Archive for March, 2011
March 29th, 2011 by olddog
THE OATH OF OFFICE
The Oath Of Office: The Check On Usurpations By Congress, The Executive Branch, & Federal Judges.
By Publius Huldah.
Rush Limbaugh recently 1 castigated our putative president for announcing that his regime would not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. Rush said:
“…He’s ordering his Justice Department not to defend a federal law. Nobody has said the law is unconstitutional other than Obama and Holder, and they don’t have the power to do that … For a president to ignore a federal law … for him to act as legislature and court …is hugely troubling …”
Newt Gingrich commented to the same effect to Newsmax on Feb. 25, 2011; and added that “it’s a violation of his [Obama's] constitutional oath” and “could lead to a constitutional crisis”.
Not so, Rush & Newt! Actually, it is a President’s sworn duty to refuse to enforce any unconstitutional “law” made by Congress. And contrary to the misinformation with which we are constantly bombarded, judges are not vested with exclusive authority to declare Acts of Congress unconstitutional.
The Truth is that a President, the States, local governments, and individual citizens, together with the courts, all have the Right & Duty to overrule – to spurn & cast out – unconstitutional laws made by Congress. For it is a fundamental [though long suppressed] Principle of our Founding that an unconstitutional “law” is no “law” at all – it is a “mere usurpation, and deserves to be treated as such”.
Our Framers placed “Oaths of Office” in the Constitution. When honored, these Oaths function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations. Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches.
The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government.
And WE THE PEOPLE, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist No. 22, last para), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected & appointed officials.
Ignorance of Our Founding Principles
WE THE PEOPLE forgot our Founding Principles. Conservative lawyers, politicians, judges, “intellectuals”, and radio & TV pundits don’t know them. The lawyers uncritically accepted what they were told in law school, and the non-lawyers accept what other people say. No one learns The Constitution – no one thinks independently – like Dufflepuds, they chant the prevailing dogma. As a result, our Country spirals downward at an ever quickening pace.
But if you read on, you will learn seven of our Founding Principles:
1. Who Really Is The Boss? WE THE PEOPLE? Or the Federal Government?
WE THE PEOPLE created the federal government when we ordained & established the Constitution for the United States of America. WE created the three branches of the federal government and itemized the powers WE granted to each branch. 2 Neither the Legislative, nor the Executive, nor the Judicial Branch may lawfully do ANYTHING unless WE authorized it in the Constitution. WE are the Creators; those in the federal government, be they Senators, Representatives, federal judges, Presidents or other officials, are merely our “creatures”. When they disobey the Constitution, WE are to take action. In Federalist No. 33 (5th para), Alexander Hamilton says:
“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed [the Constitution], and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.” [emphasis added]
Did you get that? Read it again.
2. Congress’ Powers are Enumerated
In the Constitution, WE authorized Congress to make laws only on those objects WE listed in the Constitution. Those few objects on which WE authorized Congress to make laws applicable throughout our Country are itemized at Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 1-16 (and in a few Amendments). Here is an explanation of Congress’ Enumerated Powers.
3. When is a “Law” Not a Law?
When it’s a usurpation! I.e., when Congress makes any “law” which the Constitution does not authorize it to make. Our Framers understood that civil governments seek to expand their powers; but when our federal government does so, its acts are VOID. In Federalist No. 33 (last para), Hamilton says a law made by Congress which is not authorized by the Constitution,
“…would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution…” [boldface mine]
In Federalist No. 78 (10th para), Hamilton says:
“…every act of a delegated authority, contrary to…the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm…that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” [emphasis mine]
Do you see? If Congress makes a law which is not authorized by the Constitution, then it is no “law” at all. It is a “mere usurpation” – it is “void” and “not valid“.
4. What is the “Rule of Law”?
Article VI, clause 2, says the Constitution, and the Laws & Treaties authorized by the Constitution, are the “supreme Law of the Land”. The Rule of Law prevails when the civil authorities obey The Constitution. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says for “Constitution”:
“…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.”
If any Branch fails to obey the “supreme Law”, then, in order to preserve the Rule of Law, the other Branches, or failing that, the States or THE PEOPLE, must overrule them.
5. What Does the Oath of Office Actually Say?
Article II, Sec. 1, last clause, sets forth the President’s Oath of Office:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Article VI, clause 3, provides that all other representatives, officers & judges (federal and state) are bound to support the Constitution.
6. The Check Provided by the Oath of Office
The Key is this: One’s Oath is pledged to The CONSTITUTION – the Oath is NOT to go along with Congress, or to obey the Executive Branch, or submit to federal judges.
The President’s “Check” on Congress and Federal Courts:
Say Congress makes a “law” which says Jews must wear a yellow star on their arm; Christians, a white cross; & that it’s a felony if they fail to wear the armbands. Imagine you are President. You vetoed the bill; but Congress overrode your veto. Are you going to enforce that “law”?
Look at your Oath of Office. Does your Oath require you to obey Congress 3 unless & until five people on the supreme Court say you don’t have to? And even if those five side with Congress, will you allow U.S. Attorneys to prosecute Christians & Jews who don’t wear the arm bands?
Or will you look at your Oath of Office which recites that your Sworn Duty is to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. The Constitution – not whatever law a majority of people in Congress pass & five people on the supreme Court approve. If you are faithful, you will review Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 1-16, and you will ask, “Where is Congress authorized to make a law which requires Christians & Jews to wear armbands? You will see that The Constitution does not authorize Congress to make the law, and you will see that the supreme Court’s opinion upholding it is unconstitutional. You will denounce the pretended law & judges’ opinion as “mere usurpations”, and you will instruct the Attorney General & U.S. Attorneys NOT to prosecute violations of that pretended “law”. 4
Four Checks on Federal Judges:
We were told in law school that the supreme Court is the ultimate authority on the Constitution, and when they [or rather, a majority of five] speak, we must all scurry to obey. Rubbish!
The Oath of Office (Art. VI, last clause) does require judges to strike down “laws” made by Congress which are unconstitutional. Hamilton recognizes in Federalist No. 78 (9th para, et seq.) that judges have the power to strike down unconstitutional “laws”.
But this is the only “check” law students hear about! Since they don’t know about The Federalist Papers & (thanks to progressive education) can’t think, they graduate law school believing that the only “check” is that of federal judges to declare laws made by Congress unconstitutional (“judicial review”). They believe that no one has a check on the supreme Court – that their word is final.
Not so! Federal judges are not gods. They are morally & intellectually fallible people who (as our Framers saw) can cause dreadful harm to our Country when they connive with another Branch.
Thus, they are subject to “the check of the Oath” for their usurpations – checks imposed by Congress, the Executive Branch, the States, and THE PEOPLE:
(a) Congress must impeach & remove federal judges who usurp power – they serve during “good Behaviour” only (Art. III, Sec.1). Hamilton discusses impeachment of usurping judges in Federalist No. 81, 8th para. 5 So yes! Congress may review the propriety of judges’ opinions!
(b) The President must refuse to go along with unconstitutional opinions. Hamilton saw that federal judges might become “embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature” (Federalist No.16, next to last para). So the President is bound by Oath to reject unconstitutional “laws” even when approved by the supreme Court. And Hamilton understood that it might be appropriate for a President to refuse to enforce a federal court opinion. He says in Federalist No. 78 (6th para):
“…The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary … has no influence over … the sword or the purse; no direction … of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” [caps are Hamilton's, other emphasis mine]
Do you see?
(c) The States must nullify unconstitutional opinions. 6 State officers & judges are bound by Oath to support the Constitution (Art. VI, last clause). So they too are Honor bound to refuse to comply with unconstitutional federal court opinions, as well as unconstitutional federal laws, executive orders, & pretended treaties which affect them & their Citizens.
7. The People Have The Ultimate Power & Responsibility to Enforce The Constitution
For too long, we have shirked our Responsibility to enforce The Constitution – we let the supreme Court be in charge.
Look at what they have done with the power we relinquished to them: They approved Congress’ massive & grotesquely unconstitutional expansions of federal control over our lives [e.g., their "interstate commerce clause" & "general welfare clause" jurisprudence]; they outlawed the Faith of Our Fathers & used the 14th Amendment to bring about a radical redefinition of “Liberty” as freedom from moral restraints; and they connived with Congress in turning the once proud American People into parasites who clamor to live at other peoples’ expense. They usurped Our status as the “pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority”, and claim for themselves the power to “make policy” for our Country!
Our Framers Understood That Judges Could Be Dangerous – But Couldn’t Get Away With It Unless WE Concurred.
Hamilton says “an illegal usurpation of authority”, to be successful, “would require not merely a factious majority in the legislature, but the concurrence of the courts of justice and of the body of the people.” Because judges may be “embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature”, Hamilton expected the People to be “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.” (Federalist No.16, next to last para).
“…liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments…” ( Federalist No. 78, 7th para).
James Madison says in Federalist No. 44 (last para before 2.):
“…the success of the usurpation [by Congress] will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers.” [boldface added]
So! It is up to The People, who are “the natural guardians of the Constitution” (Federalist No.16, next to last para), to take whatever action is necessary when their representatives in the federal government concur with the usurpations of another Branch – and thereby violate their Oaths to preserve The Constitution.
How do we become “enlightened enough” to do this?
Read The Declaration of Independence & The Constitution – read them often. The more you read, the more you will come to see that The Constitution gives effect to the Principles of the Declaration. Outline The Federalist Papers. Get Mary Webster’s edition in modern English for yourself and the young people in your Family. Consult Webster’s 1828 Dictionary for definitions. Be careful whom you trust – most conservative lawyers have minds like blank sheets of paper which got imprinted in law school; and the conservative commentators regurgitate what the indoctrinated lawyers tell them! Study so that you can speak like this wonderful woman who challenged Rep. Pete Stark on obamacare.
Stop wasting your time on bizarre theories about the UCC, “emergency powers”, gold fringe on flags & admiralty jurisdiction, and other such silly stuff. It may be tempting to place the blame on others who are in a secret cabal to take away your rights via nefarious schemes such as the UCC or adding gold fringes to flags; but the Truth is that you, along with everyone else, haven’t bothered to do the Work to learn our Founding Documents & Principles.
Lose your pride in your own knowingness about The Constitution: What you think you know, just ain’t so; and the misinformation in your head blinds you to Truth. When you just repeat the stuff you hear, you add to the problem. Millions of Americans heard Rush & Newt and were mislead by the misinformation those two spread. And for Heaven’s Sake, don’t advocate ratification of Amendments to the Constitution until you fully understand the existing Constitution! [And if you fully understood it, the only amendments you would want are those repealing some of the previous amendments.]
Stop thinking like a slave – we have become a Country of “permission seekers”. For every issue, we want to file a lawsuit in federal court. Why? Because we don’t want to take Responsibility for dealing with the issue ourselves. Spend a few hours studying the Declaration & Constitution and you will know the Constitution doesn’t give Congress authority to force you into a government controlled “health care” system. You will know it doesn’t give the Executive Branch authority to control CO2 emissions. You will know it doesn’t give the Executive Branch & Congress authority to force us into pernicious UN treaties such as the Declaration on the Rights of the Child & to implement [as they are doing right now] the UN’s Agenda 21 “sustainable development” scheme. Many federal judges are our enemies – they are the last people you should ask for permission to have constitutional government. WE need to “man up” and take responsibility.
As Madison advises, defeat elected federal & State officials who have betrayed us; and replace them with faithful servants who will annul the acts of the usurpers.
Learn your State’s recall statutes – recall faithless elected officers. Learn your State’s impeachment procedures – demand impeachment of faithless State judges and officers. Demand impeachment of faithless federal officials and judges. Demand that each house of Congress expel members who usurp power (Art. I, Sec. 5, clause 2). Expel the loons in the House!
Learn about Nullification by States and restore Jury Nullification in criminal cases. 7
Learn about Federalism . Urge repeal of the 17th Amendment to help restore “federalism”.
Learn from the heroic Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, who practiced non-violent civil disobedience of unjust State “laws” which enforced segregation. Withdraw your concurrence to usurpations.
1 Rush’s show of Feb 24, 2011. When Rush speaks on the Constitution, beware! But when he speaks on other matters, he can be brilliant. And Gingrich, who is supposed to be an intellectual & an expert, showed he is profoundly ignorant of our Founding Principles.
