Category Archives: FED

Ron Paul: Our Peaceful Revolution Will Make Bankers, Crony Capitalists and War Profiteers Suffer!

The young people are the change. They will be the revolutionaries of the next 10-30 years. I am encourage not because I agree with everything RP says but because so few young people are involved and these few seem enthusiastic. (E)


Illuminati Training Video

English: The full text of the English renditio...

Georgia Guidestones, Elbert County, Georgia, U.S.. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Well…I’m not sure whether this is real or not but it certainly goes along with much that I have observed over the years. If it is real we as people need to reconcile ourselves to the battle for our very souls because these people want to enslave all of us for their vision of a better world. And BTW check out the Georgia Guidestones if you want to know what the plan is that he keeps mentioning in the video. (E)






US Government is Planning for Financial Collapse (and You are in Trouble)

Dismiss this if you like but it is true nonetheless and  the solution offered is the best I have seen so far even though I expect it will not be acted on in time (E)




Opportunity Begins With Freedom, Not a ‘Living Wage’

Excellent article as to why with the way the Central Banking system works a minimum wage is a moot argument (E)

Thursday, April 11, 2013 by Staff Report –

In favour of the living wage … In the United States and some other developed economies, wages for the least well paid are too low. A mandatory living wage is the best way to redress this injustice. The idea of minimum wages is well accepted, but the American $7.25 an hour does not meet the simple standard of providing enough to support the worker who earns it. For an adult in New York State, self-support requires 55 percent more, $11.25 an hour in a full-time job, according to The MIT Living Wage Calculator. And a just minimum should really be enough to raise a family – something closer to the $23.58 an hour required to support a single wage-earner with one child. The minimum wage is one part of the remarkably complex pay system found in all developed industrial societies. – Reuters

Dominant Social Theme: What the Western world needs is a fair minimum wage.

Free-Market Analysis: This Reuters editorial brings up two points and provides us with two separate conclusions.

Theoretically, we are much averse to the argument that government needs to provide minimum wages. But practically speaking, if government is going to provide money to impoverished people, why not print the money and give it to them directly – instead of sending the money to banking coffers?

So the confusion embodied by this article is compounded by a lack of honesty about the monetary system itself. This article wants to treat our current situation as if the West’s problem is one mainly of governmental fairness. Here’s more:

Economists often suggest that wages are determined by market forces, the supply and demand for labour, and by employers’ calculations of the value of labour. But actual wages influence both the market and the perceived value of labour. It is more accurate to include market forces and economic value somewhere in the middle of the long list of factors which contribute to the ever-shifting social agreement on pay levels.

This agreement is established in the mysterious way that all social orders are built – the powerful push, the weak resist, traditions are followed and evolve, justice is respected and flouted, market forces and economic calculations nudge. By far the most important factor in determining pay is the social judgment of value. The main reason that bankers, advertising executives and doctors are paid more than teachers, childcare workers and street cleaners is that society values the former more than the latter.

And the main reason that the minimum-wage jobs pay too little to support a family is that society has agreed that is what such labour is worth. This is an injustice, because honest labour should always be rewarded with enough to live a decent life. To be fair, the social judgment of these occupations is less harsh than the pay level suggests.

The very poorly paid usually receive welfare benefits from the government, either in cash or in the form of free or cut-price services. It is an awkward arrangement, but unavoidable in societies which have decided that pay should be determined by the job but spending power should be determined, at least in part, by needs and family situation. That division will exist as long as family breadwinners do not receive special pay status.

The macroeconomic objections to higher minimum wages deserve serious attention, but they often hide higher earners’ justified fear of losing out. After all, when those at the bottom end up with more – as they inevitably would with a higher minimum wage, even after benefit cuts – those at the top must end up with less. Doctors would still have much higher incomes than cleaners, but both the doctors’ own pay and the ratio of their pay to cleaners’ remuneration would fall. The desire to maintain consumption and social status is legitimate, but must be set against a higher virtue – solidarity. The fruits of economic success should be shared equitably. A living wage for all is a good standard of success.

You see the argument being made? It is especially clear in this last paragraph. Providing people with a living wage is a “higher virtue.”

But this article in reality has nothing to do with virtue. If it was virtuous, it would tell the truth about how money is produced in the modern era, with a touch of a button. During the height of the financial crisis, Ben Bernanke of the Federal Reserve admits to generating some US$16 trillion in short-term loans to financial enterprises – much of which reportedly was never paid back.

Such spending makes arguments like this one moot. These are 20th century arguments, in fact, based on a time when people did not fully understand the monetary system. Perhaps one could say they are arguments from the 1800s when there was a gold standard and money was truly constrained.

But today these are arguments without a purpose. Were there sufficient determination, proponents of these sorts of solutions would start to argue that central banks ought to print money and deliver it directly to people instead of banks.

Of course, most of the people making these arguments are statists with an emotional or professional stake in concealing the way money is really produced in the modern era. And they would rather write these sorts of articles, apparently, then tell the truth about money and poverty in the 21st century.

From our standpoint, an even better solution to poverty would be to shut down central banks and let Leviathan begin to starve. Without an unlimited supply of money, the US in particular would have to shutter its military-industrial complex, the vast prison gulags that dot the country and the larger regulatory state that deprives people of the opportunity to work.

