"There is no power greater than the power over money- the power to create and contract the money supply, the power to control the purchasing power of your money. Throughout history, this has proven to be the most sought after, monopolistic power of man."
--Ron Paul 1983
I recently was reminded of a debate between Ron Paul and Charles Partee, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors from way back in 1983. In it, Paul uses the same analogy I did in this post:
@0:27 (in the above snippet)
"...I see the issue of power and control over money to be something that we cannot ignore-we must address. I believe closely associated with this is the issue of morality, as well. By what moral right do we have to create purchasing power out of thin air? Whether it's done by the creation of credit and federal reserve notes- or it's done by the creation of SDR's on an international scope, by what right do they do this? Is it any more moral to dilute the value of the money supply that you hold in your wallet than it is for the farmer to dilute the milk supply with water? I would say there is an issue of morality here just as strong as the issue of power. I happen to believe, also, that because it's a moral issue more than an economic issue- it is for this reason that people have lost trust in the government, trust in the banks, trust in business, trust in themselves- and that we are a nation of distrust."
I knew I had "jacked" that milkman analogy from somewhere, just couldn't remember where! Turns out is was Ron Paul!
I watched the entire debate between Paul and Partee a long time ago. I remember it being very interesting and educational. The video quality is certified poor, but it is worth fighting through it, trust me! Here is the debate in it's entirety:
1 of 7
2 of 7
3 of 7
4 of 7
5 of 7
6 of 7
7 of 7 (Can't get this one to load to the blog for some reason...)
The above video is the third and final installment of a series of lectures by the office of Congressman Ron Paul about money. In this video, Peter Schiff analyses what about money causes economic crisis. He gives both analysis, and personal stories that highlight this phenomenon in a way that, perhaps, many have not considered. One of my favorite parts is when he gives some perspective on unemployment:
@40:48- Question: "Can you talk for a minute about your views on unemployment insurance?..."
"Obviously there is an economic truism that you are going to get more of what you subsidize. I mean, if you are going to pay people not to work, people are going to take you up on it. I did it myself! I remember the one time in my life I collected unemployment benefits, I did not look for a job until I exhausted my benefits...There are a lot of people who do the same thing today. It's not wrong, it's human nature...People forget that leisure has value. People would rather not work. People save up so they can retire. Well, you can retire early now on unemployment."
"A lot of people say 'That's ridiculous- it's only $300/week...' True! Yeah, if somebody offered an unemployed person a $100,000/year job, they'd probably take it. But, what if the only job they're offered is $400/week? Or $500/week? Most people won't take it! They'd rather have unemployment, because it's like a huge tax on getting a job. The highest marginal tax bracket is faced by someone who is getting unemployment...Not only does he have to pay taxes on what he earns, but he loses all of his unemployment benefits. So the tax rate is enormous."
"And, of course, people forget when you get a job, you don't get to keep all your income- there's a lot of expenses that the IRS won't let you deduct. What if the job you get offered is 45 minutes away from your house? What's it going to cost you in gas money to get there and back? Maybe you have to eat in a restaurant, maybe you have to wear a suit, maybe you have to have a dry cleaner. Maybe you have a kid. What if you have to put your kid in daycare- how much is that going to cost? So, it's so much easier just not to work.
After watching these talks, I have come away with a much greater understanding of where we are, where we have been, and what we face. It is well worth the time spent to educate ourselves of these issues- as the money issue has a profound effect on our daily lives, and the nature of society. I think after you watch this series, the impact of the monetary issue on our liberty will become quite clear.
This is an excellent video by Tom Woods for Ron Paul. I think he puts it very well:
@ 0:13 "...and he's opposed every bailout- every time. The other major Republican candidates were all in favor of TARP- which means that when the chips are down, they are going to side with the establishment against you."
@ 0:30 "In 2001, he predicted the financial crisis of 2008- to a T. We need somebody like this- with his intelligence and insight- to navigate us through a world historic moment like this- not some "empty suit" repeating talking points from 1983."
@ 1:07 "We've been duped into supporting a foreign policy that no "real" Republican worth his salt should be supporting- it's bankrupting the country, and obviously diminishing our strategic position. And, that's why Ron Paul gets more donations from active duty military than all other Republican candidates combined."
A recent article in Salon by Gary Weiss claims that Ron Paul is a "fraudulent populist, friend of the oligarchy, sworn enemy of every social program since Theodore Roosevelt." This claim that "social programs" are populist- and, therefore, helpful to the poor is a common cry we hear from so-called progressives. But let's think this position through.
Reading through the article, one notices that Weiss uses, as Tom Woods puts it, "one sentence arguments- 'Hey, he wants to get rid of this...Hey! He wants to get rid of that.'" Weiss never actually defends these government programs- it is just presumed (with the depth of thought analogous to a puddle) that all these organizations are crucial to common folk. Of course, the effect of all of these programs has been to the extreme detriment of the working class- or in contemporary terms, the 99%. To gain a full understanding of how this is so, one has to delve just slightly beyond the name of the agency- something that Weiss is unwilling to do.
Moreover, Weiss treats Paul's opposition to the warfare state and the Federal Reserve as if these positions are just cutesy-patootsy- just no big deal. These cliques are perhaps the most crucial threats to the poor and middle class that progressives so often claim they are trying to ameliorate! Who else "since Roosevelt" has had the courage to make a stand on these issues? To ignore this is an extreme disservice to progressives. Giving these positions more than just a dismissal could, perhaps, persuade progressives towards Paul- who clearly is a friend of the common man.
However, Weiss commits what is either a sin of omission, or perhaps just a transgression of ignorance. By blindly supporting these agencies of the executive (HUD, Commerce, Interior, Education, and Energy) he reveals himself as a fascist. As Lew Rockwell has recently said "There isn't anyone around who is willing to stand around today and say, 'I'm a fascist. I think fascism is a great economic and political system.' But I submit if they were really honest, the vast majority of politicians, intellectuals, and political activists would have to say just that. Fascism is the system of government that cartelizes the private sector, centrally plans the economy to subsidize producers, exalts the police state as the source of order, denies fundamental rights and liberties to individuals, and makes the executive state the unlimited master of society." Perhaps this is his "coming out"- although browsing through his page on Slate makes me think it is not so.
