The Anti-Federalists

The Peace To End All Peace

2010-02-27T13:08:00.002-06:00

It has been quite a while since I have posted anything, but I must give a simple short review of a book that Lew Rockwell personally recommending to my reading.

I asked Mr. Rockwell what I should start with regarding the shaping of the Middle East; more specifically the impact of the Treaty of Versailles on the modern world.

His response, "Start with the especially relevant, A Peace To End All Peace, by David Fromkin."

So I have now finished it and it has been incredibly enlightening.

I must recommend everyone read this book. I am following it with Europe's Last Summer: Who Started the Great War In 1914, by the same author.

For those political junkies out there who are concerned with foreign policy and the current situation in the Middle East, I would say that you must read this book to come to a more full understanding of how the great world powers have shaped what is now considered mostly enemy countries.

Do yourself a big favor by buying and reading this great book, A Peace To End All Peace.

Local Media Embarrassed By State Sovereignty Resolution

2009-10-25T21:17:00.006-05:00

After reading the editorial, Time marches on — but backwards (Wed. Oct 21) in the Paris Post Intelligencer (subscription may be required), one should question the use of intelligencer in the name of this paper.

Given the editor’s affinity for arguing for more government power, one should not be too surprised at which side of the fence the editor is on, but the numerous “state sovereignty” bills and resolutions (more on that later), cannot be boiled down to “backward” opinions and petty partisanship.

Sure, these are partly in response to a Democrat administration and many of these so called “states’ rights” folks were nowhere to be found during the dismal years of Bush/Cheney when they should have been making noise about No Child Left Behind, Faith Based Initiatives, and the Patriot Act, etc.

But still the issue cannot be discredited by painting it as silly Republican agenda and backward thinking. The reader need not miss the hypocrisy of labeling this as mere partisanship.

The state sovereignty issue is not small potatoes. When the anti-Federalists were holding out, it was the bill of rights that got them on board. The tenth amendment did not state anything new in the Constitution, but was a recapitulation of the document’s limit on federal government power along with the ninth amendment.

Furthermore, the editor’s examples of abuses are not idiotic. They are legitimate abuses. One should find humorous the patronizing rhetoric that the author employed…

“the concept of state sovereignty is a noble one. The constitution takes pains
to limit the powers of the federal government, and those powers reserved to the
states should be protected diligently.” (emphasis mine)

…then go on and mock legitimate petitions of redress. The author is basically paying “lip service” to the Constitution while scoffing it in ideology.

The tenth amendment reserves ALL powers to the state or to the people except those which are expressly given to the federal government by the Constitution or prohibited to the states by the Constitution.

Minimum wage? Not a power given to Uncle Sam.

Healthcare? Again, not even addressed in the Constitution.

Have part ownership in any business? Really? Engels and Marx would be giddy with delight, but nope no Constitutional authority here.

Regulating emissions on my car? You might make a huge stretch of the “general welfare” clause and come up with a measly and still unwinnable argument.

As for the horribly inaccurate statement regarding Alaska being the only other state that has “joined in the effort to rein in federal powers,” it takes a simple web search and a little bit of current knowledge to find that this is horribly misleading.

I am sure that the author was only referring to states that have actually signed this into law as only Alaska and Tennessee have, yet he should not get a pass for semantics.

As of October 1, 2009, state sovereignty resolution have passed both houses in Louisiana, North Dakota, Idaho, South Dakota, Oklahoma, (those are awaiting the respective governors’ signatures) and the aforementioned Alaska and Tennessee.

These same resolutions have been passed by one (or more) houses in Texas, Ohio, Mississippi, Indiana, South Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Michigan, and Arizona.

Nearly every other state has introduced similar resolutions awaiting action. In all, 37 states have introduced state sovereignty resolutions. Of those only three have failed to pass as of October 1.

And while the editor is ashamed that his home state has (at least in rhetoric) reaffirmed its sovereignty, it is long overdue. Perhaps the media and pundits along with the power hungry on the hill should be the ones with bags on their heads.

The real question that begs to be answered, though, is will the state stand its ground?

My guess is no.

The GOP's Shallow Fight

2009-08-23T09:33:00.003-05:00

After eight years of Bush, it seems that Chuck Baldwin was right. The “conservatives” are getting their fight back. This is in reference to Baldwin’s article back in 2008 speculating that a Democratic victory might just be good for the “conservative” movement as it would get them out of their chairs and cause them to express an iota of passion regarding politics.

Though it would see that during the eight years of Bush the only movement among the visible GOP was leftward.

Here in August of 2009, though, a renewed vigor can be seen, a fight against Socialism and this new Chairman, er…President. The fuse? Healthcare Reform.

With this, all of the nation’s problems are being heaped upon the Democrats whether they caused it or not. Among the Republican voters that I have spoken with, they seem united to put all the blame on the Democrats for the housing mess. It is a fact that there were calls to more closely monitor Fannie and Freddie by key GOP members while Franks and Dodd consistently said there were no problems with Fannie and Freddie.

Also a fact is that it was under the Clinton administration that the housing initiative began, Clinton himself signing it into law in 1999, which sought to increase home ownership to lower income folks.

These facts cannot be disputed, but the GOP is not immune to such scrutiny in the housing sector either. It was in one of Bush’s addresses to the nation that he declared that it was in his administration that more people "own their own homes than ever before" (never mind the fact that very few people owned their own homes).

Central planning under Bush, though, is as much a culprit as the liberal housing bill. The easy money philosophy of Greenspan and Bernanke had as much or more to do with the bubble that formed.

Now that Bush is out of office, though, the GOP is on the warpath to fight the wickedness that they refused to or else could not recognize in the prior administration. The code word is Socialism.

Healthcare reform was picked as the fighting line back in the primaries when so much was said by Obama and his colleague H. Clinton on the subject. Why though? Is the socialism of healthcare so much different than the socialism of No Child Left Behind?

Or why has the conservative base not attacked Medicare, Social Security or unemployment and disability taxes? Or how about public education in general?

The conservative movement has no teeth because it is always only a few years behind the left. It has no credence because it argues against Socialism while fully supporting it in other areas.

A serious discourse among GOP supporters needs to take place in order to resolve these issues. Why is socialized medicine unnecessary and evil, but public education, Social Security, Medicare, farm subsidies, FICA, unemployment, etc. are necessary and righteous?

All of these examples entail taxing (read stealing from) individuals in order to redistribute to other sectors or more evenly among the sectors from whence it was confiscated.

In short, it would seem based on the evidence, that the GOP is fighting this not because they are against socialism, but because they are against the Democrats. The same could be said of the Democratic supporters in regards to the Republican administration’s bailout of the financial sector and AIG.

The GOP, known in times past for its Christian values, should heed the wise words, “Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:5)

If You Read Only One Book On Economics...

2009-05-09T01:18:00.005-05:00

For a few worthless fiat bank notes you can get a wealth of knowledge on the current economic collapse from Austrian economist and senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute...
Thomas E. Woods.

This book takes all of one extended evening to read, but is a must read for those interested in the REAL reasons for the “current economic downturn” and contains all that one needs to prepare himself to refute the silly Keynesian arguments for more government intervention.

Woods nails this one down in laymen’s terms giving absolutely no one any excuse whatsoever to neglect their own education in regards to real economics.

He takes on the various fallacious reasons why the recession has happened and exonerates the bogeymen that the media and government officials tend to accuse while showing that centralized government planning is the culprit for all “booms and busts.”

The book…

Meltdown: A Free Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse.

Scrape up the money and order it now, then pass it along.

The Unintended Consequences of Political Pandering

2009-05-02T12:27:00.002-05:00

Texas governor Rick Perry may very well have been pandering to the crowd at a recent event in which he invoked the political philosophy of secession, but supporters of states’ rights are lauding his rhetoric at least.

The subject has been popping up a lot more lately. If one cares to remember the smear that Todd and Sarah Palin received for their involvement in the Alaskan Independence Party, they would note that in a sense, Pandora’s Box was opened.

Now considering the twenty two states that have resolutions in their respective states being considered reaffirming Article X of the Bill of Rights (Tenth Amendment), the subject is becoming more commonplace and a bit less controversial among the masses.

The media, though, has not been so kind and ironically so. Many have demonized Gov. Perry and the various independence movements as unpatriotic and treasonous. Funny thing is that under the same enumerated Bill of Rights that call for state sovereignty, there is a really popular article endearingly dubbed “freedom of the press.”

As to the allegations of being unpatriotic, one would assume that these idiots could connect the dots between the current desire of a people to peaceably disassociate themselves from an overgrown federal government that legislates nearly every aspect of their lives from afar and a people in the 1700’s who had a desire to peaceably disassociate themselves from an overgrown monarchy that legislated from afar.

One must ask these conformist, these statist…One must ask them with a hint of sarcasm, with the confidence of being much more intelligent and coherent than said statist…He must asked them, “Who the hell do you think the patriots were?”

Never-the-less, there will always be Loyalists who rush to defend Leviathan.

The good news is that those who favor states’ rights and reject the current system of government are usually much better informed than the antithesis. Furthermore, the breech of the subject itself allows for those of superior intellect to be more flagrant in their conversations about the subject.

The fact that what was once thought by the populace as being settled in 1865, is again becoming controversial to the point that all of the Royalists feel the need to openly condemn it and call for those involved to be ostracized and possibly charged with a crime is a great sign. It means they are taking it seriously.

So Governor Perry, in your sincerity or in your lack thereof, you have furthered a cause that is most primitive and basic to the history of these nation states and requisite in the determination of the authority of the state OVER the federal government.

Chains You Can Believe In

2009-05-02T11:37:00.003-05:00

There must have been a spelling error in Obama’s campaign slogan. Either that or what he meant by change was that after he is elected he’ll change his policies.

Just this morning, the New York Times (that bulwark of journalisic integrity known for its cutting edge editorials; satire inserted)reported that the Obama administration is second guessing their decision to close Guantanamo Bay.

