This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Antal Fekete's Open Letter To Ron Paul: "Impeach Bernanke"

Tyler Durden's picture




 

IMPEACH  BERNANKE!

An open letter to Congressman Ron Paul of Texas

Antal E. Fekete

April 6, 2011

Dear Dr. Paul:

There are serious questions about the legality of Quantitative Easing. You are among the few who are well-qualified and well-placed to get to the bottom of it.

Most people believe, and the media confirm them in that belief, that the Fed can legally create dollars ‘out of the thin air’ in any quantity, and can do with them as it pleases. This may well be the pipe dream of Dr. Bernanke who is quoted as saying that the U.S. government has given the Fed a tool, the printing press, to stop deflation — but it hardly corresponds to the truth. The Fed can create new dollars only if some stringent legal conditions are satisfied, and then, it can only dispose of them in certain ways prescribed by law.

Contrary to a statement of Dr. Bernanke, made before he became the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Fed, he could not drop freshly printed dollars from a helicopter, no matter how many reasons for such an action he may be able to cite. Another thing the Fed is not allowed to do legally is to purchase Treasury paper from the U.S. Treasury directly. It must be purchased indirectly through open market operations. If you don’t put the Treasury paper through the test of the open market before the Fed is allowed to buy it, the presumption is that the market would reject it as worthless, or would take it only at a deep discount. The law does not allow the F.R. banks to purchase Treasury paper directly from the Treasury because that would make money creation through the F.R. banks a charade, reserve requirements a farce, and the dollar a sham.

If that were the only problem with Quantitative Easing, it would be bad enough. But there is something else that is even more ominous. The fact is that the Federal Reserve banks can purchase Treasury paper only if they pay with F.R. credit that has been legally created.

F.R. credit (F.R. notes and F.R. deposits) is legally created if it has been issued in accordance with the law. The law says that F.R. credit must be backed by collateral security at the time of issuance, usually in the form of an equivalent amount of U.S. Treasury paper. The procedure is as follows.

The F.R. bank seeking to expand credit takes its Treasury paper, owned outright and free from encumbrances, and posts it as collateral with the Federal Reserve agent who will then authorize the issuing of credit. In other words, if the F.R. banks do not have the unencumbered Treasury paper in their possession, then they cannot create additional credit legally.

There is some evidence that the F.R. banks do not have F.R. credit available to make the kind of purchases Dr. Bernanke is talking about as part of his Quantitative Easing. Nor do they have unencumbered Treasury paper in sufficient quantity that they could post with the F.R. agent for authorizing the issue of additional F.R. credit.
 
The point is that the process of posting collateral first, and augmenting F.R. credit afterwards must under no circumstances be reversed. What the F.R. banks cannot legally do is to buy the Treasury paper first with unauthorized F.R. credit, post the paper as collateral, and justify the illegal issuance of credit retroactively. Nor can they borrow the bond from the Treasury, post it as collateral, and pay for the bond retroactively.

This is an important limitation separating the regime of market-based irredeemable currency from the regime of fiat money involving outright monetization of government debt — the graveyard where the Continental dollar, the assignat, the mandat, the Reichsmark, and the Zimbabwe dollar (among countless others) rest.

At any rate, retroactive authorization of F.R. credit, if that’s what the Fed is up to, would be a violation of both the letter and spirit of the F.R. Act. It would mean converting the dollar into outright fiat money through the back door, bypassing Congress. It would show absolute bad faith on the part of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Dr. Ben Bernanke, who certainly knows what the law is. Such a blatant violation of the law would make him totally unfit for the powerful office he occupies. It would call for his immediate and dishonorable discharge by the President, pending Congressional investigation of the matter.

The various violations of the law of which the Fed is accused point to a concerted effort to remove the shackles the law has put on the money spigots lest crooks help themselves to the public purse. These violations are not isolated incidents. They are aiming at the corruption of the monetary order of the nation and the world. Moreover, they would ultimately figure prominently among the causes of the financial instability the world has been suffering from since 1971 and, more recently, since 2008.

Without understanding this fundamental truth, all talk about stabilizing the monetary system and reining in the runaway budget deficit is an exercise in futility.

Yours very sincerely,

Antal E. Fekete
Professor (retired)
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Tel./Fax: +36-1-325-7996

Note: an identical letter has been sent to Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:31 | 1143084 I Am Ben
I Am Ben's picture

TL;DR

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:15 | 1143250 metastar
metastar's picture

There is total, complete, and utter lawlessness. Our government, its legal system, regulatory bodies, and the financial system have completely broken down. The $hit is in the air and heading toward the fan. Outright war is being waged on the peasants who are too blind to see.

Take cover.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:23 | 1143272 unwashedmass
unwashedmass's picture

thank you god, at last someone with a "name" is starting to talk about how to stop Bernanke.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 23:02 | 1143961 i-dog
i-dog's picture

"Starting to talk" indeed. There are some interesting conjectures in the letter, but it does not demand any specific actions (contrary to what I was led to believe from TD's headline). The final paragraph....

"Without understanding this fundamental truth, all talk about stabilizing the monetary system and reining in the runaway budget deficit is an exercise in futility."

.... is also just an opinion.

Anyone who has ever written a business letter knows that the final paragraph should have been a specific call to action. Ron Paul may well file it under "TL;DR".

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 05:48 | 1144504 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

The only reason you have a deficit is because the government demands it. There is no way that Congress or any other government is going to create its own sovereign default.

One day I'm sure people will realise that the system is structured to fund the deficit on the most artificially low terms possible which means that you lose, government wins... for a while anyway..

Nobody is going to undermine that.

 

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 06:24 | 1144523 OliverTwist
OliverTwist's picture

This is a good point. Banks/central banks are only part of the system and in this only part of the problem. But further also government is only part of the system and part of the problem. Now let alone corruption for a moment and look at spending. Most of it is going to health care and social services. So at the end you have the people who demand deficit. At the bottom you have HUMAN NATURE as the starting point of the problem. Let's be honest: very few people would refuse money without working for it, a free meal. Now government should control the system, but how could they ever control it, they are also human. So the central bank should control the government spending, but again humans are controlling humans. Even gold, the gold standard wasn't able to control spending because it was established by humans and abolished by humans at will! I have difficulty to think of a system without pain where people, governments, banks working wisely toghether. It seems to me that human kind is learning only by pain and this also only for a while, then they forget the pain and restart doing the same mistakes only at a higher complexity social level. So it appears as a solution but it is not really one.

This is a psychological-social problem not a central bank monetary problem only.

Cheers,

Oliver

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 07:53 | 1144613 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

It is a cycle. We need a gold standard so that people can develop some belief in the value of money once again, so that we can then embark once again on a system of fiat funded welfare before we revert thereafter to another gold standard and so the cycle repeats.

It is a cycle driven by ourselves, when all is said and done.

It is a problem called 'Democracy'.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 09:14 | 1144818 i-dog
i-dog's picture

"Let's be honest: very few people would refuse money without working for it, a free meal."

This says more about you than it does about "people". It's called "projection" in psychological circles.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 12:22 | 1145631 OliverTwist
OliverTwist's picture

I have never claimed to be perfect Mr. Sigmund!

But anyway the above sentence is true. (Even if it is pronounced by another imperfect human.) If you don't believe it do your own testing, using your creativity.

For example you could leave a $100 note on the street and observe how many "people" would leave it there because they didn't work for it or how many people would bring it to the police. ... think about it. (and among the ones who bring it to the police how many do it only because they fear that somebody has seen them)

It is called "field research" in psychological circles. Don't read only the theory and the books of the old Wiener-Schule! ;)

 

Take care,

O

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 22:13 | 1143817 masterinchancery
masterinchancery's picture

As the French say, "sauve qui peut"!

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 23:32 | 1144051 nkktwotwozero
nkktwotwozero's picture

>There is total, complete, and utter lawlessness.

Judge should be like [pounds on table]:

"Guilty!"

--

Brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 00:52 | 1144253 OldTrooper
OldTrooper's picture

One night of rehabilitation for the Bernank!

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 06:12 | 1144519 Moe Howard
Moe Howard's picture

You are correct. They, meaning the Powers That Be, have made many public statements through their mouthpieces in the public eye that they do not follow the Constitution. This latest affront to the Constitution, the War on Libya, is just another poke in the eye of the Republic.

As we no longer follow the Constitution, we are nothing more than a Bankster Thugcracy. No different than Red China or KGB Russia.

 

<HELP> For Explanation.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:30 | 1143085 24KGOLD FOIL HAT
24KGOLD FOIL HAT's picture

I just posted on the Banzai economy thread, then thought I shoulda put a Fekete link in cuz I mentioned the Fekete Real Bills Revival. 

Please read all of Fekete's stuff, its the best!

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:37 | 1143114 dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

ditto

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:29 | 1143290 cosmictrainwreck
cosmictrainwreck's picture

yer hat soooo out-classes mine.... drat. but i can still hear the voices...

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 01:37 | 1144342 slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

dude foil hat!  not one word, here, has a thing to do with Real Bills!

actually, i feel kinda sorry for our friend, the nutty professor, here.

if he is describing the Primary Dealer "auction", why does he use the term credit, for the "Federal Reserve banks" payment to the Treasury, or to whomever the "credit" is extended.  why does he not speak of the Primary Dealers?  is he speaking of "fractional reserve-type credit?" 

who can tell from this crap?

i'm sorry, i do not think he makes a cogent case.  i'm really v. sorry! 

he doesn't seem to "get" that the QE is when Batmanke creates the digital dollars to POMO the Treasury debt from these Primary Dealers.  that is called QE or funding the debt, or expanding goobermint credit and providing the cash to write the checks on it, at the same time. 

i may be wrong, but i don't think the prof. makes his case, here.  bummer.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:30 | 1143088 FunkyMonkeyBoy
FunkyMonkeyBoy's picture

Oh god, placing hope in Ron 'Wet Lettuce' Paul. What's he done so far apart from jibber-jabber?