What is most insidious about the "logic" Weiss applies in this article is that common people are so easily persuaded by this siren song. Who wouldn't want to get preferential treatment by the government? After all, it is the Department of Housing and Urban Development. However, this agency is about as beneficial to common urban folk as the Patriot Act is to true patriots- you know, the sort of folk who might speak out about the Police State- only to be "disappeared" in the name of national security. The true beneficiaries of these programs is the oligarchy that Weiss so vehemently opposes.
Tom Woods has put together a resource page with links to studies confirming that these agencies are nothing more than an institutionalization of subsidies (at our expense) to well-connected people and organizations. The amount of money handed over in the name of "progress" is staggering. Just looking at the corruption in HUD is conclusive that these agencies are solely designed to perpetuate the nexus between those in government power, and their comrades in the (so-called) private sector.
As Rockwell points out, these executive agencies seem so innocuous because we have come to expect fascism as the normal order of business: "This describes mainstream politics in America today...In fact, it's so much a part of the mainstream, it's hardly noticed anymore." Indeed- either Weiss hasn't noticed, or is simply disguising his fascist tenancies as "progressive." What a box to find one's self in- he is either ignorant, and not a true "intellectual," or there is something far more Machiavellian going on here.
The Raw Milk Freedom Riders will be hosting another event today (Dec. 8), taking raw milk from a farm in Wisconsin to Chicago, and then consuming said product openly. Here is their press release. A bold statement from that release:
Chicago, IL—On Thursday, December 8, a group of mothers will risk arrest and other penalties by purchasing fresh, unprocessed milk from a small farm in Wisconsin, transporting it to Chicago’s Independence Park and distributing the milk to other mothers who need it for their families from 11:30am-2:00pm.
Why should such a seemingly innocent act risk arrest? Federal law 21 CFR § 1240.61 prohibits interstate movement and distribution of raw milk for human consumption. This U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation applies to individuals, or “agents” acting on their behalf. The mothers who purchase the milk will be acting as “agents” on behalf of other mothers who cannot make the trip.
Here the "Moms" let it be known that they are fully aware of the legalities and possible punishment involved in such an act. Yet, they are not dismayed...such bravery! When consumers truly desire a product, they will seek it out even if it means participating in the "black market."
Raw milk?...Let me check
the other side!
I have spoken to several women in my job who have been driven underground to get their raw milk, due to state law prohibiting the sale of such product in stores here in Kansas. One described how she meets her "dealer" in an unspecified location- where he gives her the "good stuff" and she pays him there on the street. What a joke! She should be able to buy this in our store, but endless regulations keep us from being able to satisfy our customers.
On that note, I have requests from customers (usually those I have never seen) about once a month inquiring about raw milk. I tell them state law prohibits the sale of this product in stores- to which they almost always roll their eyes and shake their head. Of course, I always follow that up with the suggestion that the government is "just trying to keep you safe...from yourself!" Almost always- in a hushed tone like they are trying to solicit drugs- they then ask me, "Do you know where I can get some?" "No", I tell them- and that they should seek out a local farmer who would be willing to sell them the milk. I never see these customers again.
If we did carry raw milk, we would in all likelihood have a new regular customer- the best type of patron one could hope for. Why does the government prohibit us from selling this product? There is a growing market out there for raw milk and we are not being allowed to capitalize on it. What a shame!
The Clinton Chronicleswas an interesting documentary to watch, and a perfect sequel to one of the films on Iran/Contra. This film brings many Bill Clinton's (former) associates together to paint a picture of what this man's role in the aforementioned scandal likely was- a powerful, well-connected, and corrupt political leader who would facilitate the drug running and money laundering aspect of this "secret government" plot.
Many people connected to Clinton- former bodyguards, girlfriends, and even those involved in Iran/Contra- bravely came forward to share what they knew of this plot. Many died in bizarre ways- those more fortunate saw their careers ruined, and their lawsuits sabotaged. For an example, see this statement (a must read to understand legal sabotage) released in 1996 by Terry Reed, a pilot who worked for the CIA during Iran/Contra.
Or, you could just check out these lyrics from the Ghetto Boys on an album released election day 1992:
I have watched a few documentary films on the Iran/Contra affair recently. As I was born in 1980, this was all being brought to public light when I was just a small child. In light of the activities the government was engaging in, it surprises me that more of the people from my parents generation are not completely and totally suspicious of all of our "foreign policy" programs.
These unscrupulous and illegal activities are all based on the "National Security Act of 1947 (NSA'47), which established the National Security Counsel and the Central Intelligence Agency. Both of these organizations- while intended to be a buffer against foreign threats- have caused incredible havoc on other nations. When the government pursues such a course, it (predictably) causes what the CIA calls "blowback" or retaliation.
Just supporting my country...
In these documentaries, various people- mostly Oliver North- proudly justified blatant illegal activities such as drug running, arms running, circumventing and lying to Congress as a defense of our nation against the "Communist Threat." This, of course, all goes back to NSA'47- and the priority of "national defense." Does this make our drug addicts de facto Super Patriots?
There is a third documentary I would like to watch called The Clinton Chronicals, which is supposed to be about the connection of former President Bill Clinton, and his role in the affair. I have yet to watch it, and will post an update when I get a chance to view it.
Thanks to Charles Burris who's post on Lew Rockwell's site inspired the interest in this subject for me.
In the following video, Harvard PhD Edwin Vieira discusses- in historical context- the issue of Constitutional money. It is an issue we must give due diligence if we are to understand where our economy lies historically, and where we are headed as a nation. There is perhaps no greater threat to liberty than when the economy collapses. As Vieira points out, this phenomenon always leads to tyranny as an economic catastrophe sends the public into a frenzy.
Near the end, as he is concluding, Vieira makes the following precient statements:
@46:22
"They (the Fed*) cannot face the consequences of a depression- can you imagine what a 1930's style depression in this country would be like? That's what they don't want to have happen, and the one tool that they have that they think can prevent that in the short term is what? Quantitative easing- inflation, generating money, generating paper currency, bills of credit- well, bills of discredit because they are not going to be paid. We keep generating this stuff and we hope something will happen. We are playing for time- financially. But I think it was Machiavelli that said that's a fallacy because time brings all things- bad as well as good."