I am sitting here wondering what radical changes are in the works. By change I had assumed that Obama would insist on moving the country in the opposite direction that it was heading in the Bush administration, yet, he has only taken up Bush’s policies more aggressively.

Take the economy for example. The Bush administration pursued a hardcore Keynesian economic policy of formidable government intervention in the marketplace and personal lives of Americans.

Obama’s idea of change…?

Pursue the same policies much more aggressively. All the while Americans seem divided on which despot to support. The Obamanites can point to no clear changes that Obama has instituted or plans to institute. The Bushites really cannot say anything after the last eight years of King George W.

One may attempt to point to Obama’s promise to end the war in Iraq, yet even if he withdraws the US occupation of this sovereign country, it would be a purely semantical argument to insist that this is any kind of change considering the fact that he is merely transferring military might from one front to another (Afghanistan and Pakistan).

I believe the campaign slogan referred not to change, but to chains. Samuel Adams spoke of these same chains when he said so well…

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may your posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

The "Crime" Tax: An Introduction

2009-04-13T06:20:00.000-05:00

Financial punishment of the “criminal” and the requirement of them to pay “court costs” sound pretty catchy to the democratic totalitarians of the state. The general mood is that those who break the “law” should have to pay for the system that provides for “justice.”

Of course the majority of Americans would go along with this as it is in fact so seated in the mob rule mentality. But then, Americans have lost all capability to reason the dangers of this program.

“Why,” one might ask, “should law abiding citizens be required to pay for the trial of alleged criminals?” It was not very long ago that the author had the same ignorant mindset, but reason thus finally prevailed.

Many will cower back from the author’s insistence that the financial obligations of the justice system should be born by the collective society in which said justice system operates. Folks will also scoff at the idea that punitive damages (fines) should never be awarded to the state.

To understand why, one must understand the nature of rulers and recognize what is going on across America.

The general thesis would be that the state makes a handsome profit derived through “enforcing laws.” There are some big problems with this. The first would be that the state will be tempted to make more activities illegal, punishable by fines and court costs. Another pitfall here is that if certain crimes were eradicated, then the state would be cutting its revenue from that crime therefore why eradicate the problem.

There are actual examples locally of “law enforcement” seizing “alleged drug proceeds” without charging the suspect with any crime and letting them go on their way.

Anyone that is oblivious to the fact that personal liberty has suffered at the hand of the civil magistrate must be blind or extremely ignorant of his surroundings. (And probably quit reading this already.)

One need only look as far as the various licenses required by the state to participate in otherwise lawful activities! Like working, marrying, traveling, hunting, etc, etc. The list is endless. This has been dealt with briefly in Rights License.

When the government decrees that an activity requires a license, what they are in fact saying is that the activity is itself illegal. Surprisingly enough, the state does not even mask the reason certain activities are licensed.

There are two types of licenses. One is regulatory or one that the holder obtains by proving his ability to safely perform a certain activity (contractor’s license). The other type is called a revenue license. This is a license that’s only function is to provide for the revenue of the state. One may rather call it extortion. (See the author’s appeal to the state about this here.) How this is different than the cosa nostra, one can only wonder.

As to the nature of rulers, anyone with a mustard seed of historical appreciation will be convinced that rulers tend to become despots when unbridled by the people.

Still some pragmatists and statists may object to paying for the trials of the alleged criminals. To the pragmatist, there is nothing to say that will change his mind for he is not principled enough to stand for any idea until he, himself, is the direct victim of such pragmatism. To the statist, what can be said? Criticizing the system is akin to blasphemy.

To those, however, that are truly concerned about liberty and justice, this is a subject that should shed light on the motives of the state. It should also worry you particularly in these times in which municipal revenues are on a sharp decline due to a decline in sales tax receipts, income taxes, various licensing and fees revenues, and property taxes. (Interestingly enough the author’s property taxes increased this year as the property assessor is apparently unaware of plummeting real estate prices.)

Given the current “economic crisis,” one can be secure in the fact that the state will be looking for ways to makeup for these losses. What better way than telling the comatose electorate that more legislation is needed for various make believe problems and that in order to curtail and deter certain activities like eating unhealthy foods, using tobacco, putting your own safety at risk, working without an employer, marrying, etc. Those who partake of such activities should be penalized further. (Make your checks payable to the state, of course.)

Of course the taxes and licensing will not end here. The state sees its electorate as potential revenue. And as has been stated, as the past revenue sources dry up, they will be finding other untapped sources. Of course, they always have their “war on drugs.”

Why the Evangelicals Have Lost the Pro-Life Battle

2009-04-06T17:13:00.003-05:00

For some time I have desired to address the philosophical inconsistencies of the modern evangelicals' views on abortion. I will begin by stating that there are very few consistent "pro-lifers" out there. I will go as far to say that probably around 90% (or greater) of the conservative Christian population (I exclude the liberal christians who have embraced homosexuality, female pastors, etc.) is actually pro choice while claiming to be pro life.

The problem arises when they add that little clause, "except in cases of rape or incest." In those cases, they are ardently pro choice. When addressed, the argument for abortion always includes a thirteen year old girl raped by her evil step uncle. The Christian is quick to allow for choice of termination in such cases.

Funny thing is, they have picked the most repulsive imaginable scenario to justify their newly acquired pro choice stance.

Now here I must interject that I will not be so presumptuous as to claim that this would be an easy situation, nor will I pretend that I would be ho-hum about it, but any other attitude would undermine the whole argument that pro lifers use.

How can one claim that abortion is the murder of a person, yet justify it on these grounds?

The best way I can address this is to quote from Scripture. I would hope Christians would yield to God's Word.

2 Kings 14:6Yet he did not put the sons of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the LORD commanded: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins."

Now here we have a mandate that the civil magistrate is not to punish the children for the sins of the father and vice versa.

The civil punishment for rape is death, yet our culture does not even exercise that, while Christians are eager to allow for the voluntary execution of the child, though. How can this be? I would on one hand argue ignorance, but I would suppose this would be naive. I should think it would more accurately be described as pragmatism and autonomy.

So the challenge to Christians is to yield to Scripture. The battle cannot be won through compromises and cannot be won while Christians are themselves pro-choice.

Render Unto Caesar....?

2009-02-04T18:00:00.002-06:00

I thought this article was interesting coming from LRC. In it the author attempts to deal with the “Render unto Caesar” quote that so many Christians use to legitimatize their undying support of the Leviathan state.

Being unaware of some of the historical aspects, I must say that it seems that he has dealt with it well, particularly by asking, “What is Caesar’s?” Kudos to Paul McDade for putting this into context for me some time ago by stating unequivocally . . . “God says what is Caesar’s, not Caesar.”

Peter the Prognosticator

2009-01-26T19:08:00.002-06:00

My good friend and old hunting partner Greg Linville sent me this interesting article on Peter Schiff from Fortune 500.

While he does get some kudos, there is a subtle anipathy toward bears. . . I think.

Take a gander.

Who Knew?

2009-01-26T18:55:00.002-06:00

Who knew that the federal government made $20 billion off of the mandated switch from analog to digital?

I did not until tonight when Heard it on News Hour with Jim Lehrer. As of now, I have no link to support this, but as the report indicated, the government auctioned off the digital "signals" and "earned" around $20 billion.

I have been wondering the whole time why this was a federal government issue, now I know. . . REVENUE.

More Power To The Fed?

2009-01-26T06:29:00.002-06:00

The headlines read,

"Fed may win sweeping financial oversight
Some worry plan would give central
bank too much power."

Can the central bank really have too much power (satire)?

Look on the bright side maybe this will hasten the empire's demise.

Just Another Day For Politicians...

2009-01-08T15:40:00.002-06:00

Dr. Nathan Hoeldtke's thoughts for the day:

"John Edwards ran for president while his wife was terminally ill and he was fathering a child with another woman. Governor Blagojevich openly invited bribes for Obama's Illinois senate seat, even though he knew he was under criminal investigation. Eliot Spitzer enjoyed numerous encounters with prostitutes after spending years criminally prosecuting others for the same activity. And Charles Rangel, the man who serves as chairman of the committee that writes the tax code, "forgot" to pay taxes on his Dominican Republic property for 20 years!

And people are always talking about Christians being hypocrites! The arrogance exhibited in the above panel is breath-taking to say the least. . . (and they are all Democrats--but maybe that's just a coincidence)."

As always, thanks Nate.

Right Again

2008-12-11T19:00:00.001-06:00

A while back Peter Schiff was blasted by another economist and a Cavuto show fill in host (who could generally be classified as an ass for the way he spoke to Mr. Schiff) for suggesting that the inflation numbers were false.

As we have seen before, though, Schiff is right once again. Here Jim Jubak reports the "breaking news" that Schiff suggested a few months ago by saying

The official inflation number is so misleading that it played a huge role in creating the tech stock bubble that broke in March 2000 and in the leverage bubble that broke in 2007.

Still, though, Peter gets no love.

Wow, Fred!

2008-12-11T19:00:00.000-06:00

A good friend sent this video to me this past weekend and I was astounded at Fred Thompson on the bailout. I will say, however, that it seems the blame is being laid on the liberal politicians as opposed to the so-called conservatives. Still it is extremely entertaining.

Thanks Nate.

Walter Block Tears Into Loyola College Maryland

2008-11-18T20:19:00.002-06:00

This may be a long read to some, but it is well worth the time.

Block who is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, gave a lecture at Loyola College in Maryland and fills us in on the "controversy.

Again, this is a very entertaining piece that you will enjoy immensely.

Why Immigrants Voted Obama

2008-11-16T17:09:00.005-06:00

In a recent column in the Tennessean, Saritha Prabhu tells us that America's newest voters identify with Obama. What she means by this is that immigrants from other cultures with newly acquired voting privileges are helping to shape modern America.

Little did I know that my first U.S. presidential vote would be in a historic race.