2 Art. I creates the Legislative Branch & enumerates its powers. Art. II creates the Executive Branch & enumerates its powers. Art. III creates the Judicial Branch & enumerates its powers.
3 You may object, “But Art. II, Sec. 3 says the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed!” And I would remind you that an unconstitutional “law” is no law at all – it is “a mere usurpation and deserves to be treated as such” – it is “VOID” & “not valid“.
4 In Federalist No. 66, 2nd para, Hamilton points out that Congress may impeach & remove the President for “encroachments” on the powers of the Legislative Branch. So if Congress objects to your ignoring their pretended law, they may impeach & remove you.
5 Hamilton says in Federalist No. 78 (7th para up from bottom) that judges may not
“…substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature … The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would … be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body…” [caps are Hamilton's]
When federal judges substitute their pleasure for that of Congress [when Congress' acts are constitutional] Congress is honor bound to impeach & remove them for their usurpation. And everyone else is honor bound to spit on the judges’ unconstitutional opinion. Yes! It takes he-men & she-women to enforce The Rule of Law! Man up, People!
6 The supreme Court issues unconstitutional opinions all the time. Look at how they perverted the 14th Amendment and the 1st Amendment! In these (& other) cases, they substitute their pleasures for the Will of The States and The People.
7 Webster’s 1828 Dictionary has the following entry under “jury”:
“…Petty juries, consisting usually of twelve men, attend courts to try matters of fact in civil causes, and to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions …” [emphasis added]
Would you convict someone for the “crimes” of failing to buy health insurance or failing to wear the armbands? THAT is the essential purpose of Jury Nullification in criminal cases. Get your Legislatures to restore it and insist that it be applied in federal criminal trials conducted in your State. PH
March 29th, 2011 by olddog
Psychopathic Body Politic: Corpus Delicti
By David A. McElroy
March 28, 2011
Corporate structures can be psychologically profiled much like human beings. Basic principles and dynamics are similar, but with different scales of measure. The wheels of bureaucracy grind more slowly, but they do grind through processes analogous to human personal development in rising from conception to maturity and end at a point of systemic failure, a decaying corpse. Uncle Sam, personification of America’s now psychopathic body politic, reigns as “the world’s policeman”, yet denies his diseased mind is a danger to himself and others. This gangster exercises force and fraud to assert his vitality vainly in violent spasms while vultures hover in view of the corpus delicti.
Uncle Sam’s disease is what the Cree Tribe and other Native Americans call Wetiko. In modern parlance it is Malignant Egophrenia, a psychosis leading to combative behavior and bodily injury. See Paul Levy’s recent essay on “The Greatest Epidemic Sickness Known To Humanity” at www.awakeninthedream.com. While Uncle Sam is pictured most generally as a wizened old man wrapped in stars and stripes, his actual behavior is more like that of the young big bully looking to inflict stars and stripes on 90 pound weaklings as he seeks to impress the world with his alcohol-fueled bravado. He is very obsessed with the building of his public image to hide his insecurities! He drives a shiny red muscle car with a loud boombox, and is full of himself.
My Webster’s Dictionary defines “psychopathic personality” as “a person characterized by emotional instability, lack of sound judgment, perverse and impulsive (often criminal) behavior, inability to learn from experience, amoral and asocial feelings and other serious personality defects.” And a “sociopath” is defined as “a psychopathic personality whose behavior is aggressively antisocial.” You might even recall that by law, corporate bodies are considered “fictitious persons”. Such phony persons are aliases shielding real persons suffering malignant egophrenia, corporate bodies wielded with limited legal liabilities and measures of citizenship and influence larger than we humans are granted. Let’s consider these personalities as we know them, and not how they promote themselves! We should not allow their propaganda to dictate our public discourse anymore than Charlie Sheen, Lady Gaga, or Charles Manson.
Uncle Sam has declared himself absolutely secular, or amoral. He openly practices the manipulation of the electorate in shifting public policy to implement social engineering, demonstrating the federal anti-social tendencies against our culture. Obama’s Amnesty for illegal aliens is just another way of corrupting the voting process. His behavior is very bipolar, with swings between Progressive Democrats and NeoCon Republican leaders of what Pat Buchanan described as the “two wings of the bird of prey”. Uncle Sam is an impulsive tyrant, and will quickly exert military muscle without due process, clear cut goals or even an exit strategy. Of course, an exit is not in mind, as Uncle Sam still keeps Germany, Japan, and Korea under his thumb. Uncle Sam tells us we must sacrifice and tighten our belts, reduce our standards, while he spends our wealth, dignity, and lives in a manner befitting Roman Emperor Caligula and makes drunken sailors look very reserved.
It is the very nature of states and corporatist thinking that destroys social fabrics in motifs seeking collectivist powers and profits in oppressive schemes in all the various forms of government, even republics. Corporate bodies politic, like we humans, develop a sense of self and motivations. They do become selfish in seeking esteem, powers and possessions. Unlike people, they have no souls, their only moral compass is the bottom line. Corporate bodies may survive for centuries, and people are their fodder! George Washington said government, is “like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearsome master!”
What is a nation?
How has the corporatist influence changed our perception of the term?
Originally, a “nation” was a distinct human culture, refined with very certain mores and religious traditions, language and social customs that were well defined within certain ancestral boundaries both genetic and geographic. Such a culture had long recognized structures of authority, some unique styles and techniques of art, industry, and education. These nations were largely homogenous and ethnic, tribal and clannish. Family life was the basis of society. People within these nations knew the rules of their cultures and this promoted confidence and stability for both the individual and the community at large in family camps, small villages, big cities or kingdoms. The ancient nation had a distinct cultural identity in the Family of Man, and protections and provisions for the people was paramount in society. Strong men with skills became village chiefs and kings providing protection and provision for peaceful commerce and industry in a stable community.
This sort of stability in a homogenous culture is everything the modern state loathes and the New World Order is working fiendishly to eliminate. Politics is known as “The art of compromise”, and politicians will compromise everyone and everything in fomenting all manner of confusion and conflict to profit from the Hegelian Dialectic. Multiculturalism is a means to this end, including homosexual rights, feminism, and “tolerance” for even foreign laws as well as perverse and hostile cultures in our midst. Chaos is profitable for Uncle Sam and his corporatist family of deceitful professional psychopaths who insist on metering everything for statistical quantitative analysis and engineer shortages to achieve their aims leveled against us. Suffering and reward, sticks and carrots, are all Uncle Sam has for tools aside from his lying silver tongue and scheming paranoid mind. He has no things of value that he did not take from people by force or fraud. He is an illusionist, and we should be disillusioned if we don’t want to suffer stripes and see stars under his hand!
This difference in the definition of a nation is what is being decided in the Middle East, why Afghanistan is the Graveyard of Empires. Afghanistan is one of the few remaining areas of the world where tribal chiefs and customs rule, where the social structure limits the collective forces mustered to simple infantry and guerilla tactics similar to those employed by the rebellious colonists of early America in 1776. Afghanistan’s lack of a central government (aside from puppets imposed as in client states) and huge taxes for a modern air force and nuclear weapons targeted by spy satellites makes this very remote mountainous Muslim tribal land a tempting target for empires seeking poppies and booty.
Modern nations are the children and parents of corporations, and only pretend to serve their peoples. Often modern nations have become big empires and mass murderers in reducing people to profits in collecting lesser nations’ resources in hostile takeovers. Aboriginal tribal cultures and clannish family loyalties are fiercely targeted much as lions will seek to separate a weaker animal from the herd of prey. Corporatism is a form of socialism Mussolini identified as fascism. Many pay as few profit, profits are privatized and losses are socialized. As the Japanese say, “Business is War!” President Eisenhower warned Americans of the military/industrial complex’s hubris now driving us onward in perpetual war. People are taxed to purchase cannon, paid to design and build better cannon, conscripted to deploy cannon in warfare, and become cannon fodder! Corporate bodies collect the profits coming and going as we move from cradle to grave. This will guarantee only death and taxes for us in the herd of prey, and explains why socialists are so fond of Darwin and his Law of the Jungle. It is them feeding on us human resources!
War… what is it good for? It is an ancient paradigm that modern science has raised from something like an intramural sport to a level sufficient for extinction of all life on Earth. This lethal corporate power is wielded by the most selfish elitist egos on the planet, and our taxes paid for this genocidal horror! We must value peace as truly patriotic and stop attacking humanity. We must now pursue the corporate masters, robber barons all, the “Captains of Industry” who command wars. We must wage love… which demands truth and justice! Oligarchs order their fascist warfare/welfare police states to kill and enslave us with subversive “public fool systems”, legal deceits, usury, commodity and currency speculations in a political theatre of smoke and mirrors. Get your head out of corporate mainstream media’s electronic gaslight alley! Corporatists own and control media, banks, insurance, schools, industry and real estate. They have even seized much religious turf. They do this primarily by “color of law”, a commodity purchased via lobbyists bearing gifts billionaires gain from our blood, sweat, and tears. “Possession is nine tenths of the law”, it is said, and the oligarchs claim legal possession of almost everything on the planet. See the distribution of wealth. The elite see us as chattel on a thousand hills.
The rule of government is “He who has the gold rules.“ Corporate contingency plans are set as snares to “do unto others before they do unto you” in various pre-emptive strikes projected by “greenmail”, blackmail, force and fraud. Government would never “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” as Christ said. Government’s nature is to assert itself. Government is always exercising dominion through power projected to extract profits and enslave, demonstrating a psychopathic criminal behavior painfully obvious despite its deceits. Uncle Sam is but one in a rogues’ gallery of nations and the victors of wars write the history books brainwashing the younger generations.
American coins used to bear the motto “Mind Your Business”, as if to say “Hey, here’s my legal tender to pay the price, I don’t need to answer no stinkin’ questions!” Now we are supposed to answer questions even in purchasing a toaster, and any right to privacy is a relic of the past. Ask the IRS or Homeland Security. A “Cashless Society” is the elitist means to transparency and convenience for the corporatist New World Order, not us! It will be an electronic choke collar, even a noose, the Mark of the Beast!
An old maxim declared He who does the payin‘ does the sayin‘, but now those who do the saying exempt themselves from paying the debts they heap upon working class people under color of law. When was the last time you saw or heard of a low income or lower middle class person serving in Congress , a state legislature, county commission, a city council, or even an advisory board? What ever happened to the concept of the citizen’s arrest, the independently called grand jury, fully informed juries aware of their rights to rule on the law as well as the allegation? Why are so many disqualified from jury service?
The American Revolution fought in the Spirit of ’76 was waged with patriots crying they would have “NO KING BUT JESUS!”. They insisted that no man was to be above the law, and as Thomas Jefferson stated, America should offer, “Equal rights for all, special privileges for none.” Patriots insisted statutes were to be plainly written to convey the clear meaning to common citizens in a consistent body of law formulating justice based on standards outlined in the Christian biblical tradition that had shaped the very distinct cultural identity of a eurocentric America. Does Uncle Sam’s government reflect these values today? Or in any time since the War Between The States? Didn’t the Fourteenth Amendment make federal slaves of all Americans? Was the Act of 1871 imposing the corporatist model paving the way for states to surrender control of the US Senate to the corporate elite like Rockefeller and Morgan in 1913? And set the stage for banksters to rule and rob us via the Federal Reserve Banks’ currency speculations that have since bankrupted us? Uncle Sam has become a demonic psychotic in dementia, and needs an intervention to arrest his destructive behavior and preserve life and property in America.
America needs a regime change. The solution is not found in a supra-national world government like the United Nations, another layer of bureaucracy shielding oligarchs. The tyrants distance themselves from us with increasing deceits from lofty positions and must be brought down from the levers of power. Power must become less concentrated, and no person should be above the law. But what law is just law to enact? To what must we resort to restore humanity to a righteous path of progress uplifting to all people?
Our answer lies in returning to a simpler and clear-cut social order Thomas Jefferson referred to as The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. This is a matter of recognizing the laws of physics and such evident in what modern theologians call the General Revelation, and the law nature’s Creator provided in Special Revelation through “Holy Writ” given Moses as The Ten Commandments. Christ summed up commandments in The Golden Rule, the law of love read in Matthew 22:36-40. All just law, rights and restrictions, overt and implied, are rooted in God’s law. Israel fell from God seeking a king in I Samuel 8.