@47:05
"...The only solution here, I think, is to come up with an alternative currency- and a lot of people have proposed exactly how to do this. This isn't something that's difficult, on the shelf technology, we could set this thing up in 30-60 days after the statute is passed- an alternative sound currency based on silver and gold. Start using that in the marketplace, start transitioning the governments into using it for purposes of taxation and spending, and let the banks figure out how to solve their own problems."
As Vieira points out, we don't have to go down with the Titanic that is our economic system today. There are workable, rational, and realistic solutions that are literally the lifeboat for the citizen. If we ignore scholars like Vieira we will drown in the icy waters of turmoil and, quickly awaken to a new reality of tyranny.
*It would be important to note the government cannot face this reality for obvious reasons- and is complicit, as well. That explains why the government was all too happy to pass legislation such as TARP and support quantitative easing as a solution to the threat of economic collapse due to bank failure.
I recently came across an interesting story on the LRC Blog about the fledgling American Christmas tree industry. It seems there was quite a ruckus over a proposed 15 cent/tree tax on importers and producers of fresh Christmas Trees. Here are a couple of links about it:
I also had a debate (via email) with the public relations manager of The National Christmas Tree Association- an industry association for Christmas Tree Growers, and the primary activist group involved. It was an interesting exchange and one that highlights the difference in perspective of what the role of government ought to be:
(Since we are both named Rick, I will refer to myself as Me and the spokesman as Him.)
Me:
I just read the following on the Fox News website:
"The program and fee were supported by some in the Christmas tree industry. The money was not meant to pay down the debt or fund any other program, but designed to go back into the new Christmas Tree Promotion Board. The board, proposed earlier this year, is the culmination of a years-long effort by the fresh Christmas tree industry to promote itself, according to background information provided in the Federal Register. The industry has faced increasing competition from producers of artificial trees, but efforts to collect voluntary contributions for a fresh-tree marketing campaign have repeatedly run out of funding. So the government stepped in to mandate a fee to support the promotion board"
So, your solution to competition and a lack of marketing money is to use the coercive power of the federal government to achieve these goals? I think I am going to contact the "player piano" industry and let them in on this new strategy! Also, the horse and carriage industry....LOL!
Him:
Does that mean you also stopped wearing cotton T-shirts? Because cotton growers have for years had a very successful checkoff program promoting the use of cotton. Have you also stopped drinking milk? Have you stopped eating blueberries, beef and watermelon? A checkoff doesn’t have anything to do with Obama or taxes as has been erroneously reported.
Bottom line: Real Christmas trees are grown by American farm families. Fake Christmas trees are made in Chinese factories. Merry Christmas.
Me:
Thanks for the reply.
I find your first example- cotton to be an interesting choice. Indeed, most American consumers of clothing wear cotton. But to imply that it is out of some wholesome, patriotic reason would be to ignore where these clothes are made. Most consumers likely choose (foreign manufactured) cotton T-shirts because they are comfortable- both on the body, and in the pocketbook.
When it comes to Christmas trees, people choose real or fake trees for a variety of reasons. To blame the consumer's ignorance of the plight of the American Christmas tree farmer is tantamount to asking people to trade in their iPODs and stereos for a player piano. You could say, BOTTOM LINE: real music is made by American player pianos- fake music is digital and put on Chinese iPODs. Some consumers prefer a fake tree over a real one, just as people over time decided new technology in music was more desirable than changing the rolls on a player piano.
What consumers are saying, as shown by the slump in sales, is they don't desire real Christmas trees. A business is traditionally designed to respond to consumer demand, and make predictions as to what future demand will be. Miscalculations leading to loss can not be blamed on the consumer- they are the sole responsibility of the firm who did not have the foresight to predict the change in the market demand for their product. Unless the producer innovates, the firm is likely to go the way of the player piano, horse and carriage, and the dodo bird. A fancy government marketing campaign will not change consumer demand- to ignore the market is to ensure your own peril.
Him:
A checkoff is not a “government marketing campaign” …why do you insist on believing that in spite of all the easy to understand facts? A checkoff is a group of farmers pooling their OWN MONEY to market their crop and pay for ag research. Please learn more about it. http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2006-2/checkoff/2006-2-01.pdf This program is industry’s effort to persuade US consumers to buy US-grown, farm-raised Christmas trees instead of plastic trees imported from China. Why would you be against family farms trying to make their businesses more successful?
I didn’t imply that people wear cotton for wholesome, patriotic reasons…I would think people, myself included, wear cotton clothing because it’s a quality product. I cited it as an example of how a farmers’ checkoff program can be successful. A Christmas tree farmer posted a guest blog about it this morning. You can read it “from the horse’s mouth” proverbially speaking. http://realtreetalk.blogspot.com/
Me:
Let's look at the term "checkoff" using the information you gave me:
"The term 'checkoff' refers to the collection of a fee and comes from the concept of checking off the appropriate box on a form, like a tax return, to authorize a contribution for a specific purpose, such as the public financing of election campaigns, or, as in this case, the financing of programs to enhance producer welfare."
Anyone who has voted is likely familiar with this concept. A checkoff in this instance is voluntary. However, the article later states:
"Contributions to the earliest check-off programs were voluntary. These voluntary programs, however, were plagued by the problem of free-riders, which motivated the supporters of some programs to pressure state, and later federal, legislators to provide them with legislative authority for mandatory checkoff contributions." (from the article you sent me)
When the program shifts from being voluntary to mandatory, it is by definition not a checkoff! It is now a mandate. You can call a rock a flower, and even make it to be legally named a flower, but that does not change it in the real world.
To answer your first question, I insist on calling this a government marketing campaign because it is a marketing campaign that the government administers. How much more clear could it be?!
Your second (loaded) question is quite off-base. A successful business is responsive to the demands of the consumer. A business that miscalculates or ignores the reality in front of them will fail- as they should. This is what spurs innovation, and creates the wonderful world of products around us- like iPODs, PCs, etc. We could be having this chat over a telegraph or by snail mail, but I rather enjoy using email on the internet. Should I be concerned for the families in the typewriter industry?