In early November 2006, about 60 of us immigrants stood in a Nashville courthouse and took the oath of citizenship. It was a disparate bunch, from different corners of the globe. One woman in a sari, obviously from India, smiled at me from across the aisle, perhaps in silent acknowledgment of our common national origin.

Fact is, if Obama was an "other," so were millions of new Americans. The country's demographics are changing, with rising numbers of the foreign-born, the brown-skinned, the biracial, and those in interracial marriages.

Millions of these people probably saw in Obama a piece of themselves. I know I did. As an immigrant who moved from one culture to another, who has evolved into a hybrid over the years, and who has a still-changing identity that is part Indian and part American, I could relate to Obama's story.

I couldn't keep myself from responding.

It is an ignorant and extremely gullible stance to think that the "other" is the better. It is in fact no different than what the "conservative" base does when voting. It gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling that you and other newcomers from other cultures get to shape our culture and help decide our national direction (satire).

This is yet another good reason to reject the false doctrine of "universal suffrage." When you, Prabhu, make a larger consideration for this "nirvanian" world of multiculturalism by the acceptance of a black skinned leader at the expense of Constitutional liberties, you are no different than those who still defend the Bush/Cheney doctrines. (By the way, I have no problem with a black skinned president if they can honestly take the oath of office and defend the Constitution.)

What makes this article that much more offensive is that you are a new citizen telling us how great things are going to be. It is a bit demeaning to those of us (no matter how few) who side with the anti-Federalists, when someone comes in and starts telling us how wonderful this great new leadership will be that is just as tyrannical as GWB was with a blatant Communistic twist.

I can do nothing more than I have to stop this trampling of constitutionalism, but I will lambaste those who come in like carpetbaggers and use a public forum and their so called "right" of suffrage to facilitate change in a manner completely unhealthy to the form of government that these states adopted and entered into voluntary contract thereof.

With all this being said, I would like to reiterate the opening...Only the ignorant, unlearned, gullible, mentally incapable of critical thought and logical reasoning believe that the "other" is the better. Perhaps this is the real reason that we are in the condition that we are here after eight years of Bush (thanks to your counterparts who lean right of left) and now as we top the hill of "progressive-ism" and see the Constitutional constraints of government completely vanish in the rear view mirror.

God save us from ourselves.

Man Jailed For Illegal Couch?

2008-11-15T16:08:00.004-06:00

Where in the world might one be arrested and sentenced to 93 days of jail for having a couch on a lawn? Why right here in America of course.

Keene, New Hampshire resident Ian Freeman has been arrested by local authorities and tried in a private courtroom for refusing to remove a couch from his yard.

Patten claimed that he cited Freeman after receiving a complaint. Freeman said he would remove the couch if given an opportunity to speak to the original complainant, “like an adult, instead of calling in men with guns.” The city refused and demanded he come to trial Friday, where he was jailed for contempt almost immediately.

While some may find this to be a trite example of standing up for one's rights, I find it to be a good example of how horribly stupid our "laws" and court proceedings have become.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

2008-11-11T06:23:00.002-06:00

It is becoming more and more common for folks to accept their position of constantly proving to the authorities that they have not broken any laws. The State has been making “laws” for years that have subtly done away with the assumption of innocence.

The particular laws cannot coexist with the particular liberties. One or the other must cease existence.

Sadly few people even notice when these tyrannical laws are passed or when they are even directly affected by them.

Take for example the Tennessee law that requires every driver to carry proof of insurance. You cannot have this law and the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

One must pay close attention to the laws to see how legislators have made it the responsibility of the citizen to prove his innocence. Perhaps the most aggressive example of this comes from the IRS in the form of tax audits.

They announce to the taxpayer that they will be investigating them for tax fraud only they call it an audit. It does not sound so bad that way. Also, by not calling it an investigation, they feel as though they need no evidence of wrongdoing or reasonable cause for suspicion.

The next step for the IRS to take in convicting you is nothing. It is up to you to prove your innocence. Of course everything you say can and will be used against you, but remaining silent in this case is “illegal.” Refusing to address these warrantless charges void of any evidence makes you “guilty.”

In short it is an inquisition. All of these laws become that. When stopped for speeding or not wearing a seatbelt, one may also be charged with other crimes if they cannot prove on the spot that they have not broken other laws. Unless there is some reasonable cause to suspect that one is driving without a license or without insurance, then the officer has no authority to fish for such offenses.

But they do and Americans capitulate.

This idea goes along with an earlier post about the State redefining rights. They are the ultimate wordsmiths and they will do as they please with laws in the name of the “common good.” The problem is that they have no authority to pass such laws.

A former law cannot be canceled out by a new law unless the former is repealed. The former takes precedence in this case. So when the officer asks you if you have proof of insurance, you might ask him if he has proof otherwise. It is not in the authority of the State to require from the people constant proof of not breaking the laws.

Perhaps it is the desire for tranquility; non confrontation? Perhaps Americans have forgotten their fathers’ fight over lesser grievances than today. Whatever the case may be, it is becoming a sad situation when one does stand up to unlawful authority and the masses condemn him. The maxim of Americans has become, “We must comply.”

Innocent until proven guilty is no longer applicable here and apathetic Americans are as much to blame for this as a corrupt government.

Now in closing, some readers might think that this is all trite, unworthy of provocation. To you the author declares two things. First, government is a monster that gets bigger and harder to control the more it “eats.” If you are unwilling to at least speak out against this now, then you are contributing as stated above.

The second declaration comes not directly from the author, but from a man who has witnessed the battle in its various stages. He was a man that has gotten in some cases a bad reputation as an agitator. After all, according to modern standards, he was in fact an agitator, though some still call him a Patriot.

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may your posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” --Sam Adams

It's All Palin's Fault?

2008-11-06T19:58:00.004-06:00

Funny thing how the GOP is looking for reasons that Obama won the election and not McCain.

Rather than key in on a the last eight dismal years in which we have seen the Constitution shredded by a Republican administration (no doubt with help from the other wing) or the fact that they ran the most liberal possible candidate this term, they look towards the ill experienced Sarah Palin.

There are a number of reasons that one could pick for the loss, but the author cannot believe that it is because of the Veep choice. More accurately in his humble opinion it is because the GOP has fallen so far left of center, that moderate Republicans see no real difference in who they vote for.

Of course, according to Dr. Nathan Hoeldtke, and others, race had something to do with it.

But really, for the GOP to pick on Mrs. Palin is outright ridiculous. Even if her lack of experience and some reports of her alleged ignorance regarding not just foreign policy, but the difference between nations and continents had something to do with the loss, it should fall squarely on the GOP's shoulders; more particularly the idiot(s) that picked her.

She was a strategic choice, but she's no saviour. There is a very real possibility, though, that despite her akwardness in some situations and the fact that she is unqualified for the position, she gave new "conservative" life to an otherwise dying party garnering a few votes that otherwise would have gone third party or not been cast at all.

Still, there are far too many greater reasons that are staring them in their face, but the GOP cannot see the forest for the trees.

That's right guys. Keep looking. You'll find it eventually.

Maybe?

Nah, probably not.

November 4, 2008: The Day Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Dream Died

2008-11-06T19:43:00.003-06:00

While I am in no way a fan of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a good friend and fellow anti-Federalist sent me his take on the election. I have my own doubts about his affections for the doctor, but he has some very interesting things to say about Obama's election. Without further ado, Dr. Nate Hoeldtke. . .
___________________________________

The reader glancing at the title above will be forgiven if he thinks that
the writer mistakenly believes that John McCain won the presidential race. Indeed, this probably would be the title of some pundit’s essay if John McCain had won the election. Certainly there are many this day who think that the election of Barack Obama is the realization of that very dream. But just the opposite is the case. In a perverse way the election of Barack Obama marks the death of Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, rather than its realization.

What was that dream? It consisted of many things, but it boiled down to this: “I have a dream that my . . . children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

On November 4, 2008 we saw a nation which judged a man more by the color of his skin than by the content of his character.

There were those who were going to vote for any liberal Democratic candidate that the party would put up. These are not the voters of concern. There were many others who weren’t so predisposed. What about them?

We saw a population with skin colored black, who voted for a man with skin colored black in unprecedented numbers. This included many men and women who claimed to be conservatives, but who left off any confidence they had in ideas and voted for an extremely liberal man based on the color of his skin. The more honest among them admitted that skin color was the basis upon which they were voting. In this was exhibited a spirit of tribalism and clan adherence of the highest order.

We saw a population with skin colored white, who suffering long under the “white man’s burden,” voted for a man with skin colored black. Their burden has been the guilt they have felt for the past sins of those with white skin color, which were committed against those in the past with black skin color. Instead of feeling guilty for their own sins they have found it more convenient to feel guilty for the sins of those who went before them. It is Biblical to acknowledge and confess the sins of our fathers, and even to acknowledge that those sins can affect the children. But the guilt of those sins belongs solely to those who committed them, not their descendants.

Nonetheless, many suffering under this false “white man’s burden” were giddy to salve their consciences by voting for a man with black skin color. They were eager to do penance and demonstrate that they aren’t racist. They were willingly to overlook glaring character flaws to make this point by their vote.

In each of these instances, the black man in a show of clan support, and the white man seeking to absolve his guilty conscience, the voters were judging by skin color.

On the other hand, we can see that this great mass of voters couldn’t have been judging him by the content of his character. For the content of his character is unknown and questionable at best, or objectionable and wicked at worst.

From time immemorial it has been universally acknowledged that a man is known by the company he keeps. Let us look at the company Obama has kept.

First up: Jeremiah Wright. A man who preaches black liberation theology, which embodies a hatred of whites (judging them by their skin color) and wraps Marxism in theological language. In Jeremiah Wright’s case this theology also encompassed anti-Semitism. Obama sat under this preacher for 20 years. He chose to have his children baptized by this man. He chose to have his children hear this preacher Sunday after Sunday. What is the character of a man who so willingly exposes his family to a man who judges others on the color of their skin? Who rails against Jews? Finally, when the radicalness of this man’s ideas became undeniable Obama said he didn’t know that this man believed or taught these things. Either Obama pays so little attention to his surroundings (for 20 years!) that he isn’t fit to lead a dog down the street, or he is lying. Nobody believes the former, so it must be the latter. Then when the pressure became overbearing, he disassociated himself from Rev. Wright, revealing expedience as his modus operandi.