Tyrants who prefer the love of law to the law of love, will not love God nor neighbors at all. Their pride drives them to assert themselves over others in malignant egophrenia! The battle is joined. Will you serve degrading evil or uplifting good?
No king but Jesus?
March 28th, 2011 by olddog
The War Within
March 28, 2011
By Lynn M Stuter
An e-mail, from a fellow freedom-fighter, gave me cause to think long and hard about the growing animosity between the shrinking middle-class and business in our country today, who is agitating that animosity, and what they hope to gain.
Who is not aware that the taxpayers bailed out the Wall Street tycoons in 2008-2009, and the billions added to the national debt because of it? In essence, the little people – the average every day Mom and Pop – bailed out businesses that make millions of dollars every year and pay their CEO's and top management millions every year in compensation.
The resulting anger from this bailout, which the majority of hard-working Americans were opposed to, but which Congress and the White House did anyway, is aimed at business, in general. And to be very clear, those bailouts happened under two administrations, one Republican and one Democrat.
In the words of Rahm Emanuel, "never let a good crisis go to waste." And there is a segment in our country that is trying to make the most of the resulting anger of Americans.
Of these people, we need to be cautious that we know what their real agenda is.
There are three factions that exist in the United States today.
There are the communists. This group, like "also known as" (AKA) Obama (for who really knows which is his real name and which are his aliases), is largely comprised of people who believe in the fundamental principles of communism as it differs from fascism: ownership of everything held by the government in the common interest. In the United States, this group largely comprises those calling themselves Democrats. Their modus operandi, in achieving the ultimate communist state in this country, is to use the public coffers to perpetuate the "general welfare" of the people; their focus is social programs such as welfare, socialized medicine – in general, taking from those who work and providing social programs for those who don't, thus buying their vote.
There are the fascists. This group, like Bush, is largely comprised of people who believe in the fundamental principles of fascism as it differs from communism: wealth is held by large (mega) corporations and banks who influence how the government is run, in the common good. In the United States, this group largely comprises those calling themselves Republicans. Their modus operandi, in achieving the ultimate fascist state in this country, is to ensure the wealth, continued growth, and influence of big business, such that those businesses have the means necessary to influence government policy in the common good.
Communists and fascists are two heads of a three-headed Marxist snake, advocating "democracy" – rule by the majority with the rights of the minority at the whim of the majority; in other words, rule according to the passions, opinions and prejudices of those in power.
As Americans are learning the hard way, and in the words of James Madison, in Federalist Paper #10,
"such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths."
Both communists and fascists adhere to the basic principles of Marxism, each merely a sect of the philosophy. Nazism, or national socialism, is but another sect of the same philosophy, the third head of the three-headed Marxist snake.
So when communists and fascists speak ill of Nazi's or neo-Nazi's, they do so not because there are fundamental differences in their beliefs, but rather because of the stigmatism associated to Nazism because of Adolf Hitler and the atrocities committed by the Third Reich that came to light in World War II. Had the same policies, used in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the U.S.S.R.), resulted in the same kind of world conflict, had the millions who died as a result of the same policies in the U.S.S.R. resulted in the same stigma, maybe people wouldn't be so quick to jump on the "social revolution" bandwagon advocated by every good communist.
The third group are freedom-loving Americans who understand the foundations, the history, and the purpose of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, establishing a limited form of government, based on the Biblical principles of self-governance; where all men are created equal in the eyes of God; where all rights are God-given; where man's right to freedom is in exact proportion to his willingness to put chains upon those human proclivities – defined in the Ten Commandments – that are detrimental to the establishment and maintenance of a cohesive civilized society. This group understands that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights established rule of law and what that means in the larger context.
One of the primary lessons of the fall of the Roman Empire is that no society can long stand when that society moves away from its founding principles. This is no less true in America. Either we stand on our founding principles or we destroy the very foundations of our nation; at the same time, we destroy that which has drawn so many oppressed people to our shores.
In the arena of education, that destruction began, in a big way, in the late 1800's with the introduction of the works of John Dewey, a self-avowed Marxist and humanist, whose views on education were a direct result of his Marxist ideology – resulting in the dumbing down of children in the interests of producing the attitude needed in pursuit of the common good. That ideology permeates the system of education being used in the United States today, otherwise known by an assortment of names – outcomes-based, performance-based, competency-based, outcomes driven developmental model, and et cetera; otherwise known as systems education.
In general, the ideology is a move away from teaching children to think, to be able to access a broad spectrum of knowledge to formulate a reasoned conclusion as an individual, to life-role education in which what is deemed politically correct becomes the foundation of lessons taught in four areas: world economy, world security, world ecology and world population growth, in no particular order.
Thus it is that parents are finding their children subjected to rabid environmentalism; homosexuality as normal; the teaching of ethnic tribalism (society not as a melting pot but as a nation of tribes, each tribe their own society with their own customs); guns are bad; whites are racists; earth as one nation (globalism); older people are the cause of everything wrong in America today … in the classroom.
The recent ExPlan that came to light, put on by a consortium of government entities, funded by the Department of Homeland Security, in Pottawattamie County, Iowa, in which whites, opposed to the illegal alien invasion of the United States, were portrayed as racists of the white supremacist persuasion, given to the stockpiling of weapons and violence, is a good example of the life-role education going on in schools.
While the exercise coordinators denied the Exercise Scenario, found on pages 12-13 of the ExPlan, had anything to do with the actual drill, the Exercise Scenario provided the wanted perception played out in who was deemed the "victim" (minorities and illegal aliens) and who was deemed the perpetrator (whites, opposed to the illegal alien invasion, with guns insinuating violent tendencies). When objections to the Exercise Scenario forced coordinators to cancel the exercise, coordinators then tried to portray themselves as the victims, and everyone who contacted them, concerned about the profiling established by the Exercise Scenario, as white supremacists given to violence, etc.
The ideology has also found its way into the work place, via total quality management (TQM); into how government functions, via the high performance work organization (HPWO), continuous quality improvement (CQI), or performance-based budgeting (PBB); and the church, via social gospel or the church growth movement (CGM) in which filling the pews is deemed much more important than teaching the word of God.
In short the transformation of America, from rule of law to democracy is well under way. The process is known as transformational Marxismor the quiet revolution. The Republicans and Democrats are pushing it; only those Americans who understand the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights stand in opposition. That number is growing daily, as Americans come to realize that neither Republicans nor Democrats are the friend of our beloved United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, of freedom, liberty and justice.
Most Americans today know that AKA began his work in Chicago as a "community organizer"; that AKA is a disciple of one Saul Alinsky, founder of the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), found today, under a variety of names, in many different states. The focus of this group is community organizing. While their claim is that they represent the poor, the down-trodden, those without a voice, their actual focus is attaining power and position. In the words of Paul Likoudis in The Legacy of CHD (Campaign for Human Development, a funding mechanism for the IAF for many years), The Wanderer Press, 1994 …
"As for the poor, for whom CHD alleges to have such concern, their lives are never improved; their poverty is never eased or escaped. They are just voters – and pawns in leftist politics."
Saul Alinsky was a self-avowed Marxist; the organization he built to this day adheres to his Marxist beliefs. To that end, his organization, by its many names, goes into communities and organizes liberal churches and organizations in pursuit of the Marxist principles that underliethe common good. Those principles are, and always have been, in direct conflict with personal security and the rights of property, of freedom, liberty and justice.
And one of the quickest ways to identify such groups is when they start promoting appointed councils, committees and commissions, and encourage the use of non-governmental organizations (NGO's) to influence government policy, or when they identify themselves as the voice of the people or the voice of those whom they proclaim have no voice.
Community organizers are taught how to organize for power, how to lead those perceived as being disenfranchised to believe they have a voice. One organization that trains community organizers, besides the IAF, is the Midwest Training Academy, started by former Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) members Heather Booth and Steve Max. Heather Booth, a self-avowed socialist/Marxist, was trained by Alinsky'sorganizing institute. A classmate of Booth, Jerry Kellman, would later become the training mentor to AKA who now lends his name and support to community organizing projects such as MoveOn.org, Center for Community Change, Born Again American and Organizing for America, and by his support, organizations such as the scandal-plagued community organizing group, ACORN.
How does this all link to the communist agenda in America with regard to big business? Two videos, published on The Blaze website, give us good insight into the war going on between the Marxists and the Fascists. Community organizers are, as I write this, constructing a campaign targeting those who are partners in the public/private partnership between business and government that is the hallmark of fascism.
And their intent is to draw as many freedom-loving Americans into their fold, on the premise that big business is running and ruining this country, as they can. And they intend to do that by agitating against big business, using the government bailouts of big corporations and banks as the wedge to accomplish the task.
What should freedom-loving Americans do?
Be cautious of those purporting to represent our interests, who tell us that big business is our enemy, who seek to represent our voice at a higher level.
If people want to know who, among big business, has the ear and the voting hand of our elected representatives, whether it be local, state or federal, find out who is donating to the re-election campaigns of those running for elected positions; then boycott those banks, insurance companies, mega corporations who have that kind of money. Watch who advertizes on television and radio, to a lesser degree on the internet. Businesses – like AIG, Progressive, Geico, Farmers, AT&T, IBM, Microsoft, Boeing, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan – have the kind of money to pay their CEO's millions in compensation, and millions also goes to buying influence with those we elect to represent us. OpenSecrets.org is a good source for who is donating to campaigns and causes.
Community organizers are not targeting your local Mom and Pop business, the backbone of this nation; but in the long run, their philosophy is just as destructive to your local Mom and Pop businesses, to the free market system established by the United States Constitution, as it will be to big business.
At the same time, don't vote for candidates and incumbents who accept money from community organizing entities, who support non-elected councils, committees and commissions that supposedly "represent" the people.
These are dangerous times; be careful who you follow.
© 2011 Lynn M Stuter – All Rights Reserved.
March 28th, 2011 by olddog
Obamas Libyan Operations are Unconstitutional
by Rob Natelson
You can sympathize with the humanitarian motives of our Libyan intervention while still doubting its constitutionality.
The Constitution prescribes the rules about how the United States is to enter a war, and the Obama administration has violated those rules.
The administration argues that the hostilities, because limited, do not rise to the level of “war,” as the Constitution uses that word. But that position is almost surely wrong: Founding-Era dictionaries and other sources, both legal and lay, tell us that when the Constitution was approved, “war” consisted of any hostilities initiated by a sovereign over opposition. A very typical dictionary definition was, “the exercise of violence under sovereign command against such as oppose.” (Barlow, 1772-73). I have found no suggestion in any contemporaneous source that operations of the kind the U.S. is conducting were anything but “war.”
The Founders’ favorite authority on international law, Vattel, divided wars into three principal categories: defensive wars, offensive just wars, and offensive unjust wars. A nation fought a defensive war when it responded to an invasion. It fought a just offensive war when it responded to an infringement of its rights short of invasion. It fought an unjust offensive war if it attacked another country even though that other country had not infringed its rights. Examples of unjust offensive wars were those fought for conquest or to limit an innocent neighbor’s power.
A defensive war did not require a declaration. A just offensive war did require one, although it might be called something other than “declaration of war.” The declaration triggered certain consequences under international law, but Vattel says its principal purpose was to give the other country a last chance to correct the injury it was inflicting. Because unjust wars were those launched by a country that had not suffered legal injury, it follows that “declarations of war” issued by an aggressor were at least partially defective.
Now: The federal government has only those powers the Constitution grants it. The Constitution grants the federal government authority to begin and wage a defensive war: “The United States shall . . . protect each [state] against Invasion” (IV-4). (Protection of U.S. territories is impliedly authorized as well: IV-3-2) But the Constitution grants only Congressauthority to initiate a just offensive war—that is, an American attack to vindicate our legitimate rights: “The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War.” (I-8-11). It can be inferred from the document that the government has no constitutional power to wage an unjust war.
The Constitution entrusts Congress with creating the means for waging war: “To raise and support Armies” (I-8-12), “To provide and maintain a Navy” (I-8-13), and “To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . repel Invasions” (I-8-15). It grants the President authority to serve as Commander-in-Chief (II-2-1). Under the latter provision, the President can oppose an invader (engage in defensive war) without prior congressional authorization, since “The United States [not just Congress] shall . . . protect each [state] against Invasion” (IV-4). But there is no enumerated power authorizing the President to launch an offensive war without a congressional resolution that qualifies in substance as a declaration.