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:34 | 1143113 High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

don't forget, arabs with box cutters caused 911. it was blowback........

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:57 | 1143198 Strike Back
Strike Back's picture

Is he supposed to go Alex Jones?

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 20:27 | 1143477 thedrickster
thedrickster's picture

That's exactly what he needs to do.

He is an old man with little to lose, the truth just might resonate at this moment in history.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 23:52 | 1144106 nkktwotwozero
nkktwotwozero's picture

>the truth just might resonate at this moment in history.

Yeah...the truth...it's widely popular. </sarcasm>

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:07 | 1143229 Savyindallas
Savyindallas's picture

maybe 5 Mossad agents posing as arabs with box cutters

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:49 | 1143170 Bob Sponge
Bob Sponge's picture

The only way we can have significant change is if the majority of the American public is behind it. However, most Americans don't know about the workings of the Fed or even who Bernanke is.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:41 | 1143323 maximin thrax
maximin thrax's picture

Americans like sticking taxes to the rich and crooked. One solution to Fed abuse of the printing press is to tax the member banks at a punitive rate, say between 50% and 90%, on all proceeds of sales of ineligible assets to the Fed and on all interest on money derived from unauthorized Federal Reserve credit. If the banks actually lose money doing illicit business with the Fed then that crap stops. No need to wait for somebody to reign in the Fed.

Let the Social Security Administration start a bank and hand the revenue derived from this tax to the SSA to wipe out some of those IOU's. $500 Billion could capitalize $6 Trillion in loans at a 12:1 capital ratio. In a way, that privatizes SS and keeps the cash out of Congress's hands. At a mere 3% profit SS could net hundreds of billions of dollars in income that would help offset the negative cash flow now and organically grow the fund to deal with future demand. Americans with good credit and minimum 10% down could borrow from this bank mortgages of no more than 3x income and pay themselves back the interest while TBTF is allowed to fail.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 20:31 | 1143497 Doña K
Doña K's picture

Yes! There are many similar solutions. But we are making the assumption that the PTB are willing to ditch the bank bitches. Then, we also do not know who the bondholders are that are not willing to take the haircuts, let alone total loss.

The game is rigged and short of a true grassroot revolution, it will not happen.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 22:28 | 1143852 Clampit
Clampit's picture

It's happening, albeit slowly. More independent states can read the writing on the wall and are considering the final solution. Governments further down the chain will realize the only way to save themselves is to throw someone else under the bus. Remember, without the fed and PD's, the feds cease to exist. Not many outside NY / DC will miss them.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 02:44 | 1144393 Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

@Clampit:

While gold and silver being respected by a state is certainly better than mass theft through debasement, this is not the "final solution" 

The final solution is one that will prevent people ending up right where we are today.  You cannot have security when your "security provider" has the power to steal (tax)!  You can't have justice, when your "justice provider" has the power to rig all decisions in it's favor. We need to transition from monopoly governmental services to a free market model.  You can call such a system "voluntarism" or use Hans-Hermann Hoppe's term: "private law society"

See:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/wile13.1.html --

 

Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: I prefer the term "private law society." In a private law society every individual and institution is subject to one and the same set of laws. No public law granting privileges to specific persons or functions exists in this society. There is only private law (and private property), equally applicable to each and everyone. No one is permitted to acquire property by means other than through original appropriation of previously un-owned things, through production, or through voluntary exchange, and no one possesses a privilege to tax and expropriate. Moreover, no one is permitted to prohibit anyone else from using his property in order to enter any line of production he wishes and compete against whomever he pleases.

Daily Bell: How would law and order be provided in this society? How would your ideal justice system work?

Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: In a private law society the production of law and order – of security – would be undertaken by freely financed individuals and agencies competing for a voluntarily paying (or not-paying) clientele – just as the production of all other goods and services. How this system would work can be best understood in contrast to the workings of the present, all-too-familiar statist system. If one wanted to summarize in one word the decisive difference – and advantage – of a competitive security industry as compared to the current statist practice, it would be: contract.

The state operates in a legal vacuum. There exists no contract between the state and its citizens. It is not contractually fixed, what is actually owned by whom, and what, accordingly, is to be protected. It is not fixed, what service the state is to provide, what is to happen if the state fails in its duty, nor what the price is that the "customer" of such "service" must pay. Rather, the state unilaterally fixes the rules of the game and can change them, per legislation, during the game. Obviously, such behavior is inconceivable for freely financed security providers. Just imagine a security provider, whether police, insurer or arbitrator, whose offer consisted in something like this: I will not contractually guarantee you anything. I will not tell you what I oblige myself to do if, according to your opinion, I do not fulfill my service to you – but in any case, I reserve the right to unilaterally determine the price that you must pay me for such undefined service. Any such security provider would immediately disappear from the market due to a complete lack of customers.

Each private, freely financed security producer must instead offer its prospective clients a contract. And these contracts must, in order to appear acceptable to voluntarily paying consumers, contain clear property descriptions as well as clearly defined mutual services and obligations. Each party to a contract, for the duration or until the fulfillment of the contract, would be bound by its terms and conditions; and every change of terms or conditions would require the unanimous consent of all parties concerned.

Specifically, in order to appear acceptable to security buyers, these contracts must contain provisions about what will be done in the case of a conflict or dispute between the protector or insurer and his own protected or insured clients as well as in the case of a conflict between different protectors or insurers and their respective clients. And in this regard only one mutually agreeable solution exists: in these cases the conflicting parties contractually agree to arbitration by a mutually trusted but independent third party. And as for this third party: it, too, is freely financed and stands in competition with other arbitrators or arbitration agencies. Its clients, i.e., the insurers and the insured, expect of it, that it come up with a verdict that is recognized as fair and just by all sides. Only arbitrators capable of forming such judgments will succeed in the arbitration market. Arbitrators incapable of this and viewed as biased or partial will disappear from the market.

Daily Bell: Are you denying, then, that we need the state to defend us?

Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Indeed. The state does not defend us; rather, the state aggresses against us and it uses our confiscated property to defend itself. The standard definition of the state is this: the state is an agency characterized by two unique, logically connected features. First, the state is an agency that exercises a territorial monopoly of ultimate decision-making. That is, the state is the ultimate arbiter and judge in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving itself and its agents. There is no appeal above and beyond the state. Second, the state is an agency that exercises a territorial monopoly of taxation. That is, it is an agency that can unilaterally fix the price that its subjects must pay for the state's service as ultimate judge. Based on this institutional set-up you can safely predict the consequences. First, instead of preventing and resolving conflict, a monopolist of ultimate decision-making will cause and provoke conflict in order to settle it to its own advantage. That is, the state does not recognize and protect existing law, but it perverts law through legislation. Contradiction number one: the state is a law-breaking law protector. Second, instead of defending and protecting anyone or anything, a monopolist of taxation will invariably strive to maximize his expenditures on protection and at the same time minimize the actual production of protection. The more money the state can spend and the less it must work for this money, the better off it is. Contradiction number two: the state is an expropriating property protector.

 

 

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 06:04 | 1144510 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Alternatively you could set up a non resident trust, transfer your assets to it and then not worry about your government stealing it, because they can't.

Of course, the easiest thing to hold overseas is gold bullion, because the non resident trustee could store it anywhere you felt comfortable...

The trick is to avoid being held personally liable for the tax on the profits of a non resident trust or company.

That, is not a difficult thing to do...

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 09:55 | 1144908 Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

Yep, you are sharp.  You maybe saw my post last week about how those who set up the original IRS code designed it precisely with the the trust loopholes you are pointing out. 

That also means, if you are "one of us" and in the know then you don't have to pay any income taxes, just let all the "little people" pay taxes.  Morally, I can not endorse such a deceptive system going forward even though I know about the methods you are pointing out, and I might have used them myself if I had more than about 400,000 a year to protect. Or I might have just chosen to purchase an offshore non-income taxing  country passport and renounced US citizenship altogether.  Either of those solutions still leaves hundreds of millions enslaved who do not know any better. I prefer a more up front system based on free market defense and free market justice.  I think everyone should be  able to renounce US "citizenship" at any time and not be required to join another "tax farm" to do it.  They should be free to remain in the "land of the free" and then face the responsibility of how they will obtain their defense or justice services themselves and who ever they might pay for such services.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 11:08 | 1145010 Clampit
Clampit's picture

It may not be the final solution itself, but this is a step towards that end; secession, if only monetary at first.

I'm a huge fan of the stateless society (private law, market anarchy, self government, too many terms for the same concept), but I don't see some climactic change overnight. More probable is the gradual dispersion of power through cannibalism. "It's those evil out of town politicians that give power a bad name, I'll help you fend them off if you let me keep my position." I suppose society could just snap one day and shrug it all off, but it's not the likely course IMHO.

Many thanks for the info!

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 21:31 | 1143495 thedrickster
thedrickster's picture

I've come to the conclusion that the majority of the Amerikan public are scum, fuck them.

Change will about as a result of inertia. The key will be to have credible voices in place to remind the scum from whence their former prosperity actually originated and how to go about getting it back.

The socialistas will be ready and will probably win.

Time to go (Horace Greely)/3, for at least free enterprise is still valued in that part of the world.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 21:33 | 1143684 thedrickster
thedrickster's picture

Whomever junked this is Amerikan scum personified.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 21:54 | 1143763 Strike Back
Strike Back's picture

"I've come to the conclusion that the majority of the Amerikan public are scum, fuck them."  You a banker?

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 22:34 | 1143841 thedrickster
thedrickster's picture

Nope, just someone who has had the displeasure of listening to my neighbors interact.