I find it interesting that you never really address the slumping demand for your industry's product in a meaningful way- your case instead revolves around emotional stories and bizarre guilt trips about buying American. I wonder, will you make the contention that ignoring the consumer is a positive thing- that it is beneficial in any way? To actively ignore the realities in front of you, with seemingly no market solutions in mind is a major disservice to the members of your organization. They will either innovate and be successful, or languish forever- producing a good that increasingly becomes a novelty.
Postscript: Although I was quite surprised the PR person was seemingly rude and confrontational, I was excited for the chance to defend liberty and discuss the relevance of the market economy. Usually, one would expect a computer generated or otherwise benign response to such an inquiry, and it was refreshing that Rick was willing to engage in such a debate. For more from their perspective, The National Christmas Tree Association has a blog called Tree Talk.
I cannot add anything to his commentary, here. It is time we call these henchmen and women of the State out for what they are- fascists. As Eric points out, they don't walk around in military uniforms filled with meaningless medals- rather they masquerade in suit-and-ties, nice dresses, with happy smiles as they deal out economic and social havoc 'for our benefit.' As Peter Schiff recently said (paraphrasing), the State and it's profiteers are like dogs who are always getting in the trashcan...time to kennel up!
The Raw Milk Freedom Riders did indeed make it to the FDA with their contraband, and proceeded to serve it to children and other adults who then consumed it without incident:
Here are a few of my favorite quotes from the event:
The FDA considers it "perfectly safe to feed your kids Mountain Dew, Twinkies and Cocoa Puffs, but it's unsafe to feed them raw milk, compost-grown tomatoes and Aunt Matilda's pickles," said Joel Salatin, the Virginia farmer made famous by the documentary "Food, Inc.," who joined the protesters. (SF Gate)
"It's totally natural for me as a parent to want to feed my children good food that makes them healthy," said Liz Reitzig, 31, a mother of five in Bowie, Md., who organized the protest. "In this case that is fresh, clean, raw milk from farmers we know and trust. The idea that we become criminals for engaging in that transaction is what is so appalling." (SF Gate)
"This product right here is found in 450 stores in California," said Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy in Fresno, Calif. "It's never made anybody sick -- 12 years of production, 65,000 people a week drinking raw milk," he added. (CBN)
Jonathan Emord, an attorney and author of the book The Rise of Tyranny, defended raw milk "criminals." He said he's appalled that the FDA has set law enforcement officers on ordinary citizens, "barging into a company whose only sin is that it makes raw milk and treating them as if they're drug lords, throwing them down on the ground, handcuffing them, escorting them off to prison." (CBN)
"Our goal here today was really to establish a precedent whether or not the FDA would go so far as to arrest parents for bringing raw milk across state lines for their families," said Liz Reitzig, co-founder of the Farm Food Freedom Coalition. "If not, they're setting the precedent that this is a law that they enforce only sporadically or only selectively," she added. (CBN)
"The FDA has never taken, nor does it intend to take, enforcement action against an individual who purchased and transported raw milk across state lines solely for his or her own personal consumption," the statement said.
The statement said pasteurization was "adopted decades ago as a public health measure to kill dangerous bacteria and largely eliminate the risk of getting sick from one of the most important staples of the American diet," adding that there have been 143 reported outbreaks of illness related to raw milk since 1987, "some involving miscarriages, still births, kidney failure and deaths." (CBN)
So, the FDA's position is that they are not enforcing the law, so these protests are silly. Here is a timeline of the FDA's raids on raw milk producers, dietary supplement manufacturers, and natural health practitioners...Search the page for the word "raw," and you will find many examples to call this claim in to question. (Complete with links to the original news source) In any case, if they are actively "not enforcing" this law, than what is the point of the law in the first place?
The FDA's statement also reveals that around 10 deaths per year are attributed to raw milk. Of course, they have no concerns of the processed foods that are practically the only choice consumers have when going to the store. I wonder, with all of the different food related illnesses attributable to fresh produce items, when the FDA will decide to eliminate fresh veggies and fruit from the dietary equation?
Bottom line: I don't trust the FDA to provide an environment of safety in food anymore than I trust them to provide safe drugs*. They are- like every other tentacle of the State- the slave of their industry masters, and the "Judas goat" for unwitting consumers. With the FDA denaturing food, then criminalizing choice all the while masquerading as our saviors- there is no wonder we have a health catastrophe in this country.
*Prescription Drugs - Leading Killer in USA
According to information we have received, a statistical study of hospital deaths in the U.S. conducted at the University of Toronto revealed that pharmaceutical drugs kill more people every year than are killed in traffic accidents.
The study is said to show that more than two million American hospitalized patients suffered a serious adverse drug reaction (ADR) within the 12-month period of the study and, of these, over 100,000 died as a result. (emphasis mine) The researchers found that over 75 per cent of these ADRs were dose-dependent, which suggests they were due to the inherent toxicity of the drugs rather than to allergic reactions.
The data did not include fatal reactions caused by accidental overdoses or errors in administration of the drugs. If these had been included, it is estimated that another 100,000 deaths would be added to the total every year.
The researchers concluded that ADRs are now the fourth leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, cancer, and stroke.
Source: Jason, et al. (Lazarou et al), Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Vol. 279. April 15, 1998, pp. 1200-05. Also Bates, David W., Drugs and Adverse Drug Reactions: How Worried Should We Be? JAMA, Vol. 279. April 15, 1998, pp. 1216-17.
I found this interview of Lew Rockwell by Judge Nepalatano of Fox's "Freedom Watch" to be very interesting:
I like how Lew puts it at the end:
@ 3:48
"We have to educate ourselves. We have to understand what our freedoms are, who are enemies are- and it's not some guy in Yemen. The enemy is in Washington, D.C. and in every other capital- state capital, local government office building- that's where the enemy is. Those are the people that want to take away our freedoms, are taking away all our freedoms, taking all our money, too."
What starts as an examination of the new drone helicopter recently purchased by a police department near Houston quickly becomes a critique of the function of the State. Why do our police departments have S.W.A.T. teams that include tanks, armored vehichles, and now drones? And, why on earth are we giving police departments federal grants to seemingly prepare for war?