Many quotations from key Founders show that is was their understanding as well. For example, James Wilson, one of the greatest Founders, told the Pennsylvania ratifying convention:
“This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large: this declaration must be made with the concurrence of the House of Representatives. . . .”
(This quote is only one of several.)
Nevertheless, many well-meaning people have sought to find a presidential power to wage undeclared war. In part they rely on practice arising decades, even centuries, after the Founding. As I point out in The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant,such evidence is too remote to be a reliable source of original understanding. The fact that the President sometimes has acted unconstitutionally does not render those acts constitutional.
The most sophisticated presidential defenders make the following argument:
* What determines constitutional force is not how the ratifiers understood the document, but its objective “original public meaning” to the larger public;
* the Constitution grants the President the “executive Power” (II-1-1);
* although the Constitution does not mention undeclared wars, based on the practice of the British Crown the President’s “executive Power” included authority to initiate them.
Unfortunately for this argument, recent scholarship has largely destroyed the view that the phrase “the executive Power” conferred the King of England’s power on the President. The most comprehensive study of the subject is Curtis A. Bradley & Martin S. Flaherty’s article,Executive Power Essentialism and Foreign Affairs, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 545 (2004). In addition,my own published investigation of Founding-Era legal drafting practices discovered that those practices were completely inconsistent with the conclusion that the phrase “executive Power” conferred any authority.
Get the New Book Today!
As for the claim that the Constitution’s “original public meaning” trumps what the ratifiers understood, to my knowledge no one has contested the conclusions of my excruciatingly-footnoted 2007 study of Founding-Era interpretative methods. It concluded that the Constitution was to be interpreted by the ratifiers’ understanding, with “original public meaning” being consulted only when a coherent understanding could not be found. In the case of the war power, though, the ratifiers’ understanding is pretty clear.
So even if the Obama administration’s Libya operations qualify as a constitutionally-authorized “just war” (which is doubtful), launching those operations without prior congressional consent violated the Constitution.
In private life, Rob Natelson is a long-time conservative/free market activist, but professionally he is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution’s original meaning have been published or cited by many top law journals. (See www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm.) Most recently, he co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution (Tenth Amendment Center). After a quarter of a century as Professor of Law at the University of Montana, he recently retired to work full time at Colorado’s Independence Institute.
March 27th, 2011 by olddog
Daily Bell: Is it possible that a shadow of impossibly wealthy families located in the City of London is partially responsible for all this? Do these families and their enablers seek world government by elites? Is it a conspiracy? Do you see the world in these terms: as a struggle between the centralizing impulses of elites and the more democratic impulses of the rest of society?
Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: I'm not sure if conspiracy is still the right word, because in the meantime, thanks to people such as Carroll Quigley, for instance, much is known about what is going on. In any case, it is certainly true that there are such impossibly rich families, sitting in London, New York City, Tel Aviv and elsewhere, who have recognized the immense potential for personal enrichment in the process of State- and Empire-building. The heads of big banking houses played a key role in the founding of the FED, because they realized that central banking would allow their own banks to inflate and expand credit on top of money and credit created by the central bank, and that a "lender of last resort" was instrumental in allowing them to reap private profits as long as things would go well and to socialize costs if they wouldn't.
They realized that the classical gold standard stood as a natural impediment to inflation and credit expansion, and so they helped set up first a phony gold standard (the gold exchange standard) and then, after 1971, a pure fiat money regime. They realized that a system of freely fluctuating national fiat currencies was still imperfect as far as inflationist desires are concerned, in that the supremacy of the dollar could be threatened by other, competing currencies such as a strong German Mark, for instance; and in order to reduce and weaken this competition they supported "monetary integration" schemes such as the creation of a European Central Bank (ECB) and the Euro.
And they realized that their ultimate dream of unlimited counterfeiting power would come true, if only they succeeded in creating a US dominated world central bank issuing a world paper currency such as the bancor or the phoenix; and so they helped set up and finance a multitude of organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, etc., that promote this goal. As well, leading industrialists recognized the tremendous profits to be made from state-granted monopolies, from state-subsidies, and from exclusive cost-plus contracts in freeing or shielding them from competition, and so they, too, have allied themselves to and "infiltrated" the state.
There are "accidents" in history, and there are carefully planned actions that bring about consequences which are unintended and unanticipated. But history is not just a sequence of accidents and surprises. Most of it is designed and intended. Not by common folks, of course, but by the power elites in control of the state apparatus. If one wants to prevent history from running its present, foreseeable course to unprecedented economic disaster, then, it is indeed imperative to arouse public indignation by exposing, relentlessly, the evil motives and machinations of these power elites, not just of those working within the state apparatus, but in particular also of those staying outside, behind the scenes and pulling the strings.
March 19th, 2011 by olddog
Excerpt from "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century"
By Ellen Brown
March 17, 2011
The following is an excerpt of a chapter by Ellen Brown from the new book by Global Research Publishers, "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century."
Andrew Gavin Marshall (editors)
By acting together to fulfill these pledges we will bring the world economy out of recession and prevent a crisis like this from recurring in the future. We are committed to take all necessary actions to restore the normal flow of credit through the financial system and ensure the soundness of systemically important institutions, implementing our policies in line with the agreed G20 framework for restoring lending and repairing the financial sector. We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250bn into the world economy and increase global liquidity.– G20 Communiqué, London , April 2, 2009
Towards a New Global Currency?
Is the Group of Twenty Countries (G20) envisaging the creation of a Global Central bank? Who or what would serve as this global central bank, cloaked with the power to issue the global currency and police monetary policy for all humanity? When the world’s central bankers met in Washington in September 2008 at the height of the financial meltdown, they discussed what body might be in a position to serve in that awesome and fearful role. A former governor of the Bank of England stated:
The answer might already be staring us in the face, in the form of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS)… The IMF tends to couch its warnings about economic problems in very diplomatic language, but the BIS is more independent and much better placed to deal with this if it is given the power to do so.
And if the vision of a global currency outside government control was not enough to set off conspiracy theorists, putting the BIS in charge of it surely would be. The BIS has been scandal-ridden ever since it was branded with pro-Nazi leanings in the 1930s. Founded in Basel , Switzerland , in 1930, the BIS has been called “the most exclusive, secretive, and powerful supranational club in the world.” Charles Higham wrote in his book Trading with the Enemy that by the late 1930s, the BIS had assumed an openly pro-Nazi bias, a theme that was expanded on in a BBC Timewatch film titled “Banking with Hitler” broadcast in 1998. In 1944, the American government backed a resolution at the Bretton Woods Conference calling for the liquidation of the BIS, following Czech accusations that it was laundering gold stolen by the Nazis from occupied Europe; but the central bankers succeeded in quietly snuffing out the American resolution.
In Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966), Dr. Carroll Quigley revealed the key role played in global finance by the BIS behind the scenes. Dr. Quigley was Professor of History at Georgetown University , where he was President Bill Clinton’s mentor. He was also an insider, groomed by the powerful clique he called “the international bankers.” His credibility is heightened by the fact that he actually espoused their goals. Quigley wrote:
I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments… In general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known…
The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel , Switzerland , a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.
The key to their success, said Quigley, was that the international bankers would control and manipulate the money system of a nation while letting it appear to be controlled by the government.
The statement echoed one made in the 18th century by the patriarch of what became the most powerful banking dynasty in the world. Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild is quoted as saying in 1791: “Allow me to issue and control a nation’s currency, and I care not who makes its laws.” Mayer’s five sons were sent to the major capitals of Europe – London , Paris , Vienna , Berlin and Naples – with the mission of establishing a banking system that would be outside government control. The economic and political systems of nations would be controlled not by citizens but by bankers, for the benefit of bankers.
Eventually, a privately-owned “central bank” was established in nearly every country. This central banking system has now gained control over the economies of the world. Central banks have the authority to print money in their respective countries, and it is from these banks that governments must borrow money to pay their debts and fund their operations. The result is a global economy in which not only industry but government itself runs on “credit” (or debt) created by a banking monopoly headed by a network of private central banks. At the top of this network is the BIS, the “central bank of central banks” in Basel .
Behind the Curtain
For many years the BIS kept a very low profile, operating behind the scenes in an abandoned hotel. It was here that decisions were reached to devalue or defend currencies, fix the price of gold, regulate offshore banking, and raise or lower short-term interest rates. In 1977, however, the BIS gave up its anonymity in exchange for more efficient headquarters. The new building has been described as “an eighteen story-high circular skyscraper that rises above the medieval city like some misplaced nuclear reactor.” It quickly became known as the “ Tower of Basel .” Today the BIS has governmental immunity, pays no taxes, and has its own private police force. It is, as Mayer Rothschild envisioned, above the law.
The BIS is now composed of 55 member nations, but the club that meets regularly in Basel is a much smaller group; and even within it, there is a hierarchy. In a 1983 article in Harper’s Magazine called “Ruling the World of Money,” Edward Jay Epstein wrote that where the real business gets done is in “a sort of inner club made up of the half dozen or so powerful central bankers who find themselves more or less in the same monetary boat” – those from Germany, the United States, Switzerland, Italy, Japan and England. Epstein said:
The prime value, which also seems to demarcate the inner club from the rest of the BIS members, is the firm belief that central banks should act independently of their home governments… A second and closely related belief of the inner club is that politicians should not be trusted to decide the fate of the international monetary system.
In 1974, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision was created by the central bank Governors of the Group of 10 nations (now expanded to twenty). The BIS provides the twelve-member Secretariat for the Committee. The Committee, in turn, sets the rules for banking globally, including capital requirements and reserve controls. In a 2003 article titled “The Bank for International Settlements Calls for Global Currency,” Joan Veon wrote:
The BIS is where all of the world’s central banks meet to analyze the global economy and determine what course of action they will take next to put more money in their pockets, since they control the amount of money in circulation and how much interest they are going to charge governments and banks for borrowing from them…
When you understand that the BIS pulls the strings of the world’s monetary system, you then understand that they have the ability to create a financial boom or bust in a country. If that country is not doing what the money lenders want, then all they have to do is sell its currency.
The Controversial Basel Accords
The power of the BIS to make or break economies was demonstrated in 1988, when it issued a Basel Accord raising bank capital requirements from six percent to eight percent. By then, Japan had emerged as the world’s largest creditor; but Japan ’s banks were less well capitalized than other major international banks. Raising the capital requirement forced them to cut back on lending, creating a recession in Japan like that suffered in the U.S. today. Property prices fell and loans went into default as the security for them shriveled up. A downward spiral followed, ending with the total bankruptcy of the banks. The banks had to be nationalized, although that word was not used in order to avoid criticism.
Among other “collateral damage” produced by the Basel Accords was a spate of suicides among Indian farmers unable to get loans. The BIS capital adequacy standards required loans to private borrowers to be “risk-weighted,” with the degree of risk determined by private rating agencies; farmers and small business owners could not afford the agencies’ fees. Banks therefore assigned one hundred percent risk to the loans, and then resisted extending credit to these “high-risk” borrowers because more capital was required to cover the loans. When the conscience of the nation was aroused by the Indian suicides, the government, lamenting the neglect of farmers by commercial banks, established a policy of ending the “financial exclusion” of the weak; but this step had little real effect on lending practices, due largely to the strictures imposed by the BIS from abroad.
Economist Henry C K Liu has analyzed how the Basel Accords have forced national banking systems “to march to the same tune, designed to serve the needs of highly sophisticated global financial markets, regardless of the developmental needs of their national economies.” He wrote:
National banking systems are suddenly thrown into the rigid arms of the Basel Capital Accord sponsored by the Bank of International Settlement (BIS), or to face the penalty of usurious risk premium in securing international interbank loans… National policies suddenly are subjected to profit incentives of private financial institutions, all members of a hierarchical system controlled and directed from the money center banks in New York . The result is to force national banking systems to privatize…
BIS regulations serve only the single purpose of strengthening the international private banking system, even at the peril of national economies… The IMF and the international banks regulated by the BIS are a team: the international banks lend recklessly to borrowers in emerging economies to create a foreign currency debt crisis, the IMF arrives as a carrier of monetary virus in the name of sound monetary policy, then the international banks come as vulture investors in the name of financial rescue to acquire national banks deemed capital inadequate and insolvent by the BIS.