Next up: William Ayers. A man who was involved in the bombings of the Pentagon, a police station and the private home of a judge. One who has never apologized or repented for these domestic terrorist actions and who even recently expressed regret that he didn’t do more. A man who dedicated a book to Sirhan Sirhan, the assassinator of Robert Kennedy. Barack Obama sat on a board with this man, started his political career in this man’s living room, and endorsed one of his books. When initially asked about the relationship, Obama said he was just a “guy in the neighborhood” that he knew. When the pressure became more intense, he then said that Ayers had done these things when he, Barack Obama, was 8 years old. Further, he said he was working with Ayers on educational projects, on which he agreed with Ayers. What is the content of the character of a man who overlooks such heinous acts, never repented of, because he admires a man for his educational ideas? This is similar to a man becoming friendly with a Nazi concentration camp guard, who after a day of beating and killing prisoners, comes home, pats his dog on the head, hugs his children and kisses his wife. When asked why one would have a friendly relationship with such a monster the man replies, “He’s such a wonderful family man!”

How about Rashid Khalidi? Tony Rezko? The list could go on. . .

Obama is a man who has espoused policies that entail taking the private property of one man to give it to another man. This is stealing, whether done at gun-point or by the power of government. What is the character of a man who would use his power to take what belongs to one man and give it to another?

Perhaps the truest test of a man’s character is the way he treats his family and those who are most vulnerable within his sphere of influence.

While Obama raked in millions of dollars he gave away only 1% of his income before he decided to run for president. Meanwhile, his half brother continues to live in squalor in Kenya, subsisting on one dollar a month. No help has come from Obama.

Planned Parenthood concentrates its abortion clinics in minority communities and a black woman who is pregnant is 3 times more likely to have an abortion than a white woman who is pregnant, a situation that Jesse Jackson once rightfully called “black genocide.” Yet Obama has praised Planned Parenthood and pledged to them radical pro-abortion actions on his part as president.

When Obama had a chance to vote in Illinois to ensure that infants born alive during a late abortion attempt would be treated with the same care as any other infant, he was the sole state senator to speak out against the bill. This same bill, virtually word for word, passed unanimously in the United States Senate, by liberals and conservatives alike. No one else was cold-hearted enough to speak out against the care of a living, breathing human being, outside the womb. What is the content of the character of a man who sets himself so markedly against the most vulnerable charges within his care as a state senator?

Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., says, “For those who suggest that Barack Obama advances the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I say look again. His politics are anathema to the dream!”

It is no small irony that a black man who has absolutely no connection, familial or otherwise, to American slavery, is seen by many as a savior who will lead us to the Promised Land. But everything about his choice of comrades, his words and his prior actions suggest that he is a collectivist who will instead lead us into a new slavery to the State. Unfortunately, Dr. King’s dream must remain in the ether, for we cannot yet together rightfully sing, “Free at last.”

___________________________________

Thanks Nate!

Rights License

2008-11-03T19:45:00.000-06:00

What is a privilege? What is the difference between rights and privileges. These are questions that Americans should know the answer to, but sadly too many do not even care. The citizens have relinquished all rights not knowing or not standing up for rights that they did not choose to exercise.

The State has found a new source of revenue in licensing rights. It is simple. They redefine rights as being privileges granted by the State. They have become gods to themselves granting men privileges to do such things as work, marry, travel, bear arms, etc., etc.

It seems the greater part of the population is eager to go along with such tyranny. In Tennessee, one is required to have a business license in order to be self-employed. This was particularly disturbing to me when I received a letter from the state requiring me to get a license to work for myself.

My simple argument was that God commands men to work and so the state cannot possibly require man to be licensed for doing what God commands.

I further stated that it was completely against good sense to require me to get a license for "making good use of one's self." (While the welfare roles are neither taxed nor licensed, I am required to pay tribute to the State so that I can be a productive member of society?)

I made these points to my state senator along with the fact that the Tennessee does not have the authority to license rights and starting a business or simply working without an employer is as basic a right as breathing.

It was one of the few times that I have not received any correspondence back from a politician, but lo and behold, I never received another letter from the state!

The pervasive problem that has arisen with governments is that they have redefined terms. One may find examples of this at every turn. Perhaps the worst lately is the new definitions of "terrorists."

In redefining words and dumbing down the Constitution, the State has cleared the way for all sorts of legislation. The rights that the governments have declared to be privileges are far too many to list here, but folks need to start opening their eyes and choosing a few battles. If every "sole proprietor" would refuse to get the business license, the State would have to address the grievances and declare their outright tyranny or capitulate.

If citizens would address the "handgun carry license," as a right rather than a privilege, then folks could arm themselves for protection for free. Seems like having the tools to defend one's self should be a basic right, doesn't it?

The problem that has occurred is that folks have become complacent. They are unwilling to stand up against government for fear of being labeled unpatriotic, while ignoring that the real Patriots did just that!

It is important to understand that when a license is required for an activity, the activity is illegal. At the point that the state "gives one permission" in the form of a license, it is then legal for the holder of the license to perform the activity.

Simply put, working is not illegal. Fishing in a boat with a motor is not illegal. Harvesting animals for food is not illegal. Becoming a nurse, lawyer, doctor, surveyor, contractor, etc. is not illegal.

But the requirement of a license from the state makes all of these activities and many, many more illegal. In fact, there are very few vocations that have not been licensed.

It is time for this madness to stop. But it will not unless people DEMAND it. It cannot be stressed enough that tyrants never, ever, EVER relinquish power!

It is going to take an educated society to stop this business of redefining rights. It starts with every single person who is aware of what is going on. Without educating others and standing up to the various levels of government, we should expect to see this not only perpetuate, but multiply.

Business License Tyranny

2008-11-03T18:25:00.008-06:00

Here is a letter that I wrote to Senator Roy Herron, my state senator in Tennessee pertaining to the business license. It goes along with the upcoming post.

The Tennessee General Assembly authorizes counties and municipalities to levy a privilege tax, that is, a tax for the privilege of operating a business in their jurisdictions. All counties with the exception of Clay, Morgan and Macon levy the tax. Incorporated cities can also impose the tax. This tax is based on a percentage of sales or gross receipts in succeeding years. If your company operates in several different cities or counties, you would be liable to each city or county based on sales or receipts accumulated in each location.[1]

Senator Herron,

I have met you on one occasion in the past and admired your candor and desire to hear the voice of your constituents. I was also given the impression that you are a Christian man and well respected in many places. I believe that it would be safe to assume that being a Christian, you are aware of your position of authority that God Almighty has placed you. So it is with great respect and expectations that I appeal to you for your fervent consideration in the matter before you. The people of this district have entrusted their liberties to you and you being “God’s minister for the good of the people” have the lawful duty to execute justice when enacting laws and to put down all forms of tyranny and injustice by repealing laws. I do not say this with a mindset that you are ignorant of this truth, but only to establish it between us. I would hope that this appeal is received with all of the respect due to you and that I address you as God’s minister for good. It is also my prayer that God will direct your steps and that His Word will be instructive in your position as lawgiver.

I do not think that there are many people in this state that are aware of the implications of the above stated “law.” Upon receiving a letter from the state of Tennessee instructing me to get a business license, I was somewhat confused. I did not understand the necessity of this. I had in an instant gone from employee to self-employed and did not see really any distinction in the two. Upon studying the matter more closely, I was in disbelief that Tennessee legislators believed that it actually is a “privilege” to “make profitable use of one’s self” (self employment). I do not want to be presumptuous and making flying accusations that the state had a need of more revenue and thus enacted this legislation, but I can think of no other reason to license a man’s labor even labeling it a revenue tax. I am sure, Mr. Herron that you had no part in this because I believe that this was enacted before you had occasion to vote against it. I do not believe any godly man would ever enact this legislation.

Firstly, it is against liberty altogether to insist that self employment is a privilege as opposed to a right or a duty. Men are commanded by God to work, to take dominion over the earth by using their labor for the building of God’s kingdom. Theologians call it the Dominion Mandate. Thus, there is a mandate by God requiring us to be industrious. This is the Lord’s authority. It cannot be said however at this point that we can be industrious as long as we are all employees, because the scenario is impossible unless the state becomes the employer for all. Without the self employed there is no employee. The employee relies on the self employed always. The inverse is not necessarily true for the self employed may or may not employ other’s labor. So in this first case the legislators that enacted this have “licensed” something that is not in their honorable power to license, that being a duty commanded by God.

Secondly, it is a great injustice to levy taxes on one certain group of people, their labor, and their property. Am I less of a citizen than the employee or the vagrant even? I think humbly that you would say emphatically, “NO!” Jesus asked Simon, ‘“What do you think Simon? From whom do the kings of earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?’ Peter said to Him, ‘From strangers.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Then the sons are free.’ ”[2] Taxation of a certain group is a confirmation of their position in society. What reasoning did the legislators have in enacting a law so repugnant to equality of citizens?

Thirdly, to expect the godly citizen to recognize the state as the provider of such “privilege,” is to ask Daniel to bow before the golden idol. Daniel refused to recognize the king’s authority over what God has claimed for Himself. By asking the state for permission to be industrious a man is admitting the authority of the state in such matters. God has claimed this authority and though He has given us lawful authority to minister to us (civil magistrates), it is God who determines what is Caesar’s and what is His. Christians are to be subject to all lawful authorities.[3]

“But in that obedience which we have shown to be due the authority of rulers, we are always to make this exception, indeed, to observe it as primary, that such obedience is never to lead us away from obedience to Him, to whose will the desires of kings ought to be subject, to whose decrees their commands ought to yield, to whose majesty their scepters ought to be submitted. And how absurd would it be that in satisfying men [we] should incur the displeasure of Him for whose sake [we] obey men themselves! The lord, therefore, is the King of kings, who, when He has opened His sacred mouth, must alone be heard, before all and above all men, next to Him we are subject to those men who are in authority over us, but only in Him. If they command anything against Him, let it go unesteemed.”[4]

This is not to say that the Christian may revolt from any authority that infringes upon Christian liberty, but that at the point in which he must acknowledge the state as having authority that God has not given the state, he be compelled by God to humbly disobey.

