I Propose an Experiment

Been pondering keeping everyone involved (16,000 volunteers, as Eric the Wag put it). I think we HAVE to give everyone something concrete to do before July. We sure can't afford to let Congress off the hook that long!

I'd like to try an experiment that may prove useful. If it works, that is. I propose we organize a quick, small protest on one or two specific subjects at one congress-critter's office. Say a limit of 50 people at the event (or whatever the number is that doesn't trigger the requirement for a permit). If we can do such mobilizations, then we can enlist the rest of you Tea Party folks to "advertise" them for us. What I envision is that before the protests, those not going flood the media with calls asking them to cover the event and telling the media that we are limiting the number of people physically there, but that they should to count them as having been there, too. Then, during the protest, those not going make calls at the same time as the demonstration to both Senators and their congressman, saying "Count me in as one of the people now outside congressman so-and-so's office!"

For the single subject of the protest, we could use two items. First is the Hate Crime law now being considered, H.R 1913. Go to this link: http://www3.capwiz.com/afanet/issues/bills/?billnum=H.R.1913&congress=111, which is part of the American Family Association (AFA.net) and read up on the bill. The danger here is that they are on the way to turning your free speech into a Federal crime. You know what happened to Miss California...now imagine a prosecutor with an attitude having the power to haul you into a kangaroo court for saying the same thing. THAT IS WHERE THIS LEADS. Seriously! They have huge problems with this very sort of thing up in Canada.

The second subject would be a protest of the actions of Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson over what they did to the Bank of America. They bullied the CEO into hiding the fact that Merrill Lynch had massive losses from his own stock holders. They threatened to fire him if he didn't break the law! I propose we demand congressional hearings on the matter, with witnesses testifying under oath.

What I like about this idea is that we'd be going after Republicans who sold us out and lead the way for the massive abuses that have followed. We're non-partisan, right? That means we go after Republican turkeys, too! Should we later be giving a Democrat heck--we can point to this event. That helps ensure our credibility in the future.

Below are extracts from two articles on this subject. Check them out and give it some thought, please:

One Nation, Under Banks With Justice for No One: Jonathan Weil Commentary by Jonathan Weil

April 27 (Bloomberg) -- The spectacle of Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson running roughshod over Kenneth Lewis and his minions at Bank of America Corp. raises a pivotal question for all Americans: Is the U.S. a nation of laws, or a nation of banks?

Let's start by examining the facts disclosed last week in a letter by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, while taking pains to present the actions of each player in this drama in the fairest possible light. Both Bernanke and Paulson in mid-December knew Bank of America was obliged by statute to publicly disclose the huge losses Merrill Lynch & Co. had racked up that month. You don't get to be chairman of the Federal Reserve or, in Paulson's case, secretary of the Treasury or head of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. without learning this basic tenet of U.S. securities laws. Instead of making sure the public was fully informed of the losses before Bank of America completed its purchase of Merrill on Jan. 1, they did all they could to keep the secret safe.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_weil&sid=aXHVu97lAGjs

and . . .

Mr. Lewis has told investigators for New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo that in December Mr. Paulson threatened him not to cancel a deal to buy Merrill Lynch. BofA had discovered billions of dollars in undisclosed Merrill losses, and Mr. Lewis was considering invoking his rights under a material adverse condition clause to kill the merger. But Washington decided that America's financial system couldn't withstand a Merrill failure, and that BofA had to risk its own solvency to save it. So then-Treasury Secretary Paulson, who says he was acting at the direction of Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, told Mr. Lewis that the feds would fire him and his board if they didn't complete the deal.

Mr. Paulson told Mr. Lewis that the government would provide cash from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to help BofA swallow Merrill. But since the government didn't want to reveal this new federal investment until after the merger closed, Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke rejected Mr. Lewis's request to get their commitment in writing.

"We do not want a disclosable event," Mr. Lewis says Mr. Paulson told him. "We do not want a public disclosure." Imagine what would happen to a CEO who said that.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124078909572557575.html

This will be on the agenda for the Sunday general meeting.