Ironically, noted Liu, developing countries with their own natural resources did not actually need the foreign investment that trapped them in debt to outsiders: "Applying the State Theory of Money [which assumes that a sovereign nation has the power to issue its own money], any government can fund with its own currency all its domestic developmental needs to maintain full employment without inflation."
When governments fall into the trap of accepting loans in foreign currencies, however, they become “debtor nations” subject to IMF and BIS regulation. They are forced to divert their production to exports, just to earn the foreign currency necessary to pay the interest on their loans. National banks deemed “capital inadequate” have to deal with strictures comparable to the “conditionalities” imposed by the IMF on debtor nations: “escalating capital requirement, loan write-offs and liquidation, and restructuring through selloffs, layoffs, downsizing, cost-cutting and freeze on capital spending.” Liu wrote:
Reversing the logic that a sound banking system should lead to full employment and developmental growth, BIS regulations demand high unemployment and developmental degradation in national economies as the fair price for a sound global private banking system.
The Last Domino to Fall
While banks in developing nations were being penalized for falling short of the BIS capital requirements, large international banks managed to skirt the rules, although they actually carried enormous risk because of their derivative exposure. The mega-banks took advantage of a loophole that allowed for lower charges against capital for “off-balance sheet activities.” The banks got loans off their balance sheets by bundling them into securities and selling them off to investors, after separating the risk of default out from the loans and selling it off to yet other investors, using a form of derivative known as “credit default swaps.”
It was evidently not in the game plan, however, that U.S. banks should escape the regulatory net indefinitely. Complaints about the loopholes in Basel I prompted a new set of rules called Basel II, which based capital requirements for market risk on a “Value-at-Risk” accounting standard. The new rules were established in 2004, but they were not levied on U.S. banks until November 2007, the month after the Dow passed 14 000 to reach its all-time high. On November 1, 2007, the Office of the Controller of the Currency “approved a final rule implementing advanced approaches of the Basel II Capital Accord.” On November 15, 2007, the Financial Accounting Standards Board or FASB, a private organization that sets U.S. accounting rules for the private sector, adopted FAS 157, the rule called “mark-to-market accounting.” The effect on U.S. banks was similar to that of Basel I on Japanese banks: they have been struggling to survive ever since.
The mark-to-market rule requires banks to adjust the value of their marketable securities to the “market price” of the security. The rule has theoretical merit, but the problem is timing: it was imposed ex post facto, after the banks already had the hard-to-market assets on their books. Lenders that had been considered sufficiently well capitalized to make new loans suddenly found they were insolvent; at least, they would have been if they had tried to sell their assets, an assumption required by the new rule. Financial analyst John Berlau complained in October 2008:
Despite the credit crunch being described as the spread of the ‘American flu,’ the mark-to-market rules that are spreading it were hatched [as] part of the Basel II international rules for financial institutions. It’s just that the U.S. jumped into the really icy water last November when our Securities and Exchange Commission and bank regulators implemented FASB’s Financial Accounting Standard 157, which makes healthy banks and financial firms take a ‘loss’ in the capital they can lend even if a loan on their books is still performing, even when the ‘market price’ [of] an illiquid asset is that of the last fire sale by a highly leveraged bank. Late last month, similar rules went into effect in the European Union, playing a similar role in accelerating financial failures…
The crisis is often called a ‘market failure,’ and the term ‘mark-to-market’ seems to reinforce that. But the mark-to-market rules are profoundly anti-market and hinder the free-market function of price discovery… In this case, the accounting rules fail to allow the market players to hold on to an asset if they don’t like what the market is currently fetching, an important market action that affects price discovery in areas from agriculture to antiques.
Imposing the mark-to-market rule on U.S. banks caused an instant credit freeze, which proceeded to take down the economies not only of the U.S. but of countries worldwide. In early April 2009, the mark-to-market rule was finally softened by the FASB; but critics said the modification did not go far enough, and it was done in response to pressure from politicians and bankers, not out of any fundamental change of heart or policies by the BIS or the FASB. Indeed, the BIS was warned as early as 2001 that its Basel II proposal was “procyclical,” meaning that in a downturn it would only serve to make matters worse. In a formal response to a Request for Comments by the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision, a group of economists stated:
Value-at-Risk can destabilize an economy and induce crashes when they would not otherwise occur… Perhaps our most serious concern is that these proposals, taken altogether, will enhance both the procyclicality of regulation and the susceptibility of the financial system to systemic crises, thus negating the central purpose of the whole exercise. Reconsider before it is too late.
The BIS did not reconsider, however, even after seeing the devastation its regulations had caused; and that is where the conspiracy theorists came in. Why did the BIS sit idly by, they asked, as the global economy came crashing down? Was the goal to create so much economic havoc that the world would rush with relief into the waiting arms of a global economic policeman with its privately-created global currency?
March 15th, 2011 by olddog
We all know about TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which spent $700 billion in taxpayers’ money to bail out banks after the financial crisis. That money was scrutinized by Congress and the media.But it turns out that that $700 billion is just a small part of a much larger pool of money that has gone into propping up our nation’s financial system. And most of that taxpayer money hasn’t had much public scrutiny at all.According to a team at Bloomberg News, at one point last year the U.S. had lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy. The Bloomberg reporters have been following that money. Alison Stewart spoke with one, Bob Ivry, to talk about the true cost to the taxpayer of the Wall Street bailout.
March 12th, 2011 by olddog
Waking People Up And Getting Them To Realize
That The American Dream Is Quickly Becoming
The American Nightmare
This is the site you should be reading every
On a scale of One to ten
This site is 1oo
25 Bizarre Examples That Show That the U.S.
Government Is Absolutely Brimming With Idiots,
Incompetents and Incredibly Corrupt Politicians
End of the American Dream
If our founding fathers could see us today, what would they think? Unfortunately, they would probably come to the exact same conclusion that so many of us have come to – the U.S. government is absolutely brimming with idiots, incompetents and incredibly corrupt politicians. Today it is very rare to come across a politician that still has any integrity left. Washington D.C. has become such a cesspool that it seems to corrupt even most of the politicians that originally go there with good intentions. We have created the most complicated government in the history of the world and we have hundreds of thousands of pages of laws, and yet nothing seems to work right. Our economy is dying, our relationships with the rest of the world are a mess and we have accumulated the largest debt in the history of mankind. Meanwhile, our politicians openly hand out our money to their friends and to those that have donated money to their campaigns and they waste our money on some of the stupidest things imaginable. Have we now gotten to the point where our system of government has become so corrupted that it is almost impossible to repair it?
These days it seems as though almost everything our government tries to do is cursed. Nothing ever seems to turn out the way that it is supposed to. The more our politicians promise to get spending under control, the more money they seem to waste. It is almost as if there is a "drought of common sense" in Washington D.C. right now. Not only can't our politicians fix our problems – everything that they do only seems to make our problems even worse.
So would it really be so bad if there was a government shutdown for a while? At least then our politicians would not be able to do any more damage.
New stories of political corruption seem to come out almost daily now. So many members of Congress are entangled in controversy that it is hard to keep up with it all. And yet they seem to have no problems with passing endless amounts of onerous new laws that make life even more difficult for all the rest of us.
We have become a society with millions of laws but that is becoming more lawless by the day. Federal money is flying around everywhere and yet our politicians can't seem to find anywhere to cut spending. Incompetence rules in Washington D.C. and yet the American voters seem to keep wanting to reward it.
What in the world is going on out there?
The following are 25 examples that show that the U.S. government is absolutely brimming with idiots, incompetents and incredibly corrupt politicians….
#1 As 2010 came to an end, 96 departing members of the U.S. House of Representatives (most of them Democrats) awarded millions of dollars in extra pay to their staffers and aides as they closed down their offices. Keep in mind that this was U.S. taxpayer money that was being spent. The Wall Street Journal described what happened this way….
The 96 lawmakers paid their employees $6.7 million, or 31%, more in the fourth quarter of 2010 than they did, on average, in the first three quarters of the year.
#2 If the new health care law is so great, then why is the Obama administration allowing so many organizations to opt out of it? According to the Department of Health and Human Services, more than 1,000 organizations have received Obamacare waivers so far.
#3 Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, Florida used $15,551 in federal stimulus money to pay two researchers to study how alcohol affects a mouse's motor functions.
#4 A perfect example that shows just how clueless our leaders are about the deindustrialization of America occurred recently when U.S. Senator John McCain claimed that iPods and iPhones are made in the United States.
#5 Barack Obama recently challenged a group of business and labor leaders to come up with some great ideas for creating more jobs inside the United States on the exact same day that he was pushing hard for Congress to approve the new free trade agreement with South Korea which will send even more of our factories and jobs overseas.
#6 Syracuse professor of psychology Michael Carey received $219,000 in federal stimulus money for a study that examines the sex patterns of college women.
#7 The National Institutes of Health spent approximately $442,340 to study the behavior of male prostitutes in Vietnam.
#8 Our federal tax code has become so riddled with loopholes that many of the largest corporations in the U.S. have figured out how to pay their top executives millions upon millions of dollars in bonuses and still not pay a single dime in income taxes to the U.S. government.
#9 Back in 1913, the federal tax code was a whopping 400 pages long. If you lived back then, would you have had enough time to read the whole thing? Perhaps. Well, today the federal tax code is approximately 70,000 pages long. Do you think that anyone has ever actually read that thing from beginning to end?
#10 This year, it is estimated that U.S. taxpayers will spend somewhere around 7.6 billion hours preparing their taxes.
#11 1.15 million dollars in federal stimulus funds were allocated for the installation of a new guard rail around the non-existent Optima Lake in Oklahoma.
#12 For the month of February alone, the U.S. government ran a deficit of 223 billion dollars, which was a new all-time record for a single month.
#13 Researchers at the State University of New York at Buffalo received $389,000 in federal stimulus funds to study 100 residents of Buffalo, New York and record how much malt liquor they drink and how much pot they smoke each day.
#14 A total of $3 million has been granted to researchers at the University of California at Irvine so that they can "research" video games such as World of Warcraft.
#15 One dinner cruise company in Chicago, Illinois received nearly $1 million in stimulus funds to combat terrorism.
#16 During Barack Obama's first two years in office, the U.S. government added more to the U.S. national debt than the first 100 U.S. Congresses combined.
#17 Landon Cox, a Duke University assistant professor of computer science, was awarded $498,000 in federal stimulus money to study Facebook.
#18 The entire U.S. government might shut down because Barack Obama and the Republicans are squabbling over 61 billion dollars in spending cuts that would barely even make a dent in the gigantic budget deficit that we are facing this year.
#19 Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has a track record of incompetence that is so monumental that it is really difficult to even find words to accurately describe it. Unfortunately, Barack Obama is so incompetent that he actually renominated the guy and our Senators are so incompetent that they actually confirmed him again.
#20 Barack Obama and the Federal Reserve keep trying to convince us all that we are in an economic recovery and yet the number of Americans on food stamps has surpassed the 44 million mark for the first time ever.
#21 The Conservation Commission of Monkton, Vermont recently received $150,000 from the federal government to construct a "critter crossing". Thanks to U.S. government money, the lives of "thousands" of migrating salamanders are now being saved.
#22 Approximately $1 million of U.S. taxpayer money has been used to create poetry for the Little Rock, New Orleans, Milwaukee and Chicago zoos. The goal of the "poetry" is to help raise awareness on environmental issues.
#23 The "entitlement mindset" that permeates not only the U.S. government but also much of the voting public was clearly displayed recently when a union protester in Wisconsin asked a Tea Party activist the following question: "Why do you have a right to your money?" Of course with politicians such as Howard Dean publicly declaring that it is the "job of the government" to redistribute wealth this is the kind of nonsense that you are going to get.
#24 The budget that the Obama administration has submitted for fiscal 2012 assumes that the U.S. government will bring in about 2.1 trillion dollars in income this year (mostly by taxing all of us), and by 2021 Obama's budget assumes that the U.S. government will be able to increase that figure to 4.9 trillion dollars. Can anyone figure out how in the world the U.S. government is going to get over twice as much tax money out of all of us ten years from now?
#25 Barack Obama, the man with "the most important job in the world", sure does seem to have a lot of free time on his hands. He recently played his 60th round of golf since becoming president. Obama has also become the first U.S. president to ever produce his own beer. Obama certainly does seem to be enjoying the high life right now. During his first two years in office, Obama enjoyed a total of 10 separate vacations that stretched over a total of 90 vacation days. Wouldn't it be great if we all were given that much vacation time?