You think the Federal Government is fucked up, well check out local government. Want to see a totalitarian nightmare in action, attend a city council meeting. Want to see real life brownshirts, look for the soccer mom nazi corps and listen to the list of items/behaviors they seek to ban. They are coming for your happy meals bitch, as you are clearly too stupid too save the children from mystery meat. The Jones family's HELOC is kaput but there is room on the Discover card to buy self affirming garbage and hell, at least their SUV is more trick than their loser neighbor's. The worst part, these fuckers are going to have their underwater princpal forgiven before it's over.

What a joy is democracy, being ruled by sociopaths, control freaks, armchair Rambos, collectivist scum, sycophants and fat assed housewives with too much time on their hands.

I'll say it again, fuck them.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 22:50 | 1143907 Mr. Mandelbrot
Mr. Mandelbrot's picture

+1 middle finger

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 23:08 | 1143971 i-dog
i-dog's picture

+1

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 23:08 | 1143981 Seer
Seer's picture

I tend to view people as being poorly programmed.  Actually, not sure if it's "poorly," just "programmed," products of a really crappy environment (controlled by BIG entities).

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 00:56 | 1144266 lynnybee
lynnybee's picture

+1

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 04:27 | 1144452 Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

@ thedrickster:

The beauty of reality is that you don't need to "F***" them, reality is going do that right where their misconceptions lie.  It does it on a regular basis throughout history.  Most can't handle that kind of truth and want to blame others rather than themselves. 

Sadly, when things get this absurd, a great deal of suffering is what is going to come.  This will get manny people's attention and give them added ability to focus on their situation.

But when you feel so strongly about something as you do to start cursing people, just remember - you can use that energy by focusing it to try and teach people who will listen, and there always are those who will, and most importantly see that your own children in your family understand the "facts of life".  Take them to your local zoo and show them how those in human form are behaving like beasts.  It is a profoundly valuable moment in human history, because at least for the time being, what you are able to see can be shared with hundreds and hundreds of millions of other people on this planet.

Those not willing to respect other's life, liberty, and property will soon enough discover that others will also not respect their own life, liberty and property.  Those who want to empower thugs in a state to survive by armed aggression and theft (taxation), and think that they can obtain justice from an entity that is final authority of all disputes, including those against itself will soon enough experience what all other civilizations have experienced.  Statism always fails. It is founded on absurd contradictions:  that you can have secure property by giving a gang exclusive power to steal, (tax), that you can have justice, by giving that same group power to overrule everyone else, regardless of how that violates life, liberty, and property.

While the US was intended to be a republic, it functions more and more today as a pseudo-democracy while in fact being just another collectivist tool to plunder those without political power - (at this point almost everyone not empowered by globalist corporate domination).  Democracy is a "god" that always fails, just as republics never last because they are also founded on the above contradictions - as in - "congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes".  What happened to "just powers" being based on consent (The Declaration of Independence in the US Revolution)?  If someone does not vote for a system, it is a fraud and deception to claim that they "consent" to a system. Rather, they are held at gunpoint into going along with those in power or they are destroyed, or they flee to somewhere else they hope to be more "free".  Until we as a people adopt free market security coupled with free market justice we will just keep repeating the same old misery of human history.

"

Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe on the Impracticality of One-World Government and the Failure of Western-Style Democracy"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/wile13.1.html

 

"People Of The Lie: The Psychopathology Of The “Public Servant” And The Sociopathology Of The State"

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-people-lie-psychopathology-%...

"Positively Wrong: Positivism, That Is"
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-positively-wrong-positivism

"The Governance Of A Free Society"
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-governance-free-society

"Non-Aggression Principle"
http://agorism.info/non-aggression_principle

"Sunset of the State" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLCEXtpTNYU

"On the Edge W M Keiser, Voluntarism" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKyutB3u2bM

"Statism is Dead - The Matrix" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY&feature=channel

"Statism is Dead - Free Range Humans" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02rvMwSlAu0&feature=channel

"Statism is Dead -Terrorism" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IRbwpc2XV4&feature=channel

"The Story of Your Enslavement" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

"I'm Allowed to rob you!" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

 

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 06:15 | 1144522 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

It's a great idea but the reality is that even if you did manage to adopt this, what would you do when the British Navy pitches up in war ships paid for tomorrow that you have to fight today?

That's how empire's are built, and you need a state, and dare I say a banking system to counter it otherwise you become part of the empire.

It is just one big cycle, because nothing is sustainable indefinitely.

and this one is ending...

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 06:59 | 1144542 Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

@Harlequin001:

You are making the same mistake statist thinking always makes, that free market defense is by its nature either no defense or wholly inadequate to the task of the "majesty" of the powers of the tyrants.

 

You can further your education below but it would be useful for you to understand what motivates free people when they are truly free as opposed to those who are enslaved by tyrants. It is also useful to understand where true commitment and valor can be expected, in those with the moral high ground or with thieves, frauds, and murderers. As a practical matter, those who must daily earn their living by demonstrated competence in a free market are as a rule, man-for-man, much better performers than those who "serve" via political or statist selection that is paid for by captive slaves and equipped by those winning a government "contract".

file:///J:/Remember/Science/Economics/Austrian/Free%20market%20defense/An%20Interview%20With%20Hans-Herman%20Hoppe.URL

file:///J:/Remember/Science/Economics/Austrian/Free%20market%20defense/Chapter%201Defense%20Services%20on%20the%20Free%20Market%20-%20-%20Mises%20Institute.URL

file:///J:/Remember/Science/Economics/Austrian/Free%20market%20defense/Road%20to%20Rothbard%20Free%20Market%20Defense%20and%20Protection.URL

 

Also keep in mind that it was the ideals of the American Revolution, including the idea of consent, (meaning only those you agree with do you "pay" to provide governmental services), and thus what was emboldening the American Revolution were the very principles of a genuinely free society that was only later betrayed by the coup of the Constitution. So you have a rather good example in history that such a defense is possible, even against seemingly overwhelming odds. 

 

See Spooner below for more on the betrayal of the Revolution that the Constitution ended up being:

http://lysanderspooner.org/node/44

 

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 07:06 | 1144555 Moe Howard
Moe Howard's picture

Thank you for your well thought out and educated posts. I, myself, have gained from you two posts in this thread. Of course, you are correct in what you say. We have no 'consent', if I don't have money to pay property tax, they will make me homeless, although I 'own' my home. I have no choice but to pay sales tax, income tax, tax on my insurance, entertainment, food, communication, financial acts, etc. I have consented to none of the taxes imposed on me by threat of violence.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 08:56 | 1144637 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Voluntary Exchange, sadly, whilst I agree with your sentiments history does not support your view, rather that all peoples of the world either will or have succumbed to the ability to borrow rather than steal. After all, to steal you must have something to plunder, to borrow you need only the promise to repay.

'thus what was emboldening the American Revolution were the very principles of a genuinely free society that was only later betrayed by the coup of the Constitution'

Would were that true, but the verifiable facts are that slavery was abolished by the British throughout the empire (which included the Americas) before the Revolution which sought and successfully managed to perpetuate it. Perhaps you might choose a different example of a society that successfully managed to defend it.

'You are making the same mistake statist thinking always makes, that free market defense is by its nature either no defense or wholly inadequate to the task of the "majesty" of the powers of the tyrants.' We should not forget that the White House is white, thanks to the British...

Whilst your sentiments are noble, in my view they cannot possibly work.

 

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 09:13 | 1144810 Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

You are rightfully sighting a huge contradiction to the founding of America.  Remember that the declaration itself stated "all men are created equal"  ("equal" in that they had certain unalienable rights). So I would not agree that the stated ideals of the revolution itself "sought to perpetuate" slavery. This revolution is the first time I am aware of that this principle of unalienable natural rights universal to all men was being asserted also together with the idea that only systems based upon consent are valid forms of social organization (and thus include "government" as such a voluntary system),  to thus attempt to organize a society going forward.

This argument against slavery can also be viewed as further evidence that the Constitution was again a betrayal of the stated ideals.   The ideals themselves were, as you point out, not being representative of what the actual conditions on the ground were in the southern colonies even as the revolution was taking place and this is of course a weakness of this example as you rightly cite. Even if you go back to what appears to be the voluntarist system of pre-Catholic and later pre-conquered Ireland there is still that lowest class of landless people you can call "slaves".

I could however point out that when a state will take other's property or life or liberty via force and without consent, in that respect for a nation such as the British to claim that it had abolished slavery was itself a contraction in that sense as all its subjects who did not consent were in that way "slaves" and likewise after the civil war, while it appeared that the "slaves" had been freed, with the idea of consent being ignored at that point, the US itself was also continuing to make everyone who did not "consent" a slave.  

 

I am not sure I am understanding your point about "borrowing", especially as it relates to those who did not wish to support the government as expressed under the Constitution and therefor were not voluntarily willing to pay a tax to support it.  Are you talking about banking and how that institution when it is able to use state power with legal tender laws can defraud by lending something is might not actually posses in the first place? Or maybe you are pointing out that when someone borrows and is not able to pay back that they can become a "slave"? That seems to be the way it has worked through most of human history. Those families that have children but lack the means to properly support them are definitely placing their children at an extreme disadvantage. And I can certainly agree that much poverty results from the after affects of earlier crimes that are never properly adjudicated (often because of the monopoly of adjudication powers that the state itself claims and creates the conditions whereby the victims of crime cannot attempt to pursue just restitution).

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 09:47 | 1144881 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

When I refer to borrowing what I am saying is that regardless of your intent to self govern freely, there is no defence against an outside aggressor who can borrow to overwhelm and defeat you. A borrower needs no collateral or assets just a promise to repay to raise an army whereas your argument assumes assets available to defend yourself. You have no protection as the world discovered at the hands of the most successful and prevalent borrowers, the British empire.

My reference to slavery is in that the date of the abolition of slavery predates the revolution in which (I believe) Washington and Jefferson were prominent slavers. Their entire businesses were to be wiped out by that British law which lends an entirely different perspective to that of the revolution being about the freedom and escape from tyranny and one more in line with protecting the revolutionary leaders from a British rope.