The point Lew brings up that is crucial to understand- is that with the passage of the Patriot Act, the rule of law is out the window. President Obama's recent state-sanctioned killing sprees prove that being from the United States is irrelevant. Don't expect a day in court, or even a charge. One day you will be just walking along and ZAP!
Consider the son of Al-Awlaki, a 16 year old boy who had an unfortunate last name, but has never been proven to have done anything to threaten or harm Americans. Even if he had, who are we to treat these kids worse than Nazis- who were indeed executed, but at least given their day in court? Terrorism is a totally vague term in today's context, an open book utilized by the State to justify endless rights abuses, violence, and destruction. Obama didn't just murder a few kids that day, he reiterated that the State is above the Rule of Law.
Perhaps we should revisit what terrorism actually is- the use of violence to achieve political objectives. An honest evaluation of the actions of the State will reveal who the real propagators of terror are. The terrorists are the people who feed us the hype about the "bad man" with one hand, as they take away freedom with the other. Only when we face this truth, will we regain the liberty and human dignity these governments have taken from us. And, only then, can we have a serious prospect of peace.
"This is my favorite family to deliver milk to..."
Imagine a milkman who, in delivering his normal route, notices a sudden increase in demand for milk. Perhaps normal customers are asking for more supply, as well as potential new customers who would purchase this milk if it were available. Unfortunately, the milkman only has the capacity to create X gallons of milk, and knows he is risks losing market share unless something is done to increase the supply of milk.
There are several courses which the milkman can pursue to satisfy this demand. He could invest in more cows and/or more or higher quality equipment could be purchased to increase efficiency. An arrangement can be made with another producer who has excess milk . Or, unscrupulously, the milkman could dilute the milk with water to make more product. Only the integrity of the milkman can dissuade him from the tantalizing prospect of more profit without real input.
Let's say the milkman does decide to dilute the milk to satisfy this increased demand. If the milk is diluted to account for a 5-10% increase in demand, it is likely most customers will not notice. However, a few are suspicious even at this point, as the human pallet is quite sensitive to differences in a known product. This, of course, leads competitors to the market who produce undiluted milk.
In the face of this competition, the milkman has a few courses of action to satisfy the customers: He can offer a lower market price for his diluted milk. Buying more cows, efficiency, and contractual agreements with other producers could be applied, as before, to increase his supply of actual milk, thus allowing him to fill the demand without diminishing the product (or the market price) as much or at all. Or, unscrupulously, the producer can attempt to force the competition from the marketplace altogether.
Let's say the milkman is able to seize the market, and become the only legal milk producer in the area. Now, with 100% market share, the milkman is essentially able to dilute the supply ad infinitum. The only recourse the consumer has now is to find an underground producer, produce the milk themselves, or illegally import milk from outside the area. Those who place more value in having undiluted milk than the repercussions of buying illegal milk will do so- the level of diluiton will directly affect the number of consumers who choose to skirt or break the law. These people will likely be mostly good, upstanding citizens when judged by any other standard.
There is, of course, only one place the milkman can go to make buying or selling other brands of milk illegal- to literally force other brands off of the market. This is, of course, the State or one of it's tentacles- the arbiters of force in our society. These inter-relationships are never without "justification"- usually preceded by some crisis or sudden public concern, and the inevitable slew of propaganda that comes from the State and it's sympathizers.
Seriously...why don't we just use these things?
This scenario parallels the story of money. The banking cartel producing endless fiat currency is no different than the monopolistic milkman who will ultimately be driven to produce milk so thin you can read your emails through it. When supply dries up, these producers will always be compelled to dilute- the latter uses liquid, the former "liquidity." The loser is always the consumer, who incrementally experiences the undermining of the product- and can do nothing about it.
There is probably no issue that affects people on a day-to-day basis more than the integrity of the money they use. The value of money is relevant in every monetary transaction- it determines how much labor people are willing to exchange per unit, as well as how many units one will exchange for a product or service. Finally, the value of the currency affects savings, investment, and retirement- and how much products or services will cost in the future. Clearly, a sound currency is crucial for anyone working, spending, or saving- i.e. everyone.
If we are to break ourselves of this cartel on money creation, we first have to face the fact that they are illegitimate counterfeiters and have no integrity. We, of course, cannot forget the badge and the fancy suit behind the cartel- the State, which forces us to behave as if this cartel is legitimate through law. To eliminate the monopoly enforced by the State in the market for money is, thus, allow consumers to choose which producer has the most scruples.
An effect of this awakening, and presumably a return to competition in the currency market, would be the ability for consumers to choose something other than the cartel's monopoly money. If history is to repeat itself, precious metal commodity money will likely emerge as the currency of choice, namely gold. People tend to choose gold because it's value can only be diminished when more actual substance is mined and minted. Thus, runaway inflation due to endless fiat money is practically impossible in a constitutional gold and silver commodity money economic setting.
Also, because a finite amount of gold exists in the market at any given time, interest rates can only be moved by the actual activity of the market- i.e. spending and saving. Because of this relationship, a gold currency can provide a real picture via the intrest rates of what the true market conditions are. When the interest rates are relevant, a vivid indicator exists to signal investors as to what the risks the market presents. For, interest rates are supposed to show investors whether or not there are significant savings in the market to back up a risk they are about to take. This is a much more stable platform for a society to operate on than a cartel that manipulates interest rates at it's whim.
When interest rates are controlled by the central bank, investors are rendered blind to risk and prone to malinvestment. Look at our society today- we have an extreme lack of savings and high debt. But, the major complaint is a credit crunch! With no savings to back it up the risk, investors should not be borrowing right now, they should be waiting for savings to build up support the projects they are considering. Instead, we have a central bank who insists on keeping the rate of borrowing low, prodding the investors to back projects with no future.
It is no wonder that as we have seen more money flow toward these masterful failures, we have seen more antagonism from the general public. They are the losers who have to suffer through currency devaluation, inferior products, and lost opportunity as the "experts" decide what is best for the rest of us. Our masters may promise us utopia, but they ensure it for themselves.
A sound currency is the true hedge against central banking. While we can never live in a perfect world, we should at least be able to see it for what it is. Just as our milk should be open to competition, so should be our currency.