Fourthly, that the state constitution has forbidden enacting of such laws in two sections. Article 1, Section 8 states, “No man to be disturbed but by law.--That no man shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land.” This section presupposes that the law cannot abrogate our inalienable rights to life , liberty, or property (or privileges). Except by proven guilt of law breaking can any of these rights be destroyed. The presupposition is that the legislation (whether state or local) cannot make a law that voids any of these. Given that employing oneself to the end of prosperity, charity, etc. is commanded by God and is an unalienable right, not only does the state not have the authority to make laws that infringe on this right, but it does not have the authority to redefine the duty in terms of a privilege granted by the state. This is the point at which the state has trampled its own constitution and worse claimed what is God’s. It would be no different than imposing a license for life and enforcing it by death.

It would be absurd to allow this to mean that the future law can be construed as to ruin liberty. This section is to secure against all courts, laws, and authorities and citizens the people’s liberty except in such cases that a person forfeits his liberty through crime. To make liberty a crime, though, subject to ruin for the breaking of that very “crime” (liberty) is preposterous.

Article I Section 3 says, “Freedom of worship.--That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever by given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.”

I call attention to first our right to worship God Almighty and further that in the worship of Him, “that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.” It should be against every Christians’ conscience to acknowledge the state as the authority by which we derive our mandate to work and prosper. It is emphatically against my conscience and that of my fellow churchmen alike.

I do not have any desire to make any brawl out of this. I would at one instance rather submit and go on living peaceably, but the Lord corrects me in this. I acknowledge God Almighty alone in my duty to be industrious. I beg of you your consideration in this matter and that your instruction would be from God’s word and that the Lord would give you wisdom. I know that this is no small thing to bring before the House as a repeal item, but you have been called to a great task in that you are a “lawgiver,” a minister of God. To neglect this issue is to stand firm behind the state’s claim that it creates law apart from God thus bringing judgment upon yourself and the land. “Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.”[5] It is God who says what is His and what He entrusts to the civil magistrate. I pray that I am faithful in obeying Him in this. It is with a humble character that I lay these things before you in hopes that they will be faithfully considered by a Christian man and I thank you for your meditation on these things.

Damon Crowe

[1] Additional Tax Information (2005). Retrieved 2005 from
http://tn.gov
[2] Matthew 17:25, 26.
[3] Romans 13:5, 6.
[4] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: 1536 Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 225.
[5] Matthew 22:21.

Christian Conference on Economics

2008-10-28T06:26:00.002-05:00

Christ Reformed Presbyterian Mission is hosting a conference on Economics this weekend. Apologies for not getting this posted any sooner although this has been in the works for months, even before the global market crisis.

Dr Tom Rose has a long and distinguished career as a leading proponent of
Christian Free Market Economics. He is professor Emeritus of Grove City College
in western Pennsylvania. Tom is author of two economics textbooks for senior
high and college level courses used in schools across America: Economics:
Principles and Policy, and Economics: The American Economy. Both textbooks use
the Bible as the benchmark for judging economic principles and theories. His
other titles include: Free Enterprise Economics in America; God, Gold, and Civil
Government; Reclaiming the American Dream by Reconstructing the American
Republic; and How to Succeed in Business.

Friday Oct 31, Nov 1 & 2 2008

Featuring Veteran Economist, Author & Professor Dr. Tom Rose

At the Paris EconoLodge Lafayette Building

Highway 79 North, Paris, Tenn.

Free Admission
Refreshments provided
Book table available

Sponsored by Christ Reformed Presbyterian Church

Conference Schedule:

Friday Oct 31, 2008

6:45 pm The Importance of Biblical Economics

8:00 pm God's Design for Free Market Economics and the Opposition

Saturday Nov 1, 2008

10:45 am An Economic History of these United States

1:30 pm Political Manipulation: Understanding What is Happening

2:30 pm The Basics of Personal and Family Economics: Children, Labor, Land, and Wealth

5:30 pm Hayride, chili, and hotdog roasting at the home of Pastor McDade

Sunday Nov 2, 2008

10:00 am Sustainable Economics: Surviving Economic Resession and Worse

11:00 am Regular Worship Service and Sermon by Pastor McDade – The Choosing of Magistrates

Sunday Worship will be at the Paris Seventh-Day Adventist Building 2331 Hwy 641 North, Paris, Tenn.

For more information, post questions or comments below or feel free to email me.

A MUST Read

2008-10-23T06:45:00.001-05:00

I do not have time to tease you with any quotes, just go here and read the whole thing. I will update later today.

Subsidizing Lead Balloons

2008-10-22T22:20:00.004-05:00

With the economy in shambles some look to more government intervention as the solution. The buzzwords are jump start, rescue, stabilize, stimulate. The word they are looking for is subsidize.

Subsidies come in many sizes and shapes. Most (if not all) social programs (which are sometimes given the horribly wretched misnomer, entitlements) could be lumped into this general category. There does seem to be a difference, though, in the government’s stated motivation behind subsidies.

On one hand, there are subsidies that are a misguided (not to mention Socialistic) attempt to “level the playing field.” These usually come in the form of social welfare. The theory is that the government has the responsibility to maintain a minimum living standard for every single individual in its boundaries. (Increasingly the boundaries are disappearing as the U.S. moves toward globalization of social welfare.) The subsidy of the welfare state is the wage for failing, be it by slothfulness, poor economic decisions, or simply the inability to “make ends meet.”

Then there are subsidies which are “necessary” for the survival of the collective citizenry which includes the one probably most talked about; the farm subsidy. The government tells us it is essential to prop up the farm and that if we do not, folks will starve.

Recently Congressman Randy Kuhl (NY) told John Stossel in a one hour 20/20 special titled, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics that if we did not have farm subsidies, people would starve for lack of jobs (i.e. if farmers failed at farming, then they would starve for lack of employment).

Why has farming become an occupation very nearly impossible without the crutch of the taxpayers? It is not as though these “endowments” catch the shortfall on the occasionally horrible year. The same farmers receive these subsidies year after year after year. (For detailed information about various state and local farm subsidies, visit http://farm.ewg.org/sites/farmbill2007.)

The reader should see the theme developing. Government subsidies in nearly every form are the salaries for failure.

So too is the “bail-out” of Wall Street and the bankers. What D.C. should learn from subsidizing lead balloons is that they attract a lot of lead balloon manufacturers. The banks in question are part of that elite group that is deemed too big, too important to fall. This Emergency Economic Stabilization package is nothing more than another subsidy.

Considering the perpetuity of all “temporary” subsidies, it should be no shock that this is only a continuation of former Wall Street bail-outs. Nor should it surprise the reader when another multi-billion dollar rescue is in order.

Why Uncle Sam Will Never Get Out of the Stock Market

2008-10-21T18:20:00.003-05:00

This is Bill Barr's (not to be confused with Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate) latest submission on Leviathan in the markets.
___________________________________

Uncle Sam will never get out of the stock market.

That would be because of the political class in imperial America, spiritual descendants of the Praetorian Guard. Remember them? Highly politicized, they were the special force of bodyguards in Rome which finally quit pretending and just auctioned off the emperor's job from the steps of the Senate.

Count on it to happening here within the lifetime of your children.

"Historically, politicians are loathe to give up power they managed to steal. Indeed, it is my hunch that from here on out, whenever a sector starts to dip below 'acceptable' levels, they too will have their hand out and the government foxes will be only too happy to guard the sector's hen house." Attorney Sandra Hamilton makes this shrewd point in her blog at lewrockwell.com this week.

Moreover, "When businesses have the ability to force the government to steal money from the people to give to them if they fail, you get businesses that are incredibly risky", she discerns. Accordingly, "what benefit do you have (in) being a carefully well-run company?" Hamilton goes on to demand.

In this era of Crony Capitalism, Hamilton underscores that "Lehman Brothers was not well connected" at all when compared to rival investment bank Goldman Sachs. Thus, we find a clear moral to the story.

Crony Capitalism, born from the union of plutocracy with the managerial revolution, means that lucrative investments in securities are made by the investors who "know which of (the) companies has the most political connections". That's the only way to realistically hope for a return on your money in "a game where the rules change hourly", Hamilton concludes, pointing out the indispensability in government "reform"--changing the rules when the wide boys want them changed.

Ms. Hamilton is too reserved to say it, but is this very incestuous promiscuity, this financial interconnectedness, not the indispensable element in our political and economic system? And without it, would the global economy lie revealed as a house of cards?

--William Barr (Katy, Texas)

______________________________

Thanks again Bill!

Where's the Encore?

2008-10-17T19:00:00.002-05:00

I am dying to see these two interviewed together again now.

For six years Peter Schiff has been predicting this and in this interview from 2006, he makes Art Laffer look like a complete fool.

The Difference Between a Terrorist and a Secessionist?

2008-10-16T10:33:00.002-05:00

Here is Bill Press of C-Span showing his ignorance of the political philosophy that shaped early America.

Sure, just ask Lincoln. Forget about the fact that this nation was built on the right "to alter and abolish" a government that no longer is a minister to the people. With our legislators' approval rating in the SINGLE digits, what could possibly be so radical about secession.

Here is an idea. Perhaps the real terrorists are those who have abandoned the Constitution, make laws and pass taxes contrary to common sense and the voice of the people, send thousands of our soldiers all over the world to die, be maimed, or occupy other countries while telling the citizens of the States of America that we are stuck with D.C. and there is no way out.