Whilst I admire your attempt to justify this I just can't see how it can possibly work, or that it ever did.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 11:27 | 1145395 Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

Hi again:

Yes they did borrow to create an empire.  And yes, that debt ultimately sunk their empire. And perhaps more importantly their system, including the "Red Coats",  was merely a tool to be used and  exploited by the real power behind the scenes that has for some time been referred to as the "money power", as Hoppe bravely dared to hint at later in the above interview. These sorts always prefer to remain in the shadows and then shift their "flag of convenience" to where ever it suits them. I wouldn't be so strongly against them if it were not that they often leave in their wake millions and millions of suffering and dead people and this planet can't take much more of this nonsense.  The planet does not need to continue this way, even though there are still those today that will work for whoever crosses "silver" across their palms, or in the case of their latest methods, fiat currency that "nations", (their puppets), insist be used by their "subjects".

I prefer methods that will make this planet ready to join the larger community of "mature" civilizations that exits "out there" rather than to see our progress continue to be held back by the most dark and sociopathic. And yes you have again pointed out one of the dirty little facts about "America" while those who now have "debt slavery" down to a well developed science continue to flourish with their new and improved form of slavery because so many "humans" are so corruptible, but also because they are so skillful at using "states" as their puppets.  People like me sure have a plenty big challenge trying to help turn people's lights on if they want to.  All those other folks have to do is keep them in the dark,  subject to their greed and animal tendencies.

I do not see you willing to discuss too much the idea of "consent" as an organizing social principle, or you seem to only be willing to recognize such a privileged status for those "in the know" or those who can be bought?? There is "dark" "consent" and their is "light" "consent". What flavor is yours? What about the responsibility of educating those who don't understand what is going on? It almost seems like you are wanting to play the role of "recruiter" here, if so you would be wasting your time.  If I put easy "wealth" ahead of principle I could have been very "rich" long ago. No point changing my tune now. Maybe you can just chalk me up as another one on the "list" to be "rounded up" when ever, if ever that day may come?

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 12:43 | 1145717 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

It is human nature to take what you cannot have. You will never beat the 'money power' because your assets are their collateral once they've funded someone to take it. This I agree.

My issue is this, that humanity consists of many people of different types who think differently. I surround myself with people that I know and trust, that I can rely on and do business with, i.e I trust them to return to me what goods of mine they use. Integrity is a big thing with me and most other decent folk. Fact is we surround ourselves with like minded people who have characteristics we admire in ourselves, but when you think about it, the last quality you need to be a king or politician is integrity. More, the ability to look someone in the eye and lie through your teeth will garner success in those particular circles.

Society is therefore structured to be the exact antithesis of your suggestion, that everyone can behave the same with the same principles of consent. They cannot. It is an ideal and that is good but that doesn't mean it works. Like communism, why should I work hard when some pen pushing arsehole does not, and worse when others do no work whatsoever because they know the right people.

It is not just the banks that cause wars in my view, but rather ordinary folk who want all they can get and preferably for free if they can get it. The first cretin to promise them everything is the one who gets their support, and it doesn't matter if there's no way they can provide it.

Look at Egypt. What do we have there? We have a popular revolution in a country where 70% of adults are employed by the government, and where by popular revolt they've installed a new junta which they expect to provide them more of the same welfare that the previous govt could not afford. There is only one solution, for the government to slaughter Egyptians because the reason for the revolt cannot be provided, so the only way out realistically is to march them over a border where they will get shot or fed, but the problem will resolve itself. I see no money interests here.

The fact is that you are assuming that you are surrounded by decent folk, and that they like you want to learn more. My point is that you are not, and whilst I believe you may have the highest ideals and integrity sadly those around you do not. the most perfect plans don't work when you factor in human nature.

and no, I recruit for nobody, just looking for an intelligent debate and to see if I can learn something new. Thanks for your time.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 15:37 | 1146408 Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

@ Harlequin:

It is an illusion to believe that you can "have" by "taking" all though this material world is built on allusions.  What are you calling "human" here? Those I would call "human" know and value what they have and also respect what others truly have and always "ask" and never "take". It is a beast that takes through the power of its fangs or the stealth of its camoflauge, it is the "man" who exchanges or does not when he receives a "no".

There are choices that lead to scarcity, misery, hunger and death. And there are choices that lead to mutual plenty and well being, not just for people but for all things that people find they have stewardship over. What follows in the the wake of your "business"? Integrity can be a great thing but what is the end result of this "integrity" you speak of? Do you "admire" those who cannot be bought when they have strong ethical reservations about a transaction? Surely you have met a few? Do you ever employ "politicians" or "kings"?

I don't think we agree about the "money power".  Just remember that "never" is a very very very long time. Tell me who has the most patience? If the seller has no price, can it be bought? If the seller did not "sell" today for reasons that from a higher perspective could be considered "just", then for TODAY this "money power" has been "beaten" in this individual case has it not? Does this "money power" we are talking about "take" or "ask"?  I hope you can appreciate that those who designed this reality were prepared to wait a very very very long time to "mine" their "gold".  Some one who has never traveled to our reality might say that - "such a strange thing could never ever happen!" but here we are!

 

A statist society based on force is the exact antithesis of my above suggestion.  A voluntary exchange even between just two trusting and honorable people is an actual embodiment of the "society" I speak of as long as what they do does not "scorch the Earth" or harm anyone else. So such a "society" already exists! What kind of  people do you "trust"?

Yes for sure those who are in the pickle you describe in Egypt have got some ruff choices ahead, just as many Americans do. Again, those who can cooperate and are producers instead of takers have a shot at making it if they can help each other. And the "takers" may or may not "make" it going forward, depending on how you define "making" it.

Yes I know there are many who are not "decent" and many who are not intersted in learning.  But the "decent" do exist and it is in each of our interests to recognize each other and help each other where we can.  The more predatory the average population is, the more precious the truly voluntary relationships become. It is a generally true statement that voluntary transactions provide mutual improvement, and generally true that involuntary transactions do not provide mutual benefit.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 11:42 | 1145477 Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

Harlequin, why this avatar?:

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlequin -

 

Harlequin From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article is about the commedia character. For the opera by Busoni, see Arlecchino (opera). For other uses, see Harlequin (disambiguation).

Harlequin or Arlecchino in Italian, Arlequin in French, and Arlequín in Spanish is the most popular of the zanni or comic servant characters from the Italian Commedia dell'arte and its descendant, the Harlequinade.

Contents

[hide]

Origins

Arlecchino and other demons handling souls from the pitch for Dante and Virgil (Giovanni di Paolo, 15th century).

The name of Harlequin derives from Old French Hellequin, leader of la maisnie Hellequin, thought to be related to the Old English Herla, a character often identified with Woden.[1][2]

Italian Arlecchino by folk etymology was associated with Latin Herculinus, "little Hercules".[citation needed]

Although illustrations of Arlecchino have only been dated as far back as 1572, the character had existed before this date. The origins of the name are uncertain: some say it comes from Dante's Inferno, XXI, XXII and XXIII; one of the devils in Hell having the name Alichino.

Popular theories suggest that he may have come from France, Africa, or Italy.[3]

The notion that the Harlequin motif grew out of France is evidenced by Hellequin, a stock character in French passion plays. Hellequin, a black-faced emissary of the devil, is said to have roamed the countryside with a group of demons chasing the damned souls of evil people to Hell. The physical appearance of Hellequin offers an explanation for the traditional colours of Harlequin's mask (red and black).[3]

The Harlequin character may have been based on or influenced by the Zanni archetype who, although a slow thinker, was acrobatic and nimble.[4] Interpreted thus, Harlequin's distinctive motley costume may be a stylized variant of Zanni's plain white garb, designed to reflect the ad-hoc patching necessary to prevent the garment's degradation.

Characteristics and dramatic function

Harlequin, by Maurice Sand

The primary aspect of Arlecchino was his physical agility.[3][4] While generally depicted as stupid and gluttonous, he was very nimble and performed the sort of acrobatics the audience expected to see. The character would never perform a simple action when the addition of a cartwheel or flip would spice up the movement.

Within these restrictions the character was tremendously elastic. Various troupes and actors would alter his behaviour to suit style, personal preferences, or even the particular scenario being performed. Some of the most famous actors were Tomaso Visentini ("Thomassin"), who performed with the Comédie-Italienne in 18th century France, and Tristano Martinelli.[4]

He is typically cast as the servant of an innamorato or vecchio much to the detriment of the plans of his master. Arlecchino often had a love interest in the person of Columbina, or in older plays any of the Soubrette roles, and his lust for her was only superseded by his desire for food and fear of his master. Occasionally, Arlecchino would pursue the inamorata, though rarely with success, as in the Recueil Fossard of the 16th century where he is shown trying to woo Donna Lucia for himself by masquerading as a foreign nobleman. He also is known to try to win any given lady for himself if he chances upon anyone else trying to woo her, by interrupting or ridiculing the new competitor.

He eventually became something more of a romantic hero around the 18th century, when his popularity provoked the Harlequinade.

 

Variants

Harlequin, 1888–1890, Paul Cézanne

Duchartre lists the following as variations on the Harlequin role:

Trivelino or Trivelin. Name is said to mean "Tatterdemalion." One of the oldest versions of Harlequin, dating to the 15th century. Costume almost identical to Harlequin's, but had a variation of the 17th century where the triangular patches were replaced with moons, stars and triangles. In 18th century France, Trivelino was a distinct character from Harlequin. They appeared together in a number of comedies by Pierre de Marivaux including L'Île des esclaves.

Truffa, Truffaldin or Truffaldino. Popular characters with Gozzi and Goldoni, but said to be best when used for improvisations. By the 18th century was a Bergamask caricature.

Guazetto. Costume like the old Zanni's but accessorized with a sort of poncho, or otherwise a giant three-tiered collar. Known for his dancing.

Zaccagnino. Character dating to the 15th century.