The video below explores the issue: "What is money?" The lecture is part of a series dealing with the money issue with subsequent lectures coming entitled "What is Constitutional Money?" and "What About Money Causes Economic Crisis?" I cannot wait for these to come out, as the presenter is quite thorough in covering a subject critical for each of us to understand.
Today is my Mother's birthday, and I would like to thank her for providing a setting where I could always have an open mind. In many ways this setting was the genesis for Liberty Study, and all of my previous and future pondering. Thank you, Mom....and Happy Birthday!
Check out this press release from the Weston A Price Foundation:
RAW MILK FREEDOM RIDERS TO PROTEST FDA
In response to the recent raids and armed assaults on our wonderful farmers, a group of raw milk activist has come together to create the Raw Milk Freedom Riders! On November 1, a caravan of mothers will drive to Pennsylvania, legally acquire raw milk, and return to Maryland with our milk--to the FDA headquarters in Silver Spring-- where we will distribute raw milk to our families.
Now is YOUR opportunity to be one of the Raw Milk Freedom Riders!
We need a few more brave mothers who can ride in the caravan across state lines with raw milk. There is some, though minimal, risk involved in this so please be willing to take some risk if you want this amazing opportunity to be in the caravan.
The caravan of mothers will include embedded reporters to broadcast what we are doing and why—to shed light on the FDA’s violent and failing policies. We have also informed the FDA of our intentions and have invited them to the party. Whether or not they show, it will be very interesting.
Food freedom heroes Joel Salatin, Kristin Canty, Max Kane, David Gumpert, Mark McAfee and many others dedicated to raw milk freedom and food freedom will join us for a rally and peaceful demonstration at the FDA headquarters.
We have asked the FDA repeatedly for dialogue. They have refused. Their only response is guns on our farms and economically destroying our farmers and buying clubs. It is time to challenge them on the law that turns mothers into criminals for bringing raw milk home to their families if it involves crossing state lines.
If you are interested in being one of our freedom riders, please contact Liz Reitzig LizReitzig@gmail.com
We welcome EVERYONE to join us at the rally and make a HUGE statement to the FDA on our support for food freedom! Any questions, please email FarmFoodFreedom@yahoo.com
It is so funny, I have been writing about the milkman for a few days now, and then this!
The FDA enforces regulations regarding pasteurization that effectively have rendered our milk nutritionally impotent. This process destroys living enzymes which are key to absorption of nutrients, and preventing an allergic reaction from our bodies. Why would the producers of milk do such a thing?
Working in a grocery store, I have gained a unique perspective about this subject. We have two types of milk: pasteurized and ultra-pasteurized. The "ultra" has a much longer shelf life (up to 1 1/2 months), so it is much preferred for a store who doesn't want product that is constantly expiring. (The pasteurized milk we get can range anywhere from 1 1/2 weeks to 3 weeks.)
Pasteurization is preferred by the industry in general because the process allows a much greater room for error in the production process and eventually all the way to the store shelves. The fact the product doesn't deliver to the consumer the essential vitamins and nutrients and makes some sick matters not! For the industry, this fight is about protecting against loss due to spoilage.
The blunt tool used to force consumers to drink pasteurized milk legally or criminally consume raw milk, is the State. Those standing up to protest this ridiculous rule are fighting for the simple ability to eat and drink whatever we choose. At the same time, they are standing up for the right for small producers to market products to their customers. The gallantry shown by these self-proclaimed "moms" for facing the State- in all of its consumer crushing, farm raiding glory horror- is to be commended.
This post is an analysis of the work of Dr. Robert Pape as seen in this video:
(Parts2-4 link from this video)
Dr. Pape gives a very persuasive presentation here that suicide terrorism is the result of one fundamental factor: foreign occupation. This is clear when looking at the data he presents- and I believe him when he says the database is quite substantial. This data is merely a reflection of logic- it seems anyone taking a serious look at the what this policy inevitably entails- heavily armed foreign troops affecting daily life- would conclude it will result in a catastrophic increase in attacks on occupiers. I think one only has to imagine Chinese troops in Kansas dictating and enforcing different laws, statutes, policies, etc. to get the picture...
The interesting aspect of this phenomenon is the suicide aspect. Why do these people use suicide terror as the vehicle to carry out their sacred mission? It cannot be said that "they are just kooky religious." Pape addresses this- proving it has nothing to do with religion at all.
One cannot remove the suicide from suicide terrorism, just as the self cannot be negated when discussing "self immolation." In fact, the two phenomena are ideologically parallel, except the former chooses to directly attack the perceived enemy when performing the final act whilst the latter chooses to harm no others. Both suicides are likely driven by the same factor- outrage relating to outside control.
I found the data gathered vividly connected suicide terrorism to foreign occupation. My contention with Dr. Pape arises in his analysis of the solution to this problem. One first has to examine the presumption embedded within the policy that we have to protect "strategic interests and obligations." Then, we will move on to the actual policy solution offered (and accepted) of "Off-Shore Balancing." (OSB)
Strategic Interests
"Strategic Interests" could be read as "Corporate Interests." This has been well outlined in the John Perkins book, The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man These concerns have absolutely no place in foreign policy of the government, as the funds needed to pursue these interests are extracted from the citizen- who has no profit in the enhancement of the select corporations who benefit from this welfare.
Obligations
"Obligations" is a confusing term, as it can be read two ways- moral obligations or perhaps economic obligation.
The moral obligation for intervention is rooted in the doctrine of "American Exceptionalism" which says we are really, really great and every one should be like us- if they are not, we will force them to! This is at best a misguided fallacy, and at worst a facade to justify infinite horrors on the world. Ironically, as we stumble further and further into domination, we undermine the "moral" value of the doctrine itself.
I also wonder if Dr. Pape was referring to a financial obligation when he said this. He never clarified, but I could see that being a possibility-especially considering the debt crisis we are facing. This, of course, relates to our "interests" referenced above. If "outside forces" are allowed to use financial leverage to control policy (again, compelling citizens to support this), it would be tantamount to blackmail on a continual basis. We are not obliged to this!
Off-Shore Balancing (OSB)
Off-Shore Balancing (OSB) is, in short, a policy of removing the "troops on the ground" and instead using a combination of economic policy and so called "off-shore" tactics (such as air strikes) to create the conditions necessary to achieve our strategic interests and obligations.