Financial Coup d'etat

2008-10-15T07:43:00.004-05:00

In a recent email, I ask some friends about the possibility of us experiencing a financial coup. Many countries have experienced military coups which are generally very obvious what with all the shooting, but a stratagem spread out over several generations may not be quite as obvious.

Some attribute the possibility of this happening to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 and while I see this as one of the major steps in such a process, I believe the ball was dropped when Lincoln usurped his Constitutional authority in 1861 and called for troops to "preserve' the Union, thus setting precedent for ignoring Constitutional constraints.

Some may even point back further to the writings and influence of the Federalists and the central banking ideas. (At least during the time of the Federalist papers, the states still had the choice to ratify or not.)

Either way one looks at it, though, I would suggest that we have seen the total takeover of the state via the economy.

Dictionary.com defines coup d'etat as, a sudden and decisive action in politics, esp. one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.

One must acknowledge the immense amount of corporate influence in the federal government. This influence is not confined to the financial sector, though. To understand this, the reader need only look at the public positions that are held by former execs.

Goldman Sachs is a prime example of this. Henry "Hank" Paulson, Treasury Secretary, left his position as CEO of Goldman Sachs to accept the nomination the Federal Reserve Chairmen. It should be noted that the Federal Reserve board has most recently approved the transition of GS from an investment bank into a commercial bank giving them more access to "emergency" loans.

GS alumni have or do hold various public positions such as White House Chief of Staff, state governor, three Treasury Secretaries, U.S. Trade Representative, and Deputy Secretary of State to name a few and that is just Goldman Sachs!

One could go on and on if he were to look at each corporation.

This is just one area in which government is affected by corporate interests. One other that cannot be left out is the fact that so many of these execs are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations which becomes the means of access for the private interests of corporations into the state.

Thomas Jefferson warned us that the establishment of banks is more dangerous than standing armies and that the "central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution."

Now here we are in 2008 and not only do we have a central bank, but through the inflation of currency we are seeing the establishment of banks through direct investment by our government. One should look no further for proof of the coup d'etat than H.R. 1424 (Emergency Economic Stabilization Act). It did not matter that it was unconstitutional and individuals overwhelmingly made their opposition known to their respective Representatives.

We are now more than ever considered resources for the state. The coup has occurred, make no mistake about it.

The Group of Thirty

2008-10-14T06:08:00.005-05:00

By now most of us have heard of the Council on Foreign Relations and their influence on foreign and domestic policy here in America. For years critics have warned about the CFR's clout in Washington and abroad because of the diversity of the private "club."

Considering the amount of media, government, military, educational, and corporate involvement both here and abroad in this elite group, one should be suspect of whose interests are being pushed across the President's desk to be signed, but many more able bodied persons have written good critiques on the CFR, Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderbergs.

I intend here to hopefully get some discussion going about another group of elitists that wish to affect economic/monetary policies here and abroad. The common theme lately among them is globalization.

While researching some of the Federal Reserve board members, I stumbled across what is known as the Group of Thirty (G30). G30 is an "international body composed of very senior representatives of the private and public sectors and academia." One may not think this is so bad until the thirty man roster is studied closely.

Rather than take up every single member and publish something that will not be read due to its length, I will mention only a few of the group's members beginning with Paul Volcker, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees. Mr. Volcker is best known probably as the Chairman of the Fed from 1979 to 1987. He is also a former economist and later vice president and director of planning at Chase Manhattan Bank.

Volcker also played a large part in the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system in which currency could be exchanged for gold. Not surprising, though is that Mr. Volcker is a member of the CFR and the North American Chairman of the Trilateral Commission (TLC). He is also a long time associate with the Rockefeller family. Currently (and you cannot make this stuff up) Paul ADOLPH Volcker is economic adviser to Barack HUSSEIN Obama. [1] (It should here be noted that some of the information on membership in the CFR and TLC may be outdated as I have found no recent roster. The roster in use is from at least a few years back.)

Another member that should be looked at with skepticism is Jacob Frenkel.

Jacob Frenkel (Chairman, G30) is an Israeli born economist who was formerly the Director of Research at the International Monetary Fund (IMF). He also served for nine years as the governor of the bank of Israel. Perhaps (in light of recent events) the most interesting of Mr. Frenkel's "credentials" is his position at AIG. Yup, the same AIG that got bailed out. Mr Frenkel currently serves as Vice Chairman of AIG and is a member of the CFR. [2]

I think is has become quite obvious that we have conflicts of interests here in great detail. If you care to scan the list of G30 members do some research, you will find that there are a myriad of agendas represented here by all of these "international" insiders all rubbing shoulders with the government and government "entities."

Hopefully a dialogue will emerge about G30 and more able bodied men will take up a critical look at this group and its significance in policy making and legislation.

Perhaps I will later look at a couple more G30 members. For now, I leave you with this.

They Told Us So

2008-10-07T15:36:00.003-05:00

. . . but they were wrong.

They told us that this bailout was absolutely necessary to "jump start" the economy. They told us if this bill (H.R. 1424) did not pass then the market will plummet. They told us that this would "save" us.

Of course, many of us still opposed it and petitioned our representatives to vote against this unconstitutional bill.

Two market days later the drop AFTER the passage and signing of said bill is equal to some fear mongers' estimates of what it would do if it was not passed. Approximately 8%.

Now I am sure that things could turn around (for a short time) due to MORE government intervention, but the point is the expediency of this wicked bill.

Perhaps more folks should have been listening to the Austrian economists that were warning us all along of the impending crisis. They are the ones that have spoken the truth in the matter and yet they are still met with great derision.

The Austrian school also told us the bailout will not work because it is the cancerous government intervention that got us here in the first place. They are the ones that told us so.

So why are Americans putting up with this. Hopefully they will not, but my guess is that they will continue to "condone" the treasonous behaviour of their leaders by casting their votes for the same or equally treasonous men in November.

They told us that this would be best for America; a necessary evil, but as Levon Helm said in Shooter, "they also said that artificial sweeteners were safe, WMD's were in Iraq, and Anna Nicole married for love."

Greenspan's Evolution

2008-10-06T21:51:00.003-05:00

There was a time in Alan Greenspan's life that he had something right. That was before he got to Washington. It has been years since I read Franklin Sanders (read his story) say something about an early publication by Greenspan about the gold standard.

I finally got to looking for the article in mind. I cannot say that this was what Sanders was referring to, but it is very interesting.

In 1966, Greenspan wrote Gold and Economic Freedom which was published in Ayn Rand's Objectivist. After advocating fractional reserve banking, Greenspan goes on to declare the benefit of the gold standard.

A fully free banking system and fully consistent gold standard have not as yet been achieved. But prior to World War I, the banking system in the United States (and in most of the world) was based on gold and even though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free than controlled. Periodically, as a result of overly rapid credit expansion, banks became loaned up to the limit of their gold reserves, interest rates rose sharply, new credit was cut off, and the economy went into a sharp, but short-lived recession. (Compared with the depressions of 1920 and 1932, the pre-World War I business declines were mild indeed.) It was limited gold reserves that stopped the unbalanced expansions of business activity, before they could develop into the post-World War I type of disaster. The readjustment periods were short and the economies quickly reestablished a sound basis to resume expansion.

Even more telling was Greenspan's take on the causes of the Great Depression. In essence he blamed it on the Federal Reserve's issuing (read printing) of money.

When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve's attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable). The reasoning of the authorities involved was as follows: if the Federal Reserve pumped excessive paper reserves into American banks, interest rates in the United States would fall to a level comparable with those in Great Britain; this would act to stop Britain's gold loss and avoid the political embarrassment of having to raise interest rates.
The "Fed" succeeded; it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world, in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market, triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930's.

According to Greenspan, the gold standard got the bad rap in this particularly from the "welfare statists."
In closing, Greenspan drops the bomb shell considering how he ran the Federal Reserve himself.

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.

This is a short read that everyone should take a look at. Greenspan KNEW what was going on and continued it flagrantly. Remember, he said these things in the 60's then turned around and implemented the exact same policies to the detriment of Americans.

No Vindication For Lincoln

2008-10-05T00:57:00.005-05:00

Some will say or do anything to maintain Lincoln's iconic image as the greatest president and emancipator (perhaps even saviour). David Gordon, a senior fellow at the Mises Institute has written a great critique to another secesh detractor. Thomas Krannawitter's book, Vindicating Lincoln: Defending the Politics of Our Greatest President deserves critique. Gordon points out some of Krannawitters inconsistencies and errors.

Can Krannawitter be ignorant of the fact that Darwin did not discuss human evolution until The Descent of Man in 1871? Perhaps the passage was a trivial slip, that only a reviewer intent on blood would highlight. But several pages later, Krannawitter rides again: "In the antebellum South, religious thought incorporated the ideas of Hegel and Darwin to provide a potent defense of slavery that was well received by many Southern whites."

Gordon goes on to discuss at length Krannawitter's Royalist views. Krannawitter, despite what the real patriots did in the first war for American Independence, believes that a people do not maintain the right of secession. Gordon notes,

However critical of Krannawitter one may be, one must be grateful to him for one admission: "In many ways, Lincoln's legacy hinges on the question of whether states did in fact possess a constitutional right of secession. If they did, then virtually everything Lincoln did as president was illegal at best, immoral at worst. If Lincoln had no legal power and no constitutional duty to maintain the Union against secessionist movements, then Lincoln might well deserve the title "war criminal" … and should be viewed with contempt."

He got that one right, but as has been noted, Krannawitter believes that the Union was perpetual and no right to secede exists. One major problem that some of these folks have is that they cannot explain the anti-Federalists' demand of exact limitations of federal government evidenced particularly in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions penned by Jefferson.