Reprinted without permission from End of the American Dream.
March 12, 2011
Copyright © 2011 End of the American Dream
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
James P. Harvey
March 11th, 2011 by olddog
By Publius Huldah.
Throughout human history, the prevailing belief system changes from time to time & place to place; most people unthinkingly absorb whatever happens to be the prevailing dogma of their time & place. Here, I will show the radical differences between the philosophy of our Founding Era and the philosophy of today. And when I have done so, you will understand why our Country is declining and what you can do about it. In a nutshell, the Enlightenment philosophy of our Founding Era, which was based on Reason and the recognition of the existence of Fixed Principles, was taken away from us; and replaced with the subjective philosophies of Pragmatism & Existentialism, both of which reject Reason and deny the existence of Objective Truth & Fixed Principles. These are now the prevailing dogma of our Time; and unless we promptly repudiate them, we will fall.
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, & John Jay (authors of The Federalist Papers), and others at the Federal Convention of 1787, embodied the best aspects of The Age of Enlightenment. They were well educated, exquisitely knowledgeable in statecraft & political philosophy, embraced the concepts of Objective Reality & Fixed Principles, knew Logic, and could think. George Washington, a man renowned for his Moral Character, which was based on Judeo-Christian ideals, presided over the Convention.
The Fruit of the Philosophy, Religion, & well-trained Minds of our Framers was a Constitution which ordained and established a Federation of States which united only for THE LIMITED PURPOSES enumerated in the Constitution: national defense, international commerce & relations; and domestically, the creation of an uniform commercial system: Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, and mail delivery. 1
Progressive “Education” & the Conditioning of the American People
But during the 19th Century, Progressives took control of public schools & teachers’ colleges. They then conditioned teachers and children to abandon our Founders’ Enlightenment philosophy of Reason, Fixed Principles, & Judeo-Christian ideals; and to accept a new ideology which replaced Reason with “feelings” and denied the existence of an Objective Reality & Fixed Principles. They thus primed the objects of their conditioning to accept whatever attitudes the Progressives chose to instill in them. And the objects of this conditioning did not – do not – know what was done to them!
Samuel L. Blumenfeld explains the two opposing philosophies of education:
the “progressives”…viewed public education primarily as a tool for social and cultural reform to be achieved through the remaking of human nature; and the traditionalists …viewed education, public or private, primarily as a development of an individual’s intellectual skills in combination with moral instruction based on Judeo-Christian ideals. ["Is Public Education Necessary?", Ch. 12]
Thanks to the traditional education they received, our Framers knew history, political philosophy & statecraft, Logic, Judeo-Christian moral ideals, and could think!
Thanks to progressive “education”, Americans have been so dumbed-down that they can’t read, 2 know nothing, and can’t think. After the Progressives ripped moral instruction based on Judeo-Christian ideals out of the public schools, and replaced it with the view that morality is a matter of subjective personal opinion or group consensus, 3 we became an amoral people who kill babies, reject altogether the concept of personal responsibility, insist on a claimed “right” to live at other peoples’ expense, and believe that the only guide for our conduct is our own likes, dislikes, & “feelings”: “I like it” or “I don’t like it”; “I feel like it” or “I don’t feel like it”. We became so shallow and morally blind that we elect fools & tyrants to high office. Thanks to “self-esteem” classes, we believe that our views & “feelings” on subjects of which we have no knowledge whatsoever are as important as anybody else’s.
With our untrained & empty minds and instilled amorality, we were rendered incapable of resisting the conditioning of the Progressives. And this, Folks, has been the purpose of public “education” ever since the Progressives took it over.
2000 years of Western Philosophy on Metaphysics & Epistemology 4 in One Paragraph
So! In Western Civilization, we had the Age of Faith (There is an Objective Reality & Truth 5 and they are revealed in the Bible & Works of Creation); the Enlightenment (There is an objective Reality & Truth and we discover it by use of Reason); the Age of Romanticism (“Truth” is found in your emotions & feelings); and now, Pragmatism & Existentialism (There is no Objective Reality; “Truth” is a concept which has no meaning; there are no fixed principles, there is only “opinion” and one man’s “opinion” is as good as another’s).
Pragmatism & Existentialism
During the late 19th century, the philosophy of Pragmatism (William James, Charles Saunders Peirce, John Dewey) arose. It rejected the concept of an Objective Reality with its Timeless Truths. Instead of concerning oneself with the question of whether something is “True”, the pragmatist asks, “What difference will it make in my life whether I believe it or don’t believe it?” So one looks to the “utility” of believing it or not believing it. If it has a good result for me, it is “true”. If it has a bad result for me, it is not “true”. What is “true” for me may not be “true” for you, so an idea can be “true” for some and not “true” for others. Furthermore, what is “true” for me today may not be “true” for me tomorrow, so “truth” evolves.
Do you see? They tossed the concept of Objective Truth – Objective Reality – Fixed Principles & Standards – out the window.
Pragmatism morphed into Existentialism (Jean-Paul Sartre). Existentialism rejects an objective basis for life in favor of a subjective basis: 6 Humans are merely biological organisms living meaningless lives, making “choices” on the basis of no criteria whatsoever other than their own likes or dislikes. Since there is no basis for any external Principles or Standards to which we must conform, people are free to do whatever they want.
Again, it was the Colleges of Education and the public schools which were the vehicles for dumbing-down the American People and conditioning them to reject the Philosophy of our Founders, and to accept the pragmatist & existentialist mind-set.
A friend recalls an incident which happened around 1960 in English class in an American public high school. The students read a story. The teacher asked each student to say what the story meant to him. Whatever a student said was praised by the teacher. But my friend said, “It doesn’t matter what it means to me. What matters is what the author says.” The teacher was most displeased with that remark.
Do you see? Under the pretext of teaching literature, the teacher indoctrinated her students into rejecting the concept of Objective Reality & Fixed Principles, and accepting a subjective world-view devoid of objective meaning. The teacher most likely had no idea what she was doing – she was just following her teacher’s manual. She was thus one of the millions of useful idiots who graduate from our Colleges of Education and set about assisting in the destruction of the minds & morals of the American People. 7
Do you not remember hearing over & over in your public schools, “There is no black or white, there is only gray.” “What’s true for me may not be true for you”. “If it works, it’s right.” “What does it mean to you?” And when one is facing a moral decision, one is asked, “How do you feel about it?” One’s “feelings” are set up as the criterion for making moral decisions! There is no appeal to objective standards of Right & Wrong. That was ripped out of the public schools by the Progressives. And we are mystified by the high crime rates among our children? 8
Most Americans are now existentialists, even though they never heard of John Paul Sartre. We see our own “likes”, “dislikes”, & “feelings” as the only standard. We just want to “feel good”. That our personal likes & dislikes are irrelevant when they conflict with objective Standards of Good & Bad, Right & Wrong, is unthinkable. I’ll illustrate: It is painful, but we have no time left to pussy-foot:
Standards of Conduct: What’s Right By Objective Standards? Or, What do I like?
Talk to an obese person about what he eats: He will most likely say something like, “I’ll eat what I like.” He thus follows a subjective standard: his likes & his dislikes. Because he is an existentialist (though doesn’t know it), he rejects the idea that there is an objective standard by which one can decide what to eat and what to avoid: That of health – Is the food healthy? Or unhealthy? And if you tell him of this objective standard, he’ll say, “I don’t care – I’ll eat what I like.” The essence of the existentialist mind-set is that the existentialist sees no reason why he should set anything above his own “feelings”, likes, or dislikes.
There was a stay-at-home Mom. When her young children were hungry, she tossed them a box of crackers or cookies, or took them to a fast food joint.. Why? Because she didn’t like to cook. That she had a DUTY to provide her children with healthy food, never entered her mind. She didn’t “like” cooking, she “felt like” going to the mall instead, and that was the end of the matter.
Couch potatoes don’t exercise because they “hate” exercise. They reject the objective fact of Reality that exercise is necessary to be healthy.
Pragmatism, Existentialism & Federal Judges
So! With the rise of Pragmatism & its conception of evolving and subjective “truth”, American lawyers abandoned the concept of Law as a body of fixed principles (set forth in The Declaration, The Constitution, Blackstone’s Commentaries, Natural Law &/or the Bible), and embraced the concept of an “evolving” law and an “evolving” Constitution which means whatever they – the judges – say it means! Remember! To the pragmatist, “truth” evolves. 9
So THIS is the philosophical basis for judges on the supreme Court tossing out The Federalist Papers as the objective standard of the meaning of The Constitution; and substituting their own opinions. When they were in school, they were conditioned to reject the concept of Objective & Fixed Standards, and to accept Pragmatism & Existentialism; and I bet you few (if any) of them ever thought it through. They did not resist the conditioning – they just accepted what their Manipulators instilled in them.
We teeter on the brink of disaster. YOU must rise to the occasion. Our Country & our Posterity depend on YOUR repudiating the destructive philosophies your conditioners foisted on you; and reclaiming the rational Enlightenment philosophy & Judeo-Christian morality of our Framers. We can not save our children unless we close the public schools. 10 Education must be privatized, and we better do it now. PH
1 Our Constitution follows the Biblical model: a civil government with defined powers which is subject to – under – the Law. Civil government is not the source of Law! The law comes from a higher authority: God is the source of Law in the Bible; The Declaration of Independence & The Constitution are the Source of Law in our Country. Acts of the three branches of the federal government are lawful or unlawful depending on whether they are consistent with the Declaration & authorized by The Constitution. These are the standard of what is “lawful” – NOT the fiat of the brain-washed judges who sit on our courts.
Lex, Rex by Rev. Samuel Rutherford (1644), is a masterwork of which modern American pastors are ignorant. Rev. Rutherford proves that civil authorities have legitimacy ONLY to the extent they obey The Law. We see all around us the results of our pastors’ ignorance of these Biblical teachings.
2 Two/thirds of Wisconsin 8th graders can’t read proficiently! Yet their teachers are screaming for more benefits to be paid for by the taxpayers, while lying about being sick. With the public schools, we have financed our own destruction. And most Americans who can read, are unable to read The Federalist Papers. Yet The Federalist is essential for a correct understanding of the objective (genuine) meaning of our Constitution & they were published in Newspapers in 1787-88!
3 “Values clarification” is the version of “moral guidance” foisted in the public schools on our children since the 1960 s. Public school teachers are telling children that they are “…free to choose ethical and moral behavior that resonates with them.” They thus “liberate” children from “authoritarian” teachings on morality.
4 “Metaphysics” deals with the nature of Reality; “Epistemology”, with theories of Knowledge. The Ayn Rand Institute has an excellent lexicon for philosophical terms. Rand was a non-theist; PH is a Christian theist. Hence, there are some differences. But both see “Natural Law” (Physics, Mathematics, Logic, Morality, Politics, etc.) as woven into the Fabric of Reality. Both see the Universe as governed by LAW; and that the duty of man is to learn & to obey these Laws.
Thus, the Great Divide is between those who accept the concept of Divine or “Natural Law”; and those, such as Progressives, Pragmatists, & Existentialists, who reject it. They deny the existence of any standard other than their own “feelings”, likes & dislikes.
5 “objective reality” means this: “Reality exists as an objective absolutefacts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.” In other words, things are the way they are regardless of what you like, don’t like, agree with or don’t agree with.
6 “subjectivism” is “…the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, plastic, indeterminate realm which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiveri.e., by his feelings, wishes or whims. It is the doctrine which holds that manan entity of a specific nature, dealing with a universe of a specific naturecan, somehow, live, act and achieve his goals apart from and/or in contradiction to the facts of reality, i.e., apart from and/or in contradiction to his own nature and the nature of the universe…”
7 In “The Abolition of Man“, C.S. Lewis illustrates how the concept of “objective value” was ripped out of the hearts of British school children by their teachers. He also discusses the “Natural Law” and how it has been universally recognized. His book is only 113 pages, double-spaced, & one of the most important books ever written. Read it. Outline it. Tell all in your spheres of influence.
8 But at least we can take comfort in the knowledge that our children are not being taught in public schools such things as, “thou shalt not kill”, “thou shalt not steal”, “thou shalt not bear false witness”, “thou shalt not covet”, and other such “authoritarian” & offensive rubbish.