OSB is fundamentally flawed in that it recognizes the frustration of a people who are unable to choose their destiny because an outside force is affecting their lives to such a drastic degree, but merely changes the mechanism through which the force is applied. Certainly, this will reduce the suicide attacks on our troops who are currantly in other countries because they will simply no longer be there! (Much like legalizing drugs would drastically reduce drug crime.) However, these people are not just blowing themselves up because of foreign occupation, per se- it is the atrocities committed by the occupiers that moves these individuals to suicide terrorism. What will happen when these radicalized people are affected with atrocities via off-shore balancing, yet have no "occupiers" to blow up?
The answer to this question is what people in this country should fear the most. For, OSB will have the effect of inviting terrorists to attack us at home. These attacks will be far fewer, but much more deadly-as they are directed by suicide terrorists willing to travel from far away. These folks are not likely to go all that way to merely walk off the low diving board for an uneventful sploosh. Rather, they will be doing a cannonball of the high dive trying their best to get everyone wet. OSB is, thus, an immoral strategy as it shifts the target of terrorism from warriors to civilians and from far away countries to our own backyard.
Only when we embrace a policy of non-intervention can we truly achieve morality. Debating the nuances of a policy of "on-shore" intervention vs. "off-shore intervention" misses the fundamental point- intervention leads to terrorism. Ultimately, no foreign power can assert authority over a sovereign nation. The degree of the response will vary depending upon how obtrusive the foreign intervention is, but since the late '70's the inevitable response is terrorism. OSB would be back to the future- inviting another terrorist attack here at home whilst our defense forces are hopelessly entangled around the globe. This is a disaster.
Although I am extremely critical of the analysis Dr. Pape draws from this research, I highly recommend you watch the video. The research is very important, and we do indeed need to find the proper cause in order to find the proper remedy. We ignore it at our peril.
...And not some "namby pamby" type, either. The army said he was tough enough for Ranger. Watch as West discusses the dissolution he experiences as he moves from enlistment through actual combat and finally to the only moral position- Conscientious Objector:
I wanted to highlight my favorite parts of this speech:
@ 3:33
"(I began to wonder)...why most of our missions boiled down to the borderline door-to-door enforcement of draconian Iraqi gun laws. How could I claim to believe in the right to keep and bear arms, while depriving another human being of that right?"
@ 7:37
"They offered me a job working in the mail room and promised I would never deploy if I accepted it- but I refused. To me, discharge seemed the only logical choice for someone who was actually interested in his oath to defend freedom."
@ 8:41
"I've seen behind the curtain. I know that Washington (D.C) and it's lackeys-the banksters and the military industrial complex- pose a greater threat to America than any illiterate, third-world tribesman with an AK-47 ever could."
@ 9:28
" I want to encourage everyone here to strive for a society forged not with the hammer of government- but through the voluntary cooperation of individuals. A world ruled not by Machiavellian plans of an oligarchy, or the dictates of the masses- but by the idea that individuals are free and sovereign, and that we have the right to life, liberty, and property."
"So, before I leave, I would like to leave you with a piece of advice: #1- Never initiate the use of force- even when you think it will have a greater good...it won't. #2- Live, think, and trade freely. #3- A collective can never have more rights than the individuals that comprise it. #4- ...Never compromise- not even in the face of Armageddon."
I can think of no better person to be labeled "conscientious" than David West. He was more than ready to "defend freedom" through work in the military, but his experiences proved to suppress rather than elevate this ideal. When he finally came fully to grips with this reality, West could no longer go on.
Unfortunately for West (and all the rest of us), the hawks in the Government have no conscience when it comes to war: they will sell it to the people as a "liberation" or "fighting for freedom." Then, it will turn around and seize any and all freedoms possible- and, importantly, this means the freedoms of it's own citizens. A state of war anywhere is certainly the most direct threat to liberty everywhere.
Thank you, David West, for your courage, honor, and sacrifice.
The recent killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and his son Abdul-Rahman al-Awlaki, both US citizens, have set on the table for discussion the notion of the rule of law when it applies to terrorism. The State has proclaimed if you are deemed a terrorist by the President, it can kill you. This has come to the delight of the neo-cons and the scattered applause of the progs, but many in the political spectrum have called in to question the impact on the concept of the "Rule of Law."
The impact is nothing short of devastating: Consider a game of basketball, where the referee starts to show obvious favoritism to one of the teams, allowing them to foul, travel out of bounds with the ball, and have six or seven players on the court at a time. The other team is abiding by all of the rules we are accustomed to, and loses mightily! What are we to expect the fans to do? Would they allow such a flagrant disregard for the established rules of the game? Certainly not...but how long until these same fans are getting searched from the ankle up under the guise of "preventing terrorism" like their NFL brothers and sisters? Not long, I predict...
Are you at least going to take me out to dinner?
Predictable, also, was the State defending the executions and the subsequent effect on the "Rule of Law" as "we got the bad men....I mean did you read their names?!" This tribalistic "logic" has been used over and over to constantly change the way life is in America, and in also places that many have never seen on a map since high school! The effect will be, of course, the same for the State as it was for the boy who cried "Wolf!"- the complete and total destruction of legitimacy.
It is never more important than in a time of war to preserve liberty- for wartime is when the citizens are most likely to let go of their rights to be patriotic (for the common good) and because they are terrorized (in case the enemy is among us.) When the State is at war, liberty is most at risk. However, when it comes to preserving rights- sacrifice should be sacrelige.
In contemporary society, the State is engaged in the "War on Terror." Terrorism is a concept- not a person, not a nation. When the war is "on" an idea, this is naturally a perpetual war, as ideas are bulletproof, and enemies of ideologues are endless. The "War on Terror" will be as wildly successful as the 40-year "War on Drugs." Unfortunately, the effects on civil society since 2001 have been much worse than the previous thirty years. We have regressed from people having relative privacy and, if accused of a crime, a day in court to a society where you will be literally executed on the whims of the State.
The "Rule of Law" defines civilization. Therefore, if the State is acting against the "Rule of Law," it's actions can only be characterized as "uncivilized." This regressive path toward despotism leads to further dehumanization, enslavement, death.