Krannawitter has ignored an important fact that undermines his contention. Precisely in order to rebut the anti-Federalist complaints that the new government unduly subordinated the states, the Federalist defenders of the document in the Virginia Ratification Convention of 1788 were anxious to assure opponents that if the federal government infringed on the prerogatives of the state, the state would not be bound by these actions.

It would be absurd to assert (especially considering the immense amount of evidence to the contrary) that the men who won their battle for independence from an oppressive government would create a new government void of these same philosophy of the "right to alter or abolish."

Buying Toxic Paper With Toxic Paper

2008-10-04T00:37:00.004-05:00

Does anyone else find it ironic that this economic mess that has been created by the government and the Fed is going to be fixed by the same guys using the same procedures used to get us here.

Think about it carefully. We all know that our currency is the proverbial emperor's new clothes. It is a "note" that has no real value. It is bad debt, toxic paper if you will.

The Fed and the central government are proposing to "buy up" bad debts using dollars(bad debt). It would seem to be a pretty even trade except that they will place a value on each dollar created (lower of course than the previous value due to monetary inflation) and require us to pay that back somehow. The result is a governmental collection agency subsidized by the taxpayer.

Uncle Sam will give us the responsibility to come up with the shortfall on their bad "bailout" investments directly, while indirectly we will have a much less valuable dollar to use for this shortfall. Pretty soon $700 billion becomes $7 trillion.

Representing WHO?!

2008-10-03T23:57:00.007-05:00

Earlier this week many rejoiced (myself included) that Congress voted against the Senate’s Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. Congressional phone lines and inboxes were jammed by folks opposing this bill.

The bill, after all, has a plethora of problems beginning with it being unconstitutional. Many economists have also come forward opining that it cannot work. Taxpayers realize that they are going to foot the bill and are aware of the impending inflation that will most definitely be a result of printing so many greenbacks; a proven result from former years of monetary injections and corporate bailouts.

One might think that if a bill were proposed in Congress that was unconstitutional and an overwhelming majority of a state’s citizens were so opposed to it, that the Congressmen might be inclined to represent the people and uphold his or her oath of office.

Not so with John Tanner (8th District TN). No, Congressman Tanner seems to either think he knows what is best despite the aforementioned economists’ statements or he does not care what the Constitution or his individual constituents say, but rather helps those (corporations and central government) that will “help” him.

Constitution be damned, citizens be damned. He’ll do what he wants to. The same can be said of Tennessee’s Senators also.

Now before anyone accuses the me of being partisan since tanner is a Democrat, let it be said that this bill was pushed hard by a Republican administration hoping to be seen as a messiah just before the November elections. Not that the sister party does not intend the same thing.

The optimism faded Friday, October 3, when Congress passed this bill and King George signed it into “law.” What could have been different about this bill that would win over the key Republican and Democratic votes pray tell?

Apparently DC has an insatiable appetite for pork. Presto! The bill passes. With the amount of riders inserted into this bill, one may never know exactly what swayed these dignified [satire] representatives. Could it be the “increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands” or possibly the “seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility." It could even be the “tax incentives for investment in the District of Columbia."

To this last option a fellow may posit that he has already invested more than he would like in the District of Corruption and seen no gains. Would a nation continue to put these same men in public office or would they desire better? I hope the latter.

My Letter After The Bailout Vote

2008-10-03T16:10:00.001-05:00

Congressman Tanner,

I have just finished checking the roll call vote for H.R. 1424 and I am sorely displeased with your flagrant disregard to the Constitution and to your constituents; the citizens of Tennessee.

You, sir, are a traitor to this state and I hope to see your exit from Congress very soon. You have done your part to sell your constituents into financial bondage more so than we already were. The damage that this bill will do to us and to our posterity is reprehensible.

I look forward to the day when a truly great man will take your place.

Damon Crowe
Cottage Grove, TN

Yankee Welfare and Other Musings.

2008-10-01T16:54:00.003-05:00

Here is another commentary by Mr. Bill Barr on some of the current events. Do notice the Yankee heating oil subsidy. It still baffles me that the South would like to leave such a wonderful compulsory union (satire).
________________________________________

How does the establishment work in this country?

At the moment of truth, it all lies revealed.

It works through getting as many celebs as possible to scream something as loud as possible. And what do they scream?

"We have got to take money from people who made good investments and give it to people who made bad investments!"

Does anyone think this is still the country of the Founding Fathers? Hey, it's far from being the England of George III.

Congress no longer debates the long-term interests of the country, nor can it be any longer accounted as the national saucer, effectively cooling passions so that timely matters might be dispassionately addressed with all deliberate speed.

That's what U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) stated in his speech in the Senate on September 27. He counseled adherence to the U.S. Constitution in the expenditure of public funds, and cautioned against the grave threat in handing carte blanche to the Federal Reserve or any other body when it comes to the arbitrary dispensing of the taxpayer's money. That's a significant element in the great cause celeb of the week, the purchasing of toxic mortgages, products of predatory borrowing and lending alike.

Sessions smells a rat at the proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. He questions the timing of such a putatively essential measure, coming as it does at the end of the legislative session.

From the same speech, I particularly liked Session's attack on the $2.8 billion subsidy of heating oil for the residents of northeastern states, an extra subsidy sought as an emergency measure. Sessions wants to know why the taxpayers should be saddled with providing Yankees with cheap fuel, and how do congressional supporters of this measure square it with their solemn commitments to paring back federal spending?

Moreover, Congress has gone nothing short of "hog wild" in the subsidy of the automotive industry, Sessions stated.

He was joined by his colleague, U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R-Az), in opposing a giveaway to the automotive manufacturers of effectively $25 billion, a federal loan involving neither payments on interest or principal for five years. Kyl admits that one automotive bailout may well lead to another one in 2013, when the car companies sit on their hands and refuse to repay one thin dime.

Kyl joined Sessions in opposition to the regional heating oil scam as well. Kyl regards it, and the automotive bailout, as measures reeking of the hubris of "one last orgy of earmarks".

Would that they were the last earmarks.

--William Barr (Katy, Texas) wbarrparis@aol.com
_______________________________________
Thanks again, Mr. Barr.

The New Standing Army

2008-10-01T15:45:00.006-05:00

If the Framers could only see us now!

Beginning today, October 1, our military "might" will be assigned to the most dangerous part of the world. Yep, that's right. Good ol' America.

U.S. Northern Command has put together a dedicated force of military troops to support local authorities in case of attack, accident, or natural disaster.

As Chuck Baldwin put it, though,

If Hurricane Katrina is the template that our federal government is using as a model for future events, Heaven help us! Do readers remember how National Guard troops were used to confiscate the personal firearms of isolated and vulnerable civilians shortly after that hurricane devastated the New Orleans area? Do you remember how representatives of the federal government were calling upon pastors and ministers to act as spokesmen for gun confiscation?
Is this what the new Army brigade is preparing for? And do President Bush and his military planners envision an even broader role for military troops on American soil?

One may find NorthCom's objective interestingly "honest."

The stated reason for its existence is "protecting our people, national power, and freedom of action."

Some read this as the federal government protecting THEIR people, expanding THEIR national power, and insuring freedom of THEIR actions despite Constitutional restraints.

A Reaon To Celebrate

2008-09-29T15:23:00.003-05:00

Today the House rejected the bailout bill before them and shocked the pundits!

Maybe finally someone is listening to the people. Or maybe they have realized how far we have strayed from Constitutional government.

Either way, we can see some of the benefits of bicameral legislation. Perhaps the author is jumping the gun on the excitement, but how could one not feel some relief in this vote?

Here's the kicker, though. If the powers that be in DC want this so bad, what lengths will they go to get it? We may see soon.

Hopefully a link will be posted here soon to get to the voting record on this bill, but as of now the house.gov/ site is "encountering problems.

The Chicken Littles Were Right

2008-09-26T16:57:00.003-05:00

Folks have been warning us for several years now about the Fed's monetary policy. As a twenty-something back at the "turn of the century," I was beginning to learn about the hazards of fractional reserve banking and the Federal Reserve.

Of course the men and women who were warning us were met with scoffing and criticism. Ron Paul has been laughed at for suggesting a return to gold based currency. I have been laughed at when suggesting that what we have is unjust weights and measures. And try to tell folks how the Fed is stealing their money through inflation, ha!

One cannot be sure whether it is an "America is too big to topple" mentality or if it is just arrogant apathy. One thing that is sure, though, is that all of these Austrian economist who were dismissed as "Chicken Littles" are now saying, "This is what we've been talking about!"

But sadly, too few are listening. Sure, the majority of Americans polled are opposed to this $700,000,000,000.00 bailout, but they are still going to flock to the polls to elect a president that will continue all of the same policies that got America into this mess.

Neither of the "viable" central party candidates are going to address the REAL problems and you can bet they will not tighten up DC's belt and downsize federal government.

No, the District of Corruption will not change unless forced to. Perhaps that's why there is a growing constituency in the secession movement.

Robbing Peter To Pay Paul

2008-09-24T17:19:00.011-05:00

I am taking a break from writing today, but I have an excellent submission from columnist, friend, and fellow Southern Patriot William Barr. These are his thoughts for the week.
_________________________________

It's been an exciting quadrennial election year in some ways.

Listen to Congress on C-Span and tell me we aren't exchanging creeping for a galloping socialism.

Consider creating federal equity in our financial institutions via government acquisition of their more toxic assets. This means that shortly we shall have the ailing automotive industry bellying up to the bailout bar, and that's only one major industry we can expect to see with their paws out.

What shall we do if (when?) Treasury bills cannot attract buyers, given that Bush's bailout of big finance is predicated on the wholesale creation of another marketable treasury security, Treasury notes? As to what happens to Uncle Sam's line of credit with foreign banks, one based more and more on bad loans, the Lord only knows.

Has anybody thought through the implications of the Uncle Sam "owning so much paper, including bad mortgages, and what happens when the feds come to collect...what should they do so?"

