any different.

Originally posted November 12, 2007

This to me is a very simply explained concept and well written amendment.

In order to secure liberty it could be necessary for the people to defend it with arms from an enemy, foreign or domestic. In addition to the security realities of the day, I believe that the intent of the founders was to create the ultimate of the many checks and balances in the Constitution via this amendment.

There are of course many reasons for a free person to desire to own a firearm. Hunting is the cherished past time of many regions and families. Marksmanship is a sport of Olympic stature. Great enjoyment is found by those who collect and care for firearms. Of course protection of one’s home and the safety of one’s family is of paramount concern to many gun owners. All of the issues I listed are enough to convince me that our Constitution’s position on arms is correct. Free people, in the exercise of their liberty, should be able to do any activity so long as that activity does not conflict with another person’s exercise of their own liberty.

However, what is actually the substantive point of this issue and this cherished amendment, is that by allowing the citizens to remain armed this preserves their right to give consent to be governed. Without the clearly defined rights in the Second Amendment, the people lose the ability to rebel and therefore lose their ability to consent to be governed. Reductions of the strength of the Second Amendment via legislation is contrary to the revolutionary spirit of our nation’s founding. I feel those who signed the Declaration of Independence would look on with scorn at those who attempt to cheapen the significance of these concerns.

I am anxious to read the Supreme Court’s opinion in District of Columbia vs. Heller. Regardless of that opinion and its affect on the regulations of the states, I will not vote for any additional Federal regulation of firearms if elected to Congress and will work to rescind the majority of those on the books.

- Richard Matthews

Originally posted February 8th, 2008

Candidate Matthews thinks that the mission(s) in Iraq have been accomplished. “We have verified that there are no weapons that are threatening the security of the United States, we have toppled a dictator, and now is the time for us to step out of the way and let Iraq become a sovereign, independent nation.”

The Matthews campaign feels that the Democratic incumbent in Maryland’s Second District C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger can be commended for voting against the “surge” in Iraq in early 2007. However, his stated position of a “Perimeter Plan” does not help protect the security of the United States. As quoted by Ruppersberger on his Congressional website from January 10th of 2007 –

“Changing the mission of U.S. forces, redeploying them to perimeter areas, and lowering the profile of the U.S. forces in urban areas will break the dependency the Iraqi military has on U.S. forces. Our ultimate goal is to bring our men and women in uniform home. I believe this change in strategy will help us do that.”

Matthews states, “A plan to move troops to perimeter areas does nothing for the security of the United States. With our goals accomplished in Iraq our presence on their soil can only be seen as an occupying force, no matter how benevolent our intent may be. Active military occupation will, of course, cause radical elements of any society to target their occupiers. To only move our forces into safe compounds on the outside of urban areas is a move that would yield little, if any, positive result.

“Complete removal of our forces from Iraq as soon as safely feasible, and neighboring countries shortly following, is the plan of action I advocate. I plan to vote only in this fashion upon my election to Congress in 2009. Six years of war is enough, 3960 U.S. Solders dead is too much. Redeployment of many of these units to protect our own borders rather than inside Iraq’s is what I support.

Originally posted February 14th, 2008

For further information about Richard Matthews and his campaign for Congress in Maryland’s Second District please see www.richardmatthews.org or e-mail info@richardmatthews.org.

Liberty loving individuals can donate to the Matthews Campaign online at www.richardmatthews.org/donate. A donation to the Matthews for Congress Campaign Committee is a donation for a strict adherence to the Constitution of the United States of America.