Indeed, as the contemporary "model" State, the US, has ignored human dignity, caused unbelievable death and destruction, and buried its citizenry in debt that could never be repaid. The concept of "American Exceptionalism" insists we never stop until all nations share our "values." If these people are looking for "civilization," they had better look elsewhere.
Wow! Come to find out the Occupy movement has come to Wichita....I am really interested in checking this out...was going to go tonight, but it is raining and I only have the motorcycle at the moment...and I wrote my brilliant speech on a napkin...OK, enough excuses! What I will advocate when I do make it out there is the following:
End the Fed. People are in the streets; we are clearly at a crucial moment. We are focused on the snake, when we have an actual chance to cut it's head off! Without the central bank and fiat currency, the corporatocracy's engine of oppression is left without gas in the tank. Also, no market intervention from the Fed means institutions that make bad decisions will no longer be bailed out by us- the taxpayer.
My proposition: Nullification of the Federal Reserve Act at the State level, and revoking the Act at the Federal level.
1. Draw up petitions to bring back to our communities. All activists can participate. These petitions will say I will not vote for you unless you draw up and/or support legislation that nullifies the Federal Reserve Act in Kansas. All other issues are set aside.
2. The same applies to legislators representing us in the House of Representatives or Senate. Their job is to repeal the Act at the Federal level, either drawing up legislation as such or supporting such efforts, or no vote.
Knowing we stand behind the legislators will help them have courage to stand up to the powerful interests, and corporate money at that point becomes irrelevant. If they fail to deliver, we will elect new representatives. Fundamentally, this forms a political climate favorable to candidates who are not beholden to special interests- empowering them while simultaneously rendering big corporate influence meaningless. We will be watching!
As another point of business, I would like to propose second idea:
Occupy Wichita Exodus...
...to Kansas City End the Fed protests in solidarity for this cause. An exodus would be a symbolic shift away from the Occupy (your city here) strategy to an Occupy (your Fed Reserve Branch here) strategy. This shift will focus the narrative on the head of the snake that is corporatism, with easily definable goals and historically precedented actions at our disposal.
At this point, it is unclear what may happen with the Occupy movement if it remains just an occupation. I think the police in many smaller cities (and some of the larger cities) are being incredibly restrained. This is a positive sign- this movement must remain peaceful. Non-violence from our side of these protests is crucial to maintain moral authority. Violence is their game- persuasion will be ours.
I know many are calling for an amendment to ban campaign contributions. Here is the text from Get Money Out:
"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."
While the motivation behind such an action may be well intended, this amendment would eliminate the right for anyone to petition the government. Under this scenario, an independently wealthy person would gain an unfair advantage over a candidate of more modest means, as the constituents cannot speak with their dollars as to which one will be the most beneficial. Further, making a monetary campaign contribution- directly or indirectly- is a federal crime at this point. Can you imagine the multitude of ways indirect monetary contribution can be construed?
Even if we supported the amendment, and it passed, why are we to believe the government will follow these dictates? This is the same government that tramples upon the constitution and bill of rights on a daily basis- on both sides of the aisle.
A solution that is a reduction of liberty makes no sense when we can affect a greater change and enhance liberty with a nullification/elimination of the Federal Reserve.
An interesting theme has emerged from the recent "Occupy (insert place here)" events happening across the country right now. It is "Get Money Out of Government!" I submit the only path to liberty is by engaging upon this pursuit until there is not a dollar left in that wicked institution. Many of the bourgeoisie would surely sigh at this notion, and I am sure the folks who put this together may need a fainting couch:
This is the problem: The nationalistic, chicken-hawk, warmongering neocons insist on global domination; the anti-humanist posers for the poor proggers insist on a "safety net" that relies on coercion and fosters dependency. Both have violated not only the "Golden Rule," but economic reality to the point we are as a society bankrupt morally and fiscally, and both use nationalistic fervor to legitimize their agendas. Indeed, "American exceptionalism" is the most dangerous notion people in our society and certainly the people of the world have ever faced.
The major tool- the blunt instrument used to extract these fundamental moral and physical assets held by our society- is the State. There is no way to force a stinky hippie to agree to war just as you will never convince some bible-thumper that giving a man a fish today will result in him doing anything other than expecting another handout tomorrow. Without an institution that has perceived legitimacy and moral authority, there cannot exist the "bi-partisanship" that leads society into that inevitable compromise upon compromise we have all become so accustom to.
This institution in our current scenario is not government per se, rather a collusion of government and cartel central banking via the Federal Reserve. The government alone could never tax enough or print enough money to pursue the various missions of the sociopaths, and avoids the hurdle of revolution by taking loans from the "untouchable" enabler. This alliance is "the State" as we know it for the past century, an endowment of human oppression so vast as to boggle the mind.
(Note: Sorry about the weird background on the text here! Don't know how to fix it!)
I have recently started reading Lew Rockwell's book: Speaking of Liberty. Absolutely awesome so far. I visit this man's website lewrockwell.com every day to keep up on different issues of economic and social importance, and always find great stuff there.
Today, he posted a speech he gaveon Oct. 1st. The talk was called The Fascist Threat I feel it is one of the best examples of Lew's speeches, and perhaps one of the most important considering the place we find ourselves today as people dealing with all of these threats and realities concerning our struggle for "sweet liberty," as Lew puts it.
This speech is not only a complete dismantling of the notion that we live in the society of checks and balances our civics classes taught us, but an illumination on the true nature of the fascist State before us, among us, and within us. This transformation has been happening incrementally for a very long time, and "youngsters" (ha!) like myself know nothing else. The debate, as Lew points out eloquently, is simply who the State will coddle and lavish with vast tax breaks, rewards, monopolies, and contracts.
Who will the State protect and reward? The producers (entrepreneurs, investors, business owners--large or small) or the producers (labor)? This false debate is a symptom of the common political paradigm that the State should have any say at all in these issues. And it ignores the elephant in the room: the consumers! Even Joe Dirt had the wisdom to understand the importance of this part of the equation:
That is not to say we as consumers need any coddling from the State. Both groups of the production equation--investor/owner and labor do a quite satisfactory job when allowed to operate in a true free market, unhampered by State interventions, of responding to consumer demand. Only by changing our paradigm about the role of the State will we be able to find true liberty economically and socially.