9 In “The Second American Revolution“, attorney John W. Whitehead (Rutherford Institute) writes of this. This is a valuable book which shows how bad philosophy corrupted our judges.
10 Glen Beck and others are showing that under the pretext of teaching reading, progressive “educators” are now telling our children the Lie that our Constitution institutes socialism! PH
March 11th, 2011 by olddog
Stool Pigeon Protection Act
03 10 11
Marti Oakley (c) copyright 2011 All Rights Reserved
“Anyone who slaps on a government badge and accepts a paycheck with full knowledge that their job will involve violating your rights and the Constitution of the people of the United States, should be considered a domestic terrorist. Any agency who is unlawfully and actively spying on, data mining, intimidating or violating your Constitutional rights should be considered a radical extremist group and domestic terrorists.”
We should have stormed the streets when TSA was set loose in our airports to assault travelers, but we didn’t. Instead, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of us mewled that TSA was “only trying to keep us safe”. These assaults have nothing to do with our safety; we are being systematically trained to comply, to submit. Now, because so many of us did comply, TSA is setting up shop in our train stations and courthouses among other public places and is expanding their assaults on US citizens. The government has now openly declared war on its own citizens. Think I’m wrong?
While the globalists at the federal level pretend to be in conflict about spending and the uber scary national debt and deficit spending, the global elite that control the government had no problem borrowing millions upon million of dollars to purchase 500 roving surveillance vans. The Z Backscatter vans range in cost from $729,000 to $825,000 that will invade your person, x-ray you, facially imprint you and scan and record your iris. You can be walking down a street, attending a sports event, or just sitting in a park or your own home and you can be scanned. Have you figured out who the government is hunting yet? Who they are after? I would advise not leaving your home without very dark and large sunglasses and a big hat to pull down over your face.
And the cost of these 500 police state vans?
- 500 @ 729,000 each = 364,500,000. That’s on the low side.
- 500 @ 825,000 each= 412,500,00 million on the high side.
- 5 employees per van at an average government wage of 45,000 per year = 112,500,000
The startup costs for unlawfully invading your privacy and person and conducting a warrantless search? If all the vans were purchased for 729,000 each and you add in just the average labor costs=477,000,000
At 825,000 each plus labor== 525,500,000.
So congress is suggesting that food stamps to the poor be cut along with education, heating assistance and Social Security…….but they can afford these vans?
These costs do not include operating expenses, insurance on the vans and employees or unexpected cost overruns, expenses and other hidden costs associated with violating your constitutional rights. These costs are just the estimates for this year. These vans are just one source of the homegrown terrorism activities in our country.
How many of you have seen the ads for the national guard, showing young men in a room surrounded by huge screens sitting at a console that looks like a huge gameboard? The script on the ad says something to the effect of “GI Joe is operating a drone for surveillance 651 miles away. But he drives only 2.1 miles to get to his home.” ( I’m paraphrasing there, of course.) Then shows the young GI pulling up in the driveway of a very nice looking home and heading for the door. Did any of you stop to think where the drones were being used? Who GI Joe was spying on? I bet a fair number of you immediately thought GI Joe was spying on some terrorist camp in Afghanistan or Iraq, didn’t you? It couldn’t possibly be that he was spying on Americans…..could it?
The cost of one drone? 30,000 each and the government and many cities are ordering huge numbers of them for use in America. Wonder who they are spying on?
We have been carefully trained to believe that some boogey man working as a terrorist from some far away place is out to get us. 9/11 cemented this fear in most people’s minds even though the whole government conspiracy theory has been so thoroughly debunked, and no reasonable person could conclude that some madman in a cave with a laptop orchestrated that event. For you who still cling to the conspiracy theory that Osama Bin Laden, a known CIA asset, was responsible for that attack, never fear. At any given moment Bin Laden will be resurrected and will convey a threat from his grave and will send a video to Homeland Security to disperse to every news station in the country. I personally think it is wonderful that Bin Laden’s warm and fuzzy feelings towards what is now known as Homeland Security have extended beyond his death. Even death does not keep Bin Laden from sending greetings whenever Homeland Security is about to expand its police state. Who knew they were so close? By the way, the FBI has still never charged Bin Laden with 9/11. I wonder why?
Apparently the globalists fear of the American people is reaching epic proportions. We have Fusions Centers, data mining, dna collection, iris scanning, facial imprinting, drones, spy vans, snitches and individual dossiers on every person being assembled with any and all information that can be collected about you whether true or not. They don’t’ care. Its true if they say it is and every bit of it is to be used to assemble a criminal case against you should they decide to do so. In a police state we are all felons, as any activity we engage in, can be criminalized at the convenience of the government at any time. And, if they had no intentions of using data they collect about you against you, they wouldn’t be so actively engaged in collecting it.
As if the co-opting of Wal-Mart in the snitch and report campaign wasn’t enough, The Stool Pigeon Protection Act was just introduced by Pete King (R) NY, along with several other neo-con crazies.
:To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide immunity for reports of suspected terrorist activity or suspicious behavior and response.:
What this means to those out there with no sense of loyalty or morality is that you can snitch and report without repercussion. Heck, the worst that can happen to you is the government will publish your name if the pressure on them becomes too great.
Amazing how this piece of police state garbage shows up when 22 million people are out of work and many on the verge of losing their homes. Thousands of families are living in shelters and we are hemorrhaging jobs to third world countries. This Stool Pigeon Protection Act, will pay you 1,000 for snitching, reporting, or fabricating a story about one of your neighbors, family members or even someone you never even met. Doesn’t matter. It’s the act of training you to snitch and report that is important.
We do have an epidemic of homegrown terrorists and terrorism. We do have radical groups operating in this country and we need to be wary of them. Homeland Security represents a clear and present danger to the continuance of the sovereign but united (50) states and the citizens of those states. Anyone who slaps on a government badge and accepts a paycheck with full knowledge that their job will involve violating your rights and the Constitution of the people of the United States, should be considered a domestic terrorist. Any agency who is unlawfully and actively spying on, data mining, intimidating or violating your Constitutional rights should be considered a radical extremist group and domestic terrorists.
Claiming that you work for the government is no excuse. Just following orders is no excuse. You know what you are doing and you know that it is wrong on many levels. So while I agree with the idea that there are radical extremist groups and homegrown terrorism, I would argue what that actually entails and where it actually is coming from.
Personally I believe every time we encounter a TSA agent, a roving surveillance van or drone, or just see anything that looks to be coming from government, we should all call in on the tip line and report it, demand our $1000 snitch payment and then go shopping.
March 6th, 2011 by olddog
As world wide freedom dies from ignorance and apathy!
Olddog say’s, READ THIS POST VERY CAREFULLY!
Stop Rupert Murdoch Buying Nearly Half Of
The British Mass Media
<span style="font-size:11.5pt;<br /><br /><br />
Submitted by Tony Costello
The world's largest and most dangerous media baron wants to buy nearly half of the British mass media, boosting his power to undermine global efforts on everything from peace to the environment. Rupert Murdoch has exploited his vast media empire to push war in Iraq, elect George W. Bush, spread resentment of Muslims and immigrants, block global action on climate change, and undermine democracy by viciously smearing politicians who refuse his orders. A lock on British media will massively boost Murdoch's power to undermine global efforts on peace, human rights and the environment. The UK is up in arms over the Murdoch bid, and even the Murdoch-allied government is split down the middle as it makes a decision this week. Global solidarity bolstered Egypt's pro-democracy protesters — it can help Britain's. We only have 48 hours to press the UK government to stand up and stop Rupert Murdoch.
Murdoch undermines democratic government across the world by threatening elected leaders with viciously biased media coverage unless they do his bidding. He has manipulated US, British and Australian democracy for years, but now he wants complete control. In the US, most of the likely Republican presidential candidates are actually paid employees of Murdoch! When his Fox News Network was shunned by Barack Obama as a mere propaganda mouthpiece, it spawned the far right "tea party" and broadcast constant, often hate-filled attacks against Obama and his healthcare and peace agenda — resulting in a huge win for Republicans in the 2010 congressional elections.
We can turn the tide on this powerful threat to democracy. Last year, Murdoch had lunch with the Canadian Prime Minister, who sent his chief aide to set up a Murdoch-style political propaganda TV network in Canada. A mass outcry from Canadian Avaaz members prevented this network from being funded by taxpayer money, and just last week, another mass campaign from Avaaz prevented the Canadian government from removing the journalistic standards that would prevent this new network from spreading lies to the public. This week the battleground is the UK. The fight against Murdoch has just begun, but already we've begun to win.
The power of Avaaz and of this moment in our world's history is the power of unity. Across the Arab world and beyond, people are coming together in common cause across all boundaries. Murdoch's power is the ability to divide. His networks use fear and misinformation to divide left from right, citizens from foreigners, Muslim from western, immigrants from non-immigrants, etc. Murdoch knows that democracy must be divided before it can be conquered. This week,let's show him what unity looks like.
Ricken, Alex, Emma, Sam, Milena, Alice, Iain, Morgan, Maria Paz and the whole Avaaz team
Avaaz.org is a 7-million-person global campaign network that works to ensure that the views and values of the world's people shape global decision-making. ("Avaaz" means "voice" or "song" in many languages.) Avaaz members live in every nation of the world; our team is spread across 13 countries on 4 continents and operates in 14 languages. Learn about some of Avaaz's biggest campaigns here, or follow us on Facebook or Twitter.
To contact Avaaz, write to us at www.avaaz.org/en/contact or call us at +1-888-922-8229
Right this minute I am nauseated from disgust, because I know from years of experience that many readers are slurping this surreptitious propaganda up and cranking up their patriotic rage of Murdoch, and support of Avaaz for defending democracy. It’s enough to make me puke. HOORAY FOR MURDOCH! Let’s all hope he succeeds in destroying democracy. Maybe then, these seven million uninformed globalist jerks that love Democracy will wise up. As for me and my friends, we hate democracy because it is the propaganda tool that has enabled them to destroy our REPUBLIC.
Have you forgotten what a Republican form of Governance really is? How come you vote in our democratic elections? Why do you still believe there are two main political parties in America? AND, why would you want some dumb ass eighteen year old brain washed child to have the power to cancel your vote?
Dear readers, American freedom as we once had it, has disappeared because of your ignorance of our history, and your appetite for a free lunch!
Freedom!!!! Is not free, it requires years of study, and constant diligence because of our depraved human nature. AND, in many peoples case, their lack of intelligence.
Let Murdoch buy the whole damn worlds media industry, while we concentrate on keeping the internet totally free from government – corporate control.
A FREE INTERNET IS OUR LAST CHANCE OF RETURNING TO FREEDOM!
We, who believe that a controllable government can be designed, will die in our pursuit of freedom, and you who do not, will have to be our murders. When you come to my house, make damn sure you have plenty of ammo.
James P. OldDog Harvey
March 3rd, 2011 by olddog
THE MARKET TICKER
COMMENTARY ON THE CAPITAL MARKETS
Bernanke You Stupid Bastard
Posted 2011-02-21 21:02
by Karl Denninger
in Federal Reserve
And Trichet, and the rest of the Central Bank fools.
But especially you, Bernanke.
There's dumb and then there's really dumb. Let's take a short walk back down history lane.
You were sure there was no housing bubble.
Then you were sure it wouldn't pop.
Then you were sure when the subprime problem hit, that it wouldn't cause a recession.
Then you were sure you had it under control with Bear Stearns' hedge funds.
Then you were sure you had it under control with Bear Stearns itself.
Then you were sure it was under control with Lehman, even though you had to know Citibank and others were refusing their collateral in the repo market.
You were sure QE would support higher bond prices – and lower yields. The exact opposite thing happened.
You were sure QE2 would suppress long end yields. The exact opposite thing happened.
Oh yeah, you made excuses both times, but in fact you publicly said that in both cases the exact opposite thing would happen that did.
Now let's look at what happened just today.
Oil went up almost $7 today for the WTI contract. For each dollar that crude oil rises, we transfer roughly $95 billion (estimates vary from $90-100) outside of the United States.
That's a direct hit to GDP.
In ONE DAY the entire impact of your so-called "QE2" was ERASED.
(As an aside, yes, I can do the math on the direct import numbers; the argument here is on the total economic impact, which is as noted above. Estimates there vary somewhat, but they're centered around $90-100 billion/year/dollar increase.)