Bagatino. A juggler.

See also References
  1. ^ Online Etymology Dictionary
  2. ^ harlequin - Definitions from Dictionary.com
  3. ^ a b c Grantham, B., Playing Commedia, A Training Guide to Commedia Techniques, Nick Hern Books, London, 2000
  • ^ a b c Rudlin, J., Commedia dell’Arte, An actor’s handbook, Routledge, London, 1994
  • Thu, 04/07/2011 - 12:45 | 1145720 Harlequin001
    Harlequin001's picture

    I like the colours...

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 08:15 | 1144650 thedrickster
    thedrickster's picture

    I'm a big fan of Hoppe by the way. Democracy the God That Failed helped me crystallize the thoughts expressed above in a slightly less profane way.

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 05:11 | 1144482 Vlad Tepid
    Vlad Tepid's picture

    I like the way you think!

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 06:37 | 1144538 Moe Howard
    Moe Howard's picture

    +1

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 00:47 | 1144245 IQ 101
    IQ 101's picture

    The sad fact of the matter is that it was cheaper to empty the lunatic asylums of Europe

    back in 1805, than to keep them in the nut house,

    So Europe puts all the nut jobs on a boat for 3 silver bits, rather than keeping them in the nut house for a year at 5 silver bits.

    Despite Davy Crockett and Thomas Jefferson Heroics, the slurpee slurpers got free land, prospered and bred, their offspring are now called LIBERALS, they will be voting for Hillary in 2012. We are out numbered in a democratic format.

    Revolution is inevitable, but not imminent yet,maybe next week.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:54 | 1143193 Strike Back
    Strike Back's picture

    He has done all a politician can do, educate and raise the issues.  He ran for president, proposed a bill to audit the fed, and tirelessly speaks on the relevant issues surrounding the economy.  Without popular support, he is a man alone in a system that requires political backing for effective action.  What would you have him do?  He can't just magically make people care.  He tries his damndest with what he's got.

     

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:59 | 1143205 SMG
    SMG's picture

    I agree.  It's really up to the people.   I know many here don't have faith or hope in a popular uprising, but's just a matter of the right leadership, and conditions.  It is possible.  It's easy to be cynical, but giving up on people is the only way the oligarchs win for sure.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:40 | 1143320 Dr. Porkchop
    Dr. Porkchop's picture

    +1

    I think of something Dimitry Orlov said about the crash of the USSR. That it truly collapsed when people realized that it was no longer in their interest to continue to participate.

    It's the same in Egypt, and everywhere else. It's the same with the bully in the schoolyard, and the same with the mafia. Their reign of fear and lawlessness depends on people's continued participation in the scam.

    No leadership will lead the way out of this current political system. I think it's become irredeemable. Is it the end of the American experiment? Not necessarily. Not if you believe that what is happening now is an aberration of the principles that it was founded on.

    It seems to me that those principles were under attack before the ink on the constitution was dry. Jefferson knew this well.

    Perhaps this is but a dark chapter in a longer story of free society. Perhaps the chapter we live in is the precursor to something better.

    That's what you have to believe or you might as well not even get out of bed.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 21:41 | 1143716 Milestones
    Milestones's picture

    Bravo sir, we are I fear in for a tunnel of darkness--but the tunnel has another end and our grand-children will benefit from the tribulations. The seige may be along one but those who do not give up on the last of Pandora's Box will see a better day.      Milestones

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 23:55 | 1144117 Seer
    Seer's picture

    Refreshing to see wise realists at work here in this thread branch... All you kiddies take note (quit hiding behind the cheap shots/shouts of "doomers").  Just leave things open for the dynamics of nature; keep the lesson that concentrated power is to be abhored.

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 01:13 | 1144305 IQ 101
    IQ 101's picture

    Dynamics of nature!!

    love that,because the market is an organic force in any realm of human endeavour.

    It will do as it see's fit and will give us the gift of risk VS profit,

    I would sincerely like to live in that world, where has it gone? Too big to fail, too small to fail, (welfare & unending unemployment checks).

    Who is stuck in the middle and paying the piper?

    The Muddle class? 

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:07 | 1143217 spongeBOB
    spongeBOB's picture

    For a starter, he should ask Bernanke some tough question next time he appears in front of his commitee, like did this one :

    " Did you or did you not lie under oath when you said you are not going to monetize the treasury's debt? " 

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:32 | 1143295 cosmictrainwreck
    cosmictrainwreck's picture

    depends on what the definition of "did" is

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 01:21 | 1144326 IQ 101
    IQ 101's picture

    Did the Bernankster gangster take an oath of office, I would like to see a copy of that, And if he is holding the US (and global) economy between his slack and farty butcheeks, without being under oath, i would like to know why, this fucker is a private employee and liable for his actions? NO?

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 20:21 | 1143453 Question Everything
    Question Everything's picture

    You are very correct in your statement. He has opened my eyes and has my backing.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:06 | 1143219 Savyindallas
    Savyindallas's picture

    You must be one of those mindless zombie followers of that idiot denninger- the only person i know whose hatred of ron paul is far more intense than the combined group of Bernanke, Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, Robert Rubin, Blankein and paulsen, the entire goldman Sachs crowd, and every other crooked sycophant who have looted this country,  

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 06:55 | 1144546 Moe Howard
    Moe Howard's picture

    Yes, I agree. I tried to listen to some online radio show by that denninger, about two minutes or less into the show, he literally started screaming about Ron Paul, on the radio, like he was deranged or something. I closed the webpage and haven't been back.

    As a Libertarian [since the party started in the 1970's], I have been aware of Ron Paul for a long time. He is one man in the House. He can only do so much. When people like denninger degrade him, I have to ask, who is YOUR representative? Is he or she better? If not, what have YOU done to change things? Here in Kentucky I and many people like me worked hard and donated money to sent Rand Paul to the Senate.

    To the critics of Ron Paul, what have you personally done to send more people like him, or better than him, to Congress? Nothing? How sad.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:16 | 1143258 LudwigVon
    LudwigVon's picture

    Oh god, placing hope in Ron 'Wet Lettuce' Paul. What's he done so far apart from jibber-jabber?

    30 years of staying alive by playing it smart, educating those who are willing to listen. Paul believes in the 2nd amendment unlike other statesman who see it as a barganing chip. Paul will shoot you just as quick as any Texan if you threatened his life on his property, wet or otherwise. What he speaks is against the interests of EVERY Republican out there, and he has been deliberately ignored, slandered, mis-represented by his fellows and Fox News since the beginning. See the Fox 2011 CPAC scandal.

    THREE DECADES. To continue to fight for liberty, freedom and our future prosperity through so much adversity and to do it year after year. He his a true patriot and a REAL man. 

     

    He has done all a politician can do, educate and raise the issues.  He ran for president, proposed a bill to audit the fed, and tirelessly speaks on the relevant issues surrounding the economy.  Without popular support, he is a man alone in a system that requires political backing for effective action.  What would you have him do?  He can't just magically make people care.  He tries his damndest with what he's got.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:36 | 1143304 Shell Game
    Shell Game's picture

    +100  Well said.  He is an honorable man, and there are mighty few of those in D.C.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:45 | 1143327 Dr. Porkchop
    Dr. Porkchop's picture

    Paul, Nader and Kucinich. Their differing views aside, they are the few men who actually meant to do what they said. That's why they are outsiders.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:53 | 1143349 Shell Game
    Shell Game's picture

    Indeed, Doc.  In the land of lies, integrity defaults one to the fringe.  I look forward to the day that trend is reversed.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 23:03 | 1143946 Seer
    Seer's picture

    Finally, someone gets what principled means.  Add to this select few Russ Feingold.  I'd remove Kucinich though, as he capitulated to the Dems.  But... Nader is the only real outsider here, because, well, because he hasn't been part of the "elected."

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 01:32 | 1144337 IQ 101
    IQ 101's picture

    Nader!! he is still trying to recall my Corvair.

    riddle me this, When does a ghost die?

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 23:52 | 1144101 bothsidesnow
    bothsidesnow's picture

    + 14 trilion

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:59 | 1143379 CheapKUNGFU
    CheapKUNGFU's picture

    honorable doesnt function very well within the confines of politics

    just sayin, he will accomplish NOTHING simply because he fights a machine that is 99.9999% dis-honorable - GET IT?

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 22:07 | 1143796 ronin12
    ronin12's picture

    I'd say waking up a lot of people and educating them counts as accomplishing something.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 20:10 | 1143414 Seer
    Seer's picture

    The guy asked a fucking simple and fair question and all the zombie Paul followers start attacking!  Listen, the LAST time I voted I voted for Paul.  But really, flying off and talking about shooting someone and all, perhaps it's THIS kind of crap that turns people off?

    And for those talking up the "patriot" angle, fuck off.  This shit is just plain fucking old BS.  It's the crap that's used to justify raping and pillaging.  You all just fucking yak (and that's what monkeyboy is basically stating, and he's right!).  You want to "take back" some system that was NEVER meant for the masses; and, the bulk of folks expect that THEY will be in control- like this is any different than the existing cluster fuck?

    As GW Bush stated, the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper...  I believe him.  I believe that that's how the elites view it all, how they've always viewed it as they use such instruments to protect THEIR asses, not the people's.  Fucking rah, fucking rah...  Root for the home team, shoot the guns...

    Ron Paul is a good guy, I like him, but let's face it, sitting on your ass and expecting magic to happen, for him to somehow "change" the system (back to something that it never was), well... don't slam monkeyboy for YOUR insecurities, for YOUR failings!

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 03:43 | 1144430 LudwigVon
    LudwigVon's picture

    talking about shooting someone and all, perhaps it's THIS kind of crap that turns people off?

    What? Did you need the nanny state to protect you and your family?