That's a question raised by Charles H. Featherstone, a freelance business journalist living in Chicago, who sees that if the politics of home ownership has heretofore been a mess, it will worsen when federal judges routinely decide who gets to stay in their homes. That's the position currently embraced by congressional Democrats--surprise, surprise.

And we thought that we already had an imperial judiciary!

I'm with Featherstone, a blogger at lewrockwell.com, when it comes to the imperative of closely following the money in the bruited $700 billion-bailout of the week.

In this election season, we live in a brief moment when national politicians shuck off their proconsular rhetoric and demeanor and put on an the aspect of the Old Republic. It's a ritual in living history, not unlike suburbanite weekend-warriors reenacting Confederate military feats through encampments and mock battles.

High and low, national politicians are swooning over votes from an imperiled middle class. Thus, isn't it about time someone "considered the very real inflationary effects of adding gazillions more meaningless dollars to the U.S. economy?" That's what Featherstone demanded last week, and it seems reasonable to me. Drying up the pension funds and savings of the middle class through an inflationary monetary policy, one which as well erodes the value of wages, indicates the particular backs on which the Bush bailout is borne.

Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul.

And how, demands Featherstone, does "the US federal gummint pay for all these wars, all this domestic welfare, subsidize everything good and wonderful in its sight, and bail out investment banking and insurance firms at the same time?" I confess that this question especially engages my attention as I urge abolition of foreign aid in my Thursday columns in the Paris (TN) Post-Intelligencer (parispi.net).

Rather than restore, as U.S. Senator Chris Dodd (D-Con) calls it, "the collective confidence in our nation's financial institutions", how about Congress making it a priority to restore citizen confidence in the political process? Or even working towards restoring itself as a branch of the federal Leviathan not inferior to the executive and judicial branches?

Does any sober person believe that we can even approach such goals without a renewed commitment to our state and national constitutions? Isn't that what this blog, named for worthy progenitors, is all about?

--William Barr (Katy, TX) wbarrparis@aol.com

_________________________________

Thanks to Mr. Barr!

Ron Paul Endorses Chuck Baldwin

2008-09-23T18:43:00.004-05:00

Yesterday Congressman and former presidential candidate, Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin for President. On the Campaign For Liberty blog, Dr. Paul made another appeal for the third party option and wished the Libertarian Party success, but due to Bob Barr's actions and unsolicited advice, he formerly endorsed Chuck Baldwin.

The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign. . .

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party
candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November
election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party
candidate.

This is especially great news to those of us who voted for Baldwin last election as VP to Micheal Peroutka. For all of you Constitution Party supporters, this comes as a great boost!

Chuck Baldwin, in his column today thanked Dr. Paul and talked about his position.

As President, I would seek to overturn the 16th Amendment, eliminate the Internal Revenue Service, and disband the Federal Reserve. I would lead the charge to return America to sound money principles. I would seek to reduce federal spending to constitutional levels by eliminating those same federal departments that Newt Gingrich promised to eliminate in his Contract with America back in 1994 (and then failed to do). I would seek to eliminate the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, etc. I would demand that Congress pass a balanced budget and that we stop deficit spending.

Palin Falling Right In Line

2008-09-22T21:03:00.004-05:00

Sarah Palin has indeed fallen in line with the DC agenda. As I mentioned here, she was as quick to criticize Russia as anyone and equally aggressive in her statements towards them.

Some could pretend that their choice this November between Obama and McCain made a difference, but pray tell. . . where? The economy? The acts of aggression toward non threatening nations? Less intrusive government?

Check out this commentary on Palin and Iran at Mike Tuggle's blog for more (and better) info.

The Emperor Is Naked!

2008-09-19T21:28:00.004-05:00

Here is another market story that should not be missed. While the money gods of this country and others are making a complete wreck out of our economy with fractional reserve banking via fiat money, they are telling us all that they are actually saving us by bailing out the financial institutions and possibly those that insure them in a deal that could run as much as $1 trillion. Yes, trillion.

President George Bush said the threat to the American economy meant he had to take radical action 'to protect our nation's health from serious risk'.
Gordon Brown hinted similar action could be taken in the UK after promising to do 'whatever is necessary to make sure people have confidence in the system'.

I love that, "whatever is necessary to make sure people have confidence in the system."

Does anyone else think this sounds like the two swindlers that sold the emperor a new set of clothes?

The best part of it?

Hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayers' money will be used, but it is not clear
whether they will be paid back in full.

Aw shucks, Uncle Sam. You just keep it. Consider it "thanks" for the new clothes.

The Fed and Weekend At Bernie's

2008-09-18T17:43:00.003-05:00

The Fed may be taking a scene right out of Hollywierd. In the movie, Weekend at Bernie's, two guys finally get to go to the bosses vacation home on the beach only to find him dead. Not wanting to miss all of the partying and great times to be had, they decide to prop him up and make everyone think that he was still alive by moving his head, arms, and feet.

Today, the Dow "soared" 410 points amidst financial crises, but why, how? The Fed said in a press release today:

The Federal Open Market Committee has authorized a $180 billion expansion of its temporary reciprocal currency arrangements (swap lines). This increased capacity will be available to provide dollar funding for both term and overnight liquidity operations by the other central banks.

One cannot help but see the Fed and the Treasury Department carrying around a dead market pretending it is alive by injecting BILLIONS of dollars into it hoping no one will notice.

By the way, in the end Bernie was still dead.

How Many Shares Did You Get?

2008-09-17T16:28:00.003-05:00

According to a statement by AIG Tuesday concerning Fed's "$85 billion secured revolving credit facility," we are all stockholders in the company.

"The AIG Board has approved this transaction based on its determination that this is the best alternative for all of AIG's constituencies, including policyholders, customers, creditors, counterparties, employees and shareholders. AIG is a solid company with over $1 trillion in assets and substantial equity, but it has been recently experiencing serious liquidity issues. We believe the loan, which is backed by profitable, well-capitalized operating subsidiaries with substantial value, will protect all AIG policyholders, address rating agency concerns and give AIG the time necessary to conduct asset sales on an orderly basis. We expect that the proceeds of these sales will be sufficient to repay the loan in full and enable AIG's businesses to continue as substantial participants in their respective markets. In return for providing this essential support, American taxpayers will receive a substantial majority ownership interest in AIG."

Wow, socialism never sounded so good. What has in fact happened over the past couple of weeks is that our government has "acquired" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and 80% stake in one of the largest insurance companies in the world.

Of course the Fed is acting as our saviour. If they did not step in, other markets would suffer or perhaps fold and blah, blah, blah. And the American public buys it all and cheers, "long live the fed." What they do not realize is that by artificially propping up these markets, the fed and our messianic government are going to make things much worse.

One particular statement that the Fed made in a press release yesterday really got under my skin.

"The Board determined that, in current circumstances, a disorderly failure of AIG could add to already significant levels of financial market fragility and lead to substantially higher borrowing costs, reduced household wealth, and materially weaker economic performance."

Wait! Considering the Fed's monetary policy of inflating the money supply which drives up the cost of goods and ruins our savings coupled with a progressive income tax used to make interest payments to the illegal banking cartel, one may ask, "So now who is responsible for reduced household wealth and weak economic performance?"

Answer: The very men that are claiming to save us from such by stealing more of our money then telling us how great they are for making us prosperous. Are we that stupid, really?

Palin's Russian Roulette

2008-09-13T17:00:00.000-05:00

In light of Sarah Palin's most recent statements about the possibility of war with Russia in order to "defend" Georgia, I thought I would take a second to look at some of our most recent history antagonizing Moscow.

Mrs. Palin said in regards to Russia defending South Ossetia, “We’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable.”

Now keep in mind that it was Georgia that attacked South Ossetia, a breakaway region of Georgia that has been successfully asserting its independence since 1992 and has been recognized as an independent nation by Russia and Nicaragua, along with Abkhazia and Transnistria (two other de facto independent republics). There is also the issue of the Russian citizenry in South Ossetia when Georgia attacked. It is important to note that Russia made no pre-emptive strike like the US did in Iraq. They responded to Georgian aggression toward S. Ossetia. Also, Russia was responding to the attack on a bordering nation not half way around the world (again like Iraq).

Some important points to consider are that during the previous months before Georgia attacked S. Ossetia, American troops were training Georgian troops in combat exercises. Some have opined that either the US put Georgia up to this or that Georgia felt that the guaranteed Russian military retaliation and defense would draw American military support.

Also Condi Rice has just signed a missile defense pact with Russia's neighbor Poland that may cause further destabilization of the area.

To top it all off, there is further animosity coming from Russia regarding the impending acceptance of Georgia as a member of NATO.

There are other such actions that the US has done to cause tension with Russia in the past couple of decades like bombing Serbs in 1995 who are allies with Russia. A friend of mine who was in the military at that time responded to my questions about the US recognizing Kosovar independence in a recent e mail...

"Foreign policy blunder, absolutely! Though foreign Muslim fighters flooded Bosnia and Albania to commit terrorist acts against Serbs in an effort to maintain an Islamic state in Bosnia and create an Islamic state in Kosovo, we took military action against the Serbs when the Muslims were loosing (though Croatians were as much into eliminating Bosnian Muslims from their section of Bosnia as the Serbs were theirs) and stood by while Albanians were assassinating Serbian Officials and exterminating Serbs from the Kosovo area. And for what purpose? I believe that our misguided administrations were trying to show the Muslim world that we were their friends. Also, Serbia has always been allied with Russia, and Greece, because of their common Eastern Orthodox faith. It is as if we would do anything to weaken Russia at the expense of Christian persecution and the cutting off our political nose to spite our face. I have had more than one Greek to accost me over the fact that we seem to always support the Muslims over Christians, though we are supposed to be a Christian nation."

All of this to say that Sarah Palin has gone the extra mile to prove that she can toe the ol' party line with the best of 'em. She could have come out strong against Iran or maybe North Korea and proven a loyal neo-con, but to make such aggressive statements about a nation like Russia frankly makes me think that Palin may be the perfect sidekick for a man like John McCain.