Your entire gambit and what you sold to Congress and President Obama was that you could "restart" credit expansion with your policies. Implicit in your policy was a need to do so, because without it you cannot succeed. The World Economic Forum at Davos released a paper saying that we needed, collectively, to add one hundred trillion dollars of new debt to the system to support the paltry growth numbers you and your economists are putting up. Worse, the CBO stuck up numbers in the TBAC report that showanother doubling of Federal Debt in the next nine years and a rough quadrupling of debt service costs to $800 billion, implying apaltry 3% blended rate.
We had the collapse starting in 2007 because people couldn't afford the debt they already had and yet your entire scheme, to succeed, requires doubling all systemic debt AGAIN.
So how are you going to do it Ben?
Who's going to take on that debt, and how are they going to service it?
You know damn well it can't work, and won't. You also know damn well you've goaded and prodded the Federal Government into taking on $4.5 trillion in debt we cannot afford, or nearly 30% of GDP.
How are you going to take that back off Bernanke? You keep being asked this, but all you say is that you're confident "you have the tools."
You don't have jack and you know damn well you can't pull your pump-job back one iota without laying bare on the table the fact that the Federal Government is supporting 12% of GDP with borrowed money. If it disappears we have an instant Depression worse than the 1930s.
The bad news is that if you keep this crap up it will disappear by force of the market, there's not a damn thing you can do to prevent it, and that day is rapidly approaching.
EVERY prediction you've made about the economy over the last five years has been wrong.
All of them.
The market is rising only because you're "promising" infinite leverage.
But infinite leverage means certain financial ruin if you're wrong about external forces. And the economy is not a closed system under your control. You cannot control other nations, you cannot control commodity speculators and you cannot control other central banks and politicians. You think you can force China off their peg, but they can suppress riots longer than we can. You think you can keep printing but now Egypt has gone down, Libya is collapsing and if Saudi Arabia folds you're instantly ****ED and so are the rest of us.
Never mind that it's not just the Middle East. What if Venezuela folds? Mexico goes feral with their drug war? How about South Korea, which now has how many banks closed due to runs?
The longer you keep this crap up the worse the instability will become. Eventually something will break that's important, and then it's too late.
You can't win this game Bernanke. And the longer you keep trying to protect the banks that should have been shut down and taken into receivership in 2007 the more damage you're going to do. When the history books are written on this catastrophe your name is going to be featured in bright lights as the personal architect and chief jackass who pontificated that he knew it all because he studied The Great Depression.
Yeah, you studied it all right. And now you're duplicating the mistakes made then, writ even larger.
There are no statesmen left in this nation when it comes to Congress. Not one who will haul your ass in front of them by force of subpoena, put your clear and public record of "accuracy" in front of you and then demand that you justify your twisting of the clear English language to come up with "2% inflation" as your "interpretation" of STABLE PRICES.
You're going to fail Bernanke. You're failing right now. You've destroyed one nation's government and this evening, as I write this, a second is falling apart. The madman behind the second, Qaddafi, has apparently ordered his military to strafe civilians, murdering hundreds.
But behind it all, your policies and those of your cronies, believing in an indefinite Ponzi Scheme of exponential debt without bound, are responsible for every bit of what's happening today worldwide – and what is to come tomorrow.
The only way you can stop it is to admit you were wrong, pull liquidity and allow the insolvent institutions to collapse. And collapse they will – all of them. I'm convinced you know that too. And I'm also convinced that there's three words you will never utter so long as you infest Washington DC: I ****ed up.
So here we sit as Americans, with no solution. There is nobody in Congress or The Administration that has the balls to stop you, and you're too much of a douche to admit you blew it and do what should have been done three years ago.
As a result, all we have left is to be prepared for what's to come.
It's not going to be pretty, and I hope Americans are ready for it.
Congratulations Ben Bernnake. Your place in history is secure, and I'm sure Beelzebub thanks you daily for your cooperation.
Some day I'm quite sure you'll meet him face-to-face.
March 3rd, 2011 by olddog
A Conspiracy with a Silver Lining
By William D. Cohan
The New York Times (Online)
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
As Americans know all too well by this point, commodity prices — for corn, wheat, soybeans, crude oil, gold, and even farmland — have been going through the roof for what seems like forever. There are many causes, primarily supply and demand pressures driven by fears about the unrest in the Middle East, the rise of consumerism in China and India, and the Fed's $600 billion campaign to increase the money supply.
Nonetheless, how to explain the price of silver?
In the past six months, the value of the precious metal has increased nearly 80 percent, to more than $34 an ounce from around $19 an ounce. In the last month alone, its price has increased nearly 23 percent. This kind of price action in the silver market is reminiscent of the fortune-busting, roller-coaster ride enjoyed by the Hunt Brothers, Nelson Bunker and William Herbert, back in 1970s and early 1980s when they tried unsuccessfully to corner the market. When the Hunts started buying silver in 1973, the price of the metal was $1.95 an ounce. By early 1980, the brothers had driven the price up to $54 an ounce before the Federal Reserve intervened, changed the rules on speculative silver investments and the price plunged. The brothers later declared bankruptcy.
The Hunts may be gone from the market, but there are still plenty of people suspicious about the trading in silver, and now they have the Web to explore and to expand their conspiracy narratives. This time around — according to bloggers and commenters on sites with names like Silverseek, 321Gold, and Seeking Alpha — silver shot up in price after a whistleblower exposed an alleged conspiracy to keep the price artificially low despite the inflationary pressure of the Fed's cheap-money policy. (Some even suspect that the Fed itself was behind the effort to keep silver prices low, as a way to keep the dollarâ??s value artificially high.) Trying to unravel the mysterious rise in silver's price is a conspiracy theorist's dream, replete with powerful bankers, informants, suspicious car accidents, and a now a squeeze on short sellers.
Most intriguingly, however, much of the speculation seems highly plausible.
The gist goes something like this: When JPMorgan Chase bought Bear Stearns in March 2008, it inherited Bear Stearns' large bet that the price of silver would fall. Over time, it added to that bet, and then the international bank HSBC got into the market heavily on the bear side as well. These actions "artificially depressed the price of silver dramatically downward," according to a class-action lawsuit initiated by a Florida futures trader and filed against both banks in November in federal court in the Southern District of New York.
"The conspiracy and scheme was enormously successful, netting the defendants substantial illegal profits" in the billions of dollars between June 2008 and March 2010, according to the suit. The suit claims that JPMorgan and HSBC together "controlled over 85 percent the commercial net short positions" in silver futures contracts at Comex, a Chicago-based exchange on which silver is traded, along with "25 percent of all open interest short positions" and a "a market share in excess of 90 percent of all precious metals derivative contracts, excluding gold."
In the United States, trading in precious metals and other commodities is regulated and closely monitored by a federal agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. In September 2008, after receiving hundreds of complaints that silver future prices were being manipulated downward by JPMorgan and HSBC, the commission's enforcement division started an investigation. In November 2009, an informant, described in the lawsuit only as a former employee of Goldman Sachs and a 40-year industry veteran, approached the commission with tales of how the silver traders at JPMorgan were bragging about all the money they were making "as a result of the manipulation," which entailed "flooding the market" with "short positions" every time the price of silver started to creep upward. The idea was that by unloading its short positions like a time-released capsule, JPMorgan's traders were keeping the price of silver artificially low.
Soon enough, the informant was identified as Andrew Maguire, an independent precious metals trader in London. On Jan. 26, 2010, Maguire sent Bart Chilton, a member of the futures trading commission, an e-mail urging him to look into the silver trading that day. "It was a good example of how a single seller, when they hold such a concentrated position in the very small silver market can instigate a sell off at will," Maguire wrote.
On Feb. 3, 2010, Maguire gave the futures trading commission word about an impending "manipulation event" that he said would occur two days later, when the Labor Department's non-farm payroll numbers would be released. He then spelled out two trading scenarios about which he had been told. "Both scenarios will spell an attempt by the two main short holders" — JPMorganChase and HSBC — "to illegally drive the market down and reap very large profits," Maguire wrote in an e-mail to a trading commission investigator.
On Feb. 5 Maguire took a victory lap, writing in another e-mail to the trading commission that "silver manipulation was a great success and played out EXACTLY to plan as predicted." He added, "I hope you took note of how and who added the short sales (I certainly have a copy) and I am certain you will find it is the same concentrated shorts who have been in full control since JPM took over the Bear Stearns position. … I feel sorry for all those not in this loop. A serious amount of money was made and lost today and in my opinion as a result of the CFTC's allowing by your own definition an illegal concentrated and manipulative position to continue."
In March 2010, Maguire released his e-mails publicly, in part because he felt the trading commission's enforcement arm was not taking swift enough action. He was also unhappy over not being invited to a commission hearing on position limits scheduled for March 25. Then came the cloak and dagger element: The day after the hearing, Maguire was involved in a bizarre car accident in London. As he was at a gas station, a car came out of a side street and barreled into his car and two others; London police, using helicopters and chase cars, eventually nabbed the hit-and-run driver. Reports that the perpetrator was given a slap on the wrist inflamed the online crowds that had become captivated by Maguire's odd story.
In any case, the class-action lawsuit contends that between March 2010 and November 2010, JPMorgan Chase and HSBC reduced their short positions in the silver market by 30 percent, causing the metal's price to rise dramatically but leaving them still with a large short position. Now, with the value of silver rising nearly every day, the two banks are caught in a "massive short squeeze," according to one market participant, that appears to be costing them the billions they made originally plus billions more. Whether these huge losses will show up on the books of JPMorgan Chase and HSBC remains to be seen. (Parsing through the publicly filed footnotes of derivative trades is no easy task.)
Nonetheless, the conspiracy-minded have claimed that the Fed must have somehow agreed to make JPMorgan and HSBC whole for any losses the banks suffered if and when the price of silver rose above the artificially maintained low levels — as in right now, for instance. (About all this, a JPMorganChase spokesman declined to comment.)
Some 2 1/2 years later, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's investigation is still unresolved, and at least one commissioner — Bart Chilton — thinks that after interviewing more than 32 people and reviewing more than 40,000 documents, there has been enough investigating and not enough prosecuting. "More than two years ago, the agency began an investigation into silver markets," Chilton said at a commission hearing last October. "I have been urging the agency to say something on the matter for months. … I believe violations to the Commodity Exchange Act have taken place in silver markets and that any such violation of the law in this regard should be prosecuted."
What's more, Chilton said in an interview last week, that "one participant" in the silver market still controlled 35 percent of the silver market as recently as a few months ago, "enough to move prices," he said, and well above the 10 percent "position limits" the commission has proposed to comply with Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Since that law's passage last summer, the commodities exchanges have issued waivers permitting the ownership of silver positions above the limits the CFTC has proposed, and which were supposed to be in place by January of this year. Yet the waivers remain in place, and the big traders have not been penalized, much to Chilton's frustration.
And the mystery deepens: Last Thursday the price of silver fell $1.50 per ounce in less than an hour before recovering. "This was robbery at its most obvious and most vindictive," wrote Richard Guthrie, a London-based trader, in an e-mail to Chilton. "How many investors lost money and positions to the financial benefit of an elite few?"
It's getting harder and harder to continue to brush off Andrew Maguire's claims as the rantings of a rogue trader with a nutty online following. The Commodities Futures Trading Commission should immediately release the files from its investigation into the supposed manipulation of the silver market so the public can determine whether JPMorganChase and HSBC did anything illegal, with or without the help of the Fed. In addition, the commission should start enforcing the 10 percent threshold on silver positions it has proposed to comply with Dodd-Frank law. Basically, the other commissioners must join with Bart Chilton to do the job they are required to do: Protecting the sanctity of the markets and preventing the sorts of manipulation weâ??ve seen all too often.
William D. Cohan, a former investigative reporter in Raleigh, N.C., writes on alternate Fridays about Wall Street and Main Street. He worked on Wall Street as a senior mergers and acquisitions banker for 15 years. He also worked for two years at GE Capital. He is the author of "House of Cards: A Tale of Hubris and Wretched Excess on Wall Street" and "The Last Tycoons: The Secret History of Lazard Freres & Co." and is working on a book about Goldman Sachs. In addition to The New York Times, he writes regularly for Vanity Fair, Fortune, the Financial Times, ArtNews, and The Daily Beast.
All the best,
<a href="http://www.LeMetropoleCafe.com/joinrenew.cfm">HOW TO JOIN OR RENEW</a><br>