    You don't understand what the 2nd Amendment is for. You have been coddled for far too long. It is for the right to protect you and your families lives. That means to bring down an attacker with a firearm. Sadly there are few states left where this intent has remained intact. Perhaps you would just care to suggest your wife try to outrun the raping rage of an attacker. I will not excuse away the second amendment to soften what America means for your tender heart. If that amendment turns you off, then perhaps it is you who need to appreciate history and the sacrifice of those who came before us. When the state betrays you perhaps you will change sides.

    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqkxttD-j0Q

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 10:00 | 1144926 indio007
    indio007's picture

    Who wants to change the system? I'd rather opt-out. There are too many cheaters in the game to make it worth playing.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:57 | 1143322 Shell Game
    Shell Game's picture

    Generally speaking, I find that most people who dislike Dr. Paul are those who:

    1.) are addicted to their entitlements, and/or

    2.) are addicted to their fiat-financed military industrial complex...

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 20:23 | 1143455 Seer
    Seer's picture

    or:

    3) Are put off by all the rabid followers.

    Again, note my above comment.  I do NOT dislike Paul.  But... I don't lick his boots either.  And, he's just another politician, stuck in the same fucked up system as the really shitty politicians.

    I wonder whether Paul really gets it, whether he realizes that if he stomps out the shit that the lights will go out.  The shit needs to be stomped, and that's why I support him (well, up until I dropped out of voting; now my support is just in cheering- because, well, it's nice to sit in the easy chair and toss the fist in the air [actually, I've got more important things to do, like creating and living in an alternate system]).

    I wonder who here was cheering on Russ Feingold as he stood ALONE in the senate and voted down the USA [UN]PATRIOT ACT?  Oh, but he's a "Dem," can't support one of those!  My point being, look in the mirror and ask whether you're standing on principle or whether it's really just some sort of party politics game that you're in for.

    Again: I have supported Paul; I dislike rabid political supporters (no matter who they are cheering for).

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 23:49 | 1144089 Al Gorerhythm
    Al Gorerhythm's picture

    And your solution is?

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 01:17 | 1144311 Seer
    Seer's picture

    “The chief cause of problems is solutions.”

    - Eric Sevareid

     

    There really are no "solutions," nothing is permanent.

    I'm all for evolution to decide how this plays out: some will say it's "god who shall decide," well, I say fine, whatever one wants to describe the forces as.

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 03:26 | 1144422 LudwigVon
    LudwigVon's picture

    Oh, but he's a "Dem," can't support one of those!

    Guess you didn't read my post. RP is the antithesis of Republican. He is the enemy.

    I don't think you understand the issues. AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO JUST SEES PURPLE?

    Go read Andrew Jackson's veto of the renewal of the second central bank.

    Chris Whalen posted it here, then TD removed it.


    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 20:28 | 1143479 Seer
    Seer's picture

    I lost a good friend over a basic debate about Ron Paul.  My friend owned his own business and was anti-war.  Where he seemed to be most put-off with Paul was over Paul's religious beliefs, concerned that Paul would push christianity into government.  I'm still torn over this point.

    So, my only real exposure to someone who didn't/doesn't like Paul totally refutes your conditions.  People can "believe" whatever they want I suppose...

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 00:54 | 1144263 Shell Game
    Shell Game's picture

    Remember, I did say 'generally speaking', and chose that very specifically as I know there are always outliers.  Sorry to hear about your freind, I'm afraid current times and ideologies will tear many families and friendships apart.  No worries, here. I look at my own ideological mirror every day since my awakening and subsequent departure from the two party system - leaving, as in I no longer vote either.  It's important to me to find resonance with ideas, not people.  So, I have no interest in what a 'Ron Paul follower' looks like. I know the MSM likes to make them look like idiots and I know a lot of folks need to follow and fit in.

    I think Ron Paul absolutely knows what will happen if the rug is pulled out.  He would be willing to take that path if allowed to, and for that I like him and admire his willingness to have integrity at the cost of being cast on the fringe.  It's late, so I will say thanks for your feedback.

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 01:42 | 1144349 IQ 101
    IQ 101's picture

    That is strange, I have been a Ron Paul supporter for many years and I have never give thought to his religious beliefs.

    I just assumed his God was the God of common sense. I  have the same God.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:47 | 1143334 Goofy Bastard
    Goofy Bastard's picture

    I understand your position, Paul is pretty much relegated to jibber-jabber as his attempts at legislative action within the system are squashed by the more powerful interests.  But, Ron Paul really helps open a lot of eyes to what's going on in the big picture and that's what's needed in the end...

     

    ...and Bill Hicks fucking rules

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 21:36 | 1143691 lynnybee
    lynnybee's picture

     But, Ron Paul really helps open a lot of eyes to what's going on in the big picture and that's what's needed in the end...

    ~~excellent point; how true.    my eyes have finally been opened after 60 years of being an idiot.   i can't believe how dumb i was "in the system."     I've had to re-think my entire life & existence since being exposed to other ways of thinking here on ZEROHEDGE & the internet information.    thank goodness for RON PAUL, bless his heart & keep him safe ~~ I think we need him now, he's been waiting in the wings for too long.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 20:03 | 1143388 Confuchius
    Confuchius's picture

    @ funkymunkyboy

    And what, precisely, have you done?

    Let's hear it.

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 07:14 | 1144560 j0nx
    j0nx's picture

    Agreed. Ron Paul has had ample opportunity to start knocking dicks in the dirt and yet all he does is bluster on behind the scenes and when it comes time to grill the bernank and the jeethner in Congress he just tosses them all a bunch of softballs. There is PLENTY of shit Ron Paul could be doing in public to bring these thieves to justice and after 3 years it's still crickets out there. Ron Paul is a plant. There I said it. Junk away.

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 09:04 | 1144775 TaxSlave
    TaxSlave's picture

    What's he done so far apart from jibber-jabber?

    Wake up the people to the evils of paper money and warn what was coming?

    That's why I supported him.  So that WHEN the currency crashes and the idiocrats promote a Hitler/Stalin strongman to 'fix' everything there will be enough of us around to say HELL NO.

    To hell with idiots who trash the only honest man in congress with a long track record of actions to back up his (many, well-documented) words.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:32 | 1143090 Waterfallsparkles
    Waterfallsparkles's picture

    The FED should not be able to create any new money without Congress's express approval.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:06 | 1143218 LudwigVon
    LudwigVon's picture


    "I killed the bank!
    -Andrew Jackson's last words. Triumphantly expressing his greatest accomplishment, in his words. Referring to the 2nd central bank that has existed in the US, which he ended, declaring a central bank unconstitutional and a "prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many." 

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:33 | 1143096 samsara
    samsara's picture

    Boy oh Boy,  Over the course of the last 12-36 months, there has been a opening of the barrage against TPTW.   (Were).

     

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:33 | 1143103 Waterfallsparkles
    Waterfallsparkles's picture

    Every time the FED want to Monetize the Debt or buy back Treasury's they should have to get approval from Congress.

    Congress did not give them a blank check for eternity.

    Plus, Bernanke said that he would not Monetize the Debt in Congressional hearings.  He should be impeached.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:06 | 1143227 LudwigVon
    LudwigVon's picture

    Why should it be illegal to barter?! !!!! The Fed and the laws that ENFORCE it are tyranny over liberty in modern America !!!

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 02:07 | 1144370 slewie the pi-rat
    slewie the pi-rat's picture

    OMG people!  our friend, princesssummerfallsparkles, is attempting to make a "case" for felony purjury, but doesn't seem to realize Batmanke just sez, "I meant it when i said it!  Curcumstances led me to change my mind.  These are the circumstances.  and so on." 

    no way, you can nail him 4 perjury.  really.  see above.

    what is the matter w/ you, LudwigVon?  who said it should be illegal to barter?  what are you on?  there is a very high degree of confusion coming from yer "little effort" here.  since neither you nor ms sparkles is making sense, i find it interesting that you "reply" to her, while completely ignoring every word she said.  do you think this will help you both get paid better, longer? 

    you have both lost all last shreds of credibility after weeks of innocently stating the obvious, interspersed with innocent little misuderstandings and misdirections, innocent disinfo, innocent my ass!

    you're both little ignorant asswipe trolls.  get the fuk outa here, and don't come back!

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 03:50 | 1144434 LudwigVon
    LudwigVon's picture

    Go fuck yourself bitch, your so ignorant I have to smak down the little mouse. Cite one thing that damages my credibility or this "disinformation."

    For one to read ZH but not understand LEGAL TENDER LAWS enforce the imprisonment of people, negate Liberty and DENY BARTER.

    PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

     

     

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 07:31 | 1144581 j0nx
    j0nx's picture

    While I am somewhat on your side, you are not helping your cause when you write, "your so ignorant". In the way it's written, that sentence is an oxymoron.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:34 | 1143110 dogbreath
    dogbreath's picture

    Finnally Dr. Fekete gets a voice here.

     

    www.professorfekete.com

     

    www.gold-eagle.com

     

    Gold Eagle has a large archive of Fek's essays

     

     

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:35 | 1143117 mynhair
    mynhair's picture

    Is the Chairsatan impeachable?  This one wonders....

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:48 | 1143166 High Plains Drifter
    High Plains Drifter's picture

    the answer is no. the FED is a private institution. Now they do have many large clients and one of them is the United States government.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:29 | 1143284 hungrydweller
    hungrydweller's picture

    The Fed Chair is a politically appointed position vetted and approved by Congress.  He can be removed from his office.

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 00:22 | 1144187 Howard_Beale
    Howard_Beale's picture

    Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner.  He certainly can be removed.

    I kind of miss the old days when assassination was the easiest choice. Sure would make getting rid of Bernanke easier.

    CIA, why don't you get back to your old ways and set up operation Kill Ben? You simply have lost your way. And monetize it--reality TV-- I'm sure Tarantino would be happy to direct it when you pull it off. Part 1 would start at the end like Pulp Fiction. One can dream...

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:38 | 1143309 Antarctico
    Antarctico's picture

    In the alternate reality where we have national leaders with the passion for liberty and revolutionary zeal of our founders, all it would take would be a convoy of SWAT armored Uniformed Secret Service agents rolling up to Dr. Ben's offices for us to see him perp walked in chains for violations of the RICO Act.  Unfortunately, this reality is not our reality.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 20:36 | 1143508 Seer
    Seer's picture

    Yeah, here's the real "solution."  And just how different is this than the other police-state actions that the US government is involved in?  This is the kind of stuff that Ron Paul abhors (and anyone who really understands the guy should know this).

    Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 21:10 | 1143626 Antarctico
    Antarctico's picture

    And just how different is this than the other police-state actions that the US government is involved in?

    The difference is in what direction the gun is pointed.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 22:05 | 1143795 Strike Back
    Strike Back's picture

    The difference is in what direction the gun is pointed.

    Nice.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 22:52 | 1143923 Seer
    Seer's picture

    It's amazing how most men like to strut around guns like they're their penises...  and just the same, likely fire blanks...

    See how well guns are working in the Middle East.  By this constant droning of "guns" all that happens is that it gives some sense of legitimacy to TPTB to steal money from us for our "protection."  We've built up this mindset that we can be contrlled by them (guns).

    NOTE: my guns are for hunting and warding off predators.

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 00:15 | 1144180 Al Gorerhythm
    Al Gorerhythm's picture

    I just don't see Americans going all Gandhi. Is it to be collapse through inertia or change through a revolution of ideas? Isn't Paul about ideas and trying to avoid utter collapse by implementing Jeffersonian ideals?

    What will the economic and political outcomes be, if he does not garner support from the populace? That's not a rhetorical question.

    There are only two political and economic paths (ignoring nuances) that the nation can choose from here. Paul has been banging away about one of those paths for decades whilst the nation has been traveling the other. That other path has got us deep in the hole. The alternative to his philosophy of the structure of government and the nature of money is undeniable and product of the other path is unavoidable ruin. We're there.

    Who are you going to support in the advancement of an idea. This is no time to sit on the sidelines. 

    You either keep believing in the red and blue team as your benevolent savior or you adopt Libertarian principles as espoused by Paul, in reference to the constitutional republic he represents. He seems to be the only guy upholding the oath at a national level.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:41 | 1143318 Withdrawn Sanction
    Withdrawn Sanction's picture

    the answer is no. the FED is a private institution.

    Not quite.  The Federal Reserve District Banks are quasi-private institutions owned by their respective member banks.  From the horse's "mouth":

    Commercial banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System hold stock in the Reserve Bank in their region, but they do not exercise control over the Reserve Bank or the Federal Reserve System. Holding stock in a regional Reserve Bank does not carry with it the kind of control and financial interest that holding publicly traded stock affords, and the stock may not be sold or traded.  Member banks do, however, receive a fixed 6 percent dividend annually on their stock and elect six of the nine members of the Reserve Bank's board of directors.

     

    Although they are set up like private corporations and member banks hold their stock, the Federal Reserve Banks owe their existence to an act of Congress and have a mandate to serve the public. Therefore, they are not really "private" companies, but rather are "owned" by the citizens of the United States.

     

    The Board of Governors on the other hand is an arm of the government.  Since the Chairman is appointed by the President on the advice and consent of the Senate, presumably he would be subject to Civil Service and other rules regarding actions taken while in office.   ....Not that anything WOULD ever happen, but one can always hope, I suppose.

     

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 20:38 | 1143518 thedrickster
    thedrickster's picture

    Anyone is impeachable with braided hemp of sufficient length.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:38 | 1143122 High Plains Drifter
    High Plains Drifter's picture

    it is amazing how many people still think we have something approaching a legitimate government.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 20:51 | 1143559 Seer
    Seer's picture

    And, it's amazing how many people believe that governments CAN BE legitimate.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 21:43 | 1143737 High Plains Drifter
    High Plains Drifter's picture

    good point.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 22:11 | 1143815 tarsubil
    tarsubil's picture

    Wow, is this a competition of who can be the bigger doomer?

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 22:46 | 1143902 Seer
    Seer's picture

    Well, do a dumb-ass it might appear that way.  But for anyone who doesn't have their head stuffed up their ass it's a history-backed statement of fact.  Go back to looking for unicorns, son...

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 23:36 | 1144056 samsara
    samsara's picture

    It's not being a Doomer,  It is seeing (possibly for the first time) what is wrong(in some degree) and also realizing that we are at an Impasse.  It's like being in a small town and running to the police for safety, but the cops are in with those who are chasing you.

    That is the dilemma.   What to do?

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:39 | 1143134 lynnybee
    lynnybee's picture

    What a wonderful posing.    Is there really hope after all for us & our children & future generations ?    We must revolt against this government policy, I feel so badly for the elderly of this country; those salt-of-the-earth people who were our parents, the ones who believed in AMERICA, they worked hard, paid into the system, paid off 15-year mortages in 10 years, raised children & THIS IS THE THANKS THEY GET !!!    FUCKING BERNANKE ~~ he's abandoned the very people who worked hard their whole lives & played by the rules.     I just lose it bigtime when I see how BANKSTERS are harming elderly.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:44 | 1143143 I Am Ben
    I Am Ben's picture

    That is fucking Dr. Bernanke to you, citizen!

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 20:10 | 1143412 Confuchius
    Confuchius's picture

    That is fucking i am ben the dumbest poster on ZH

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:51 | 1143176 High Plains Drifter
    High Plains Drifter's picture

    during the civil war, the southern states rebelled and look what happened to them. When one speaks of rebellion, one must ascertain the risks involved. The way things are now, we just don't have enough people who are willing to do anything so in reality, nothing can be done. Until this changes, that will be life as we know it. one thing is for sure. when the hammer is dropped, anyone that is in rebellion must realize, that it is a all or nothing game. there is no middle ground. you must destroy them before they do the same to you.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:01 | 1143203 Irwin Fletcher
    Irwin Fletcher's picture

    Exactly. BTFD until TSHTF, trade your fiat for shiny coins and survival gear along the way, then hope for a focused, direct kinetic action against the banksters instead of, say, hungry aliens.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 21:20 | 1143644 WonderDawg
    WonderDawg's picture

    If you haven't traded your fiat for shiny coins and survival gear before the SHTF, you're too late. It seems you assume that markets will exist much like they do now, but when the SHTF, panic will ensue and if you don't have your shit together, you'll be checking into the FEMA motel. That's why it's called being prepared. If you aren't prepared, you'll be just like millions of others who will be trying to do the same as you, and guess what: it will be too late. Just my two cents. Keep the change.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:13 | 1143249 BigJim
    BigJim's picture

    When you strike at a king, you must kill him.

                             - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:35 | 1143306 thatthingcanfly
    thatthingcanfly's picture

    Point of order: The late unpleasantness of 1861-1865 was not a civil war (Linclon to the contrary notwithstanding), it was a secession war, which is the precise polar opposite of a civil war. Further, to characterize secession as "rebellion" is problematical. The Founders didn't agree on it (see Dr. Fleming's article in the March Chronicles), but they did agree that The Union was a voluntary conglomeration (as implied by the word "Union," and that should one of the several sovereign States decide they didn't want to play anymore, it could leave the playground. Strictly speaking, it is decisively patriotic for a man with his loyalties in order to sever the bonds that link his local or State governments to a higher order of government once it is reasonably established that that higher order is no longer acting in its best interest. The threat of secession should be a constant reminder to rulers in our Federal government that their power is contingent upon their loyalty to us, and not the other way around. One should refrain from using words like "rebellion" to characterize this idea.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 19:55 | 1143363 Withdrawn Sanction
    Withdrawn Sanction's picture

    it is decisively patriotic for a man with his loyalties in order to sever the bonds that link his local or State governments to a higher order of government once it is reasonably established that that higher order is no longer acting in its best interest.

    I like the cut of you jib on this one, thathingcanfly.  Secession is entirely in concert w/the Declaration of Independence, among other state documents.   As in:

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

     

     The War Between the States was most decidedly not a Civil War.  Calling it a "civil war" is one of the (many) misnomers taught in public schools.  The WBTS was not a contest for control of a single government over one territory, but rather a dissolution of and separation from an existing government.

    Point of order conceded.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 21:42 | 1143728 High Plains Drifter
    High Plains Drifter's picture

    but wasn't it their biggest mistake to think that the united states was abiding by the piece of paper known as the constitution?  see, we weren't then and we aren't now. it was a scam from the start. the idea of this piece of paper being any kind of mandate for behavior of the federal government was a joke that was perpertrated on us. we fell for it and during this war, the real truth came out about it. the whole damn thing is one big lie and always was , in reality. isn't that why they got rid of the articles of confederation?  the constitution as it was written was to create a strong central government and this is what the central bankers wanted from the start and they got it. rights?  we have rights as long as we play along with the big game of pretend but when we start taking it seriously then we get in trouble, to wit, the southern states who ceceded during this war. lincoln was determined to destroy any vestage of this kind of thinking once and for all and he did as he was told and he was killed for messing with them about the money but for most of his life he was in their pocket. so now fast foward till today. it has only got worse and worse in increments.

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 02:55 | 1144403 Urban Redneck
    Urban Redneck's picture

    I prefer Mason's language in the VA Declaration of Rights, as it removes some of the linguistic acrobatics (ambiguity for the uneducated) in the later federal document

    A declaration of rights made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention; which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.

    SECTION I. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

    SEC. 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.

    SEC. 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 20:11 | 1143418 Irwin Fletcher
    Irwin Fletcher's picture

    The idea of secession was rebellious. If not, there would have been no civil war. Point taken, but with qualification. 

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 20:48 | 1143550 Doña K
    Doña K's picture

    @high plains drifter

    The only hope is if enough states start seceding from the union. The freedom lovers will all move there and the academics and elites can stay in NY, MAS & DC so that they pay the high taxes. I skipped CA because it is already a basket case.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 20:57 | 1143576 Seer
    Seer's picture

    States are no more than mini versions of the larger beast.

    Sorry, but no slicing or dicing, no "restoration" of any of this is going to do the trick.  This is the Fourth Turning (or whatever number the odometer reads).

    If you want change then be the change.  I don't accept ANYONE being my "representative," therefore I do not vote in a system that by way of my vote locks me in as a slave...

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 23:28 | 1144028 samsara
    samsara's picture

     

    HPD,  take a look at this.  It's unusual in a couple ways.  Look who he is, then look (clip inside of clip),  look who he is standing up for.     Then,  see the average citizen get upset.

    It's also ironic what sets it off.

     

    Basketball Goal Taken by FORCE of LAW!   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V88lgXfemCA&feature=feedf
    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 03:03 | 1144408 slewie the pi-rat
    slewie the pi-rat's picture

    this last string about secession is an interesting bunch of ideas. 

    yes!  the states which tried to secede claimed it was legal and just!  unfortunately, they lost the war!  so what happened was the crazy fuking idea that we were a nation, a republic, one WE, come hell or high water.  the end.  any questions?  read it again!  the end!

    my sincere advice to all, here:  please do come to terms with this fact!

    believe it or not, at that point, many would press the case that each citizen has 2nd amendment rights to bear arms and BE a "we the people" lawful part of the lawful miltia, designed and presently constituted for the sheer fuking joy of defending Liberty in America, to the death of the last free person standing.  no shit.

    others would actually press the case that this scenario is the finest escort imaginable for Liberty.  She is in full accord.  No one, anywhere, has it as good as WE do!   sorry about that!  lol!

    so have a coffee, relax, stack arms, enjoy the Spring, every minute, with your peers, friends, and family, as you wish!

    no one is going to secede.  no one is going to point a weapon at anyone. 

    and press the case that there is, really, nothing "wrong" here, at all.  that we live in extraordinately interesting times, and that forces against Liberty are actually afoot.

    and, really, most everyone, everywhere, who is part of this, knows this, people!  it's pretty fukin simple, once you get the picture. 

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 05:40 | 1144497 Urban Redneck
    Urban Redneck's picture

    My point is that the 2nd ammendment has nothing to do with militias or the right to hunt.

    The founders intent was codify the right of armed revolt in the event of the corruption of the ballot box.

    For purely intellectual shits & giggles- the 13th ammendment is a hoot since it actually codifies an existance for slavery under the US constitution, "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted"

    Ain't US education great? 

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:45 | 1143148 Restcase
    Restcase's picture

    Good stuff - we need an even longer bill of particulars investigators can work with.

    What makes an oligarchy what it is is its informality - deciding which laws apply to whom when; disregard of inconvenient or distasteful laws and regulations; cronyism out the wazoo; secrecy; misrepresentation; and enrichment of the inner circle.

    The question is whether such academics as Bernanke even understand what complete tools they are.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:45 | 1143151 cswjr
    cswjr's picture

    These days the Chairsatan has untold amounts of MBS -- all highly valuable, according to Blackrock -- to post as collateral.  Dr. Paul would have to prove that the NYFRB didn't have the collateral to put up to produce the FRN's to purchase the MBS in the first place.  Good luck with that...

     

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:44 | 1143156 israhole
    israhole's picture

    "Just say no" to the Fed.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:44 | 1143157 High Plains Drifter
    High Plains Drifter's picture

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/19875.html

    March 8, 2008
    From Rand Paul, MD
    Posted by Lew Rockwell on March 8, 2008 05:29 PM

    Writes Ron’s son:

    “Is the Revolution Over or Just Beginning?

    “Reports that Ron Paul has quit the Presidential Race remind me of Mark Twain’s famous quote, ‘Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.’ The Ron Paul Presidential campaign continues albeit at a different pace.“What does that mean?

    “Ron Paul will continue to contest the remaining primaries. Ron Paul’s name will be on all the remaining state ballots.

    “Ron Paul volunteers are encouraged to become precinct captains, delegates to state and national conventions, and to try pass Constitutional proposals to each state’s Republican platform.

    “For example, volunteers in each state should try to attach amendments such as the following: Republicans believe that war should only be fought after a proper Declaration of War by Congress. Another possible platform idea is that: Republican Congressmen are expected to vote against any federal budget, Republican or Democrat, that is not balanced.

    “Want to have some fun? Just imagine the fun when the debate begins on these ideas.

    “Is Ron Paul still campaigning for president? Yes. Ron Paul has tentative plans to campaign in Pennsylvania and Kentucky. Ron Paul will also likely appear in other states that have remaining primaries.

    “The press is reporting that Ron Paul has quit the race. This is not true. Ron Paul’s video simply acknowledges that the campaign will continue but will also transform into additional activities such as education and supporting other candidates.

    “In Kentucky we just held precinct conventions and Ron Paul Republicans won hundreds of precinct captains. In Kyle Texas, Craig Young upset the establishment choice for Republican County Chairman.

    “The Ron Paul Revolution lives on. Victory comes in many forms. Help shape what the Ron Paul revolution becomes.”
    Bookmark/Share

    http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/5110.html

    Remember, Remember The 5th of November... Donation Bomb for President Ron Paul!
    By CC Magazine - Monday, November 5 2007

    Dr. Ron Paul is running for President, and he has cured thousands of Americans of political apathy!

    On the fifth of November there will be a revolution in the world of campaigns and politics. The idea is to donate $100 on November 5th and raise Dr. Ron Paul's campaign funding by the millions, giving the doctor more media attention and money to fight the Neocons for the Republican nomination. Dr. Paul will end the Drug War, legalize industrial hemp, free non-violent drug offenders from prison, and pardon those with unjust drug convictions. America is lucky to have a person like Ron Paul running for president.

    its about time for new ron paul money bomb...GIVE , GIVE , GIVE, GIVE...!!!

    WINNER........WINNER.....WINNER !!!!!!

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 23:27 | 1144021 gall batter
    gall batter's picture

     

    I like Ron Paul on many issues.  Disapprove of his anti-choice position, though.  I think this is an individual choice and should not be political.  Here's a link to Lew Rockwell's article supporting Paul but the discrepancy for me is in Paul's antiabortion stance which flies in the face of his opinion on privacy and the interference of the state on the issue of privacy:  http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/rethink-everything175.html

     

     

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 03:36 | 1144426 slewie the pi-rat
    slewie the pi-rat's picture

    ok, g b, i'll concede that ron is actually anti-choice.  so stipulated.

    is he not allowed his choice?  do ya really think he wants to try to fire up his people to overturn Roe?  isn't it just possible he is a gyno who really does not wish to do abortions on demand?  and that he really can't screw around, professionally, and just expresses himself straight up?  not polically only?  but as a person, a doctor, a veteran congressperson, and a presidential candidate?  himself? 

    just a thought...

    Thu, 04/07/2011 - 08:11 | 1144640 gall batter
    gall batter's picture

    Yes, he's allowed his OPINION as a person, doctor, himself, whatever.  The answer is that he never has an abortion.  Get it?  He can advise.  Sure, as boyfriends and husbands can.  But the final decision should rest with the vessel.  She is not a vassal.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:48 | 1143164 rufusbird
    rufusbird's picture

    Thank you, I have been trying to explain why the activities of the Fed are wrong and constitue a ponzi scheme.Your post of this letter puts it simply and elegantly. I am forwarding copies of this letter to them and some other friends!

     

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:54 | 1143187 High Plains Drifter
    High Plains Drifter's picture

    the constitution names the congress as having the power to coin money, not the FED. of course they look the other way on this. because what else can they really do? admit it? i think not. so they play this game and our elected fools play along, just to get along and in the end, it is the american taxpayer that gets it in the shorts..........but you know, major league baseball has started now, so the lazy fat amerikans will be out of pocket for the rest of the summer........

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 20:18 | 1143450 RichardP
    RichardP's picture

    Drifter - any legal entity has the right to create agency.  Agency is the legal permission for some other entity to act, at your direction, as though they were you.  Congress has created a number of organization and authorized them to act on behalf of Congress, such as the Congressional Budget Office and the Federal Reserve System.

    Congress is carrying out it's Constitutional mandate to create and supervise money by delegating that responsibility to an organization that it created and granted agency to - the Federal Reserve System.  You can argue that Congress is failing to exercise appropriate oversight over the Federal Reserve System it created.  But you can't argue that Congress is in violation of it's Consitutional mandate to create and supervise money.  There is a difference between those two arguments.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 20:53 | 1143564 Doña K
    Doña K's picture

    If I delegate someone to do my business, I have the right to audit them, and or replace them, or abolish them. So which one is it gonna be?

    How about a vote of keeping or ditching the fed. That will show who is who in congress.

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 21:15 | 1143633 Seer
    Seer's picture

    "If I delegate someone to do my business, I have the right to audit them, and or replace them, or abolish them."

    Interesting question.  I'd like to know whether that is in fact the case, that the congress can in fact ask for full audits without having to go through some long, drawn-out drama.

    I've warned people of this in the past, and I'll once again mention it: everyone states how incompetent the government is; with this in mind do you want government to have total control over the money system? wouldn't this allow for easier political manipulation?

    NOTE: I'd like the Fed to go away too.  But, be careful of what you wish for, as much as power has its hooks in government it WILL find a way to take greater possession of power in this matter (consult history).

    P.S. How come there aren't folks clamoring for an audit of the Pentagon?  Big Brother spews out nearly $1 trillion/yr financing all its Big Brother operations.  If people can't see to it to control their self-incarceration, then really, asking for a change in how your "debt" is managed?

    Wed, 04/06/2011 - 22:07 | 1143794 medicalstudent
    medicalstudent's picture

    to.. coin.. any.. thing.. but...

     

    the only laws that matter are those that govern matter.

     

    Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!