There are estimates that between 50 million and 100 million in the US who want to work cannot find employment. Something has gone drastically wrong with what we call regulatory democracy;  it simply doesn’t work. It’s reached a dead end.

Agitating that this sort of dysfunctional system should prop itself up by providing tens of millions with a living wage is not a solution but a kind of bribe. The idea apparently is to pay people a bare minimum in the hopes that they don’t rise up in protest against a system that is frozen in failure.

What the West and the United States really need is a long, loud discussion about statism, the incompetence of regulation and the abysmal failure of the current money system.

Conclusion: Opportunity begins with freedom.

Real Evil: Attributing the Creation of Money to the State

Another good article from the folks over at the Daily Bell! (E)

MONDAY, APRIL 08, 2013

By Staff Report
Sorry, Libertarians, History Shows Bitcoin Isn’t the Future … As we consider the digital-currency phenomenon that is
Bitcoin, bear in mind that there are, broadly speaking, two accounts of the origin and history of money. One is elegant, intuitive and taught in many introductory economics textbooks. The other is true. The financial economist Charles Goodhart, a former member of the Bank of England‘s Monetary Policy Committee, laid out the two views in a 1998 paper, “The Two Concepts of Money: Implications for the Analysis of Optimal Currency Areas.” – Bloomberg

Dominant Social Theme: Money comes from government.

Free-Market Analysis: This is the fundamental fault line between freedom and statism and one reason we’ve spent so much time writing about it and have been subject to so many attacks.

The meme – and we early recognized it as such – that money is a state-sponsored occurrence can be found in such books as Ellen Brown‘s Web of Debt. It is a Greenbacker analysis and one that yields the conclusion that if money is state-sponsored than we can use elements of the state to “change” money and make it more equitable.

This is why the enemies of freedom and solvency are constantly trying to make the argument that money comes from the state. The Bloomberg article, above, makes the same points.

But money did not come from the state. It is ludicrous to argue that it did.

The state cannot make anything and has no incentive to innovate. There is not one single invention so far as we are aware that comes from the state. Everything is invented first in the private market and then adapted as necessary by government.

And that goes for money, too, which developed out of a competitive process, as Murray Rothbard pointed out, between various currencies.

But that is not what the sophists want us to think. They want us to believe that money was invented in the neolithic as a result of war. Here’s more from the article:

The first view, the “M View,” is named after the Austrian 19th century economist and historian Karl Menger, whose 1882 essay “On the Origins of Money” is the canonical statement of an argument that goes back to Aristotle:

As subsistence farming gives way to more complex economies, individuals want to trade. Simple barter (eight bushels of wheat for one barrel of wine) quickly becomes inefficient, because a buyer’s desires won’t always match up with a seller’s inventory. If a merchant comes through the village with wine and all a farmer has to offer is wheat, but the merchant wants nuts, there’s no trade and both parties walk away unfulfilled. Or the farmer has to incur the costs of finding another merchant who will exchange wheat for nuts and then hope that the first merchant hasn’t moved on to the next village.

But if the merchant and the farmer can exchange some other medium, then the trade can happen. This medium of exchange has to be what Menger calls “saleable,” meaning that it’s easily portable, doesn’t spoil over time and can be divided. Denominated coins work, shells and beads also fit the bill. So do cigarettes in POW camps and jails and Tide laundry detergent for drug dealers. This process, Menger argues, happens without the intervention of the state: “Money has not been generated by law. In its origin it is a social, and not a state institution.”

Goodhart points out, however, that Menger is just wrong about the actual history of physical money, especially metal coins. Goodhart writes that coins don’t follow Menger’s account at all. Normal people, after all, can’t judge the quality of hunks of metal the same way they can count cigarettes or shells. They can, however, count coins. Coins need to be minted, and governments are the ideal body to do so. Precious metals that become coins are, well, precious, and stores of them need to be protected from theft. Also, a private mint will always have the incentive to say its coins contain more high-value stuff than they actually do. Governments can last a long time and make multi-generational commitments to their currencies that your local blacksmith can’t.

But why oversee money creation in the first place? This brings us to the second theory of money, which Goodhart calls the “C View,” standing for “cartalist” (chartalist is a more common spelling). To simplify radically, it starts with the idea that states minted money to pay soldiers, and then made that money the only acceptable currency for paying taxes. With a standard currency, tax assessment and collection became easier, and the state could make a small profit from seiginorage.

The state-coin connection has far more historical support than Menger’s organic account. As Goodheart points out, strong, state-building rulers (Charlemagne, Edward I of England) tend to be currency innovators, and he could have easily added Franklin D. Roosevelt’s taking the U.S. off the gold standard in 1933 or Abraham Lincoln financing the Civil War with newly issued greenbacks. The inverse is true too: When states collapse, they usually take their currencies with them. When Japan stopped minting coins in 958, the economy reverted to barter within 50 years. When the Roman Empire collapsed in Western Europe, money creation splintered along new political borders.

If money came about independent of states, as according to the M View, one would think it would outlast transient political structures. Historically, however, this tends not to be the case, a strong argument in favor of the C View.

The article goes on to attack Bitcoin – a “currency” about which we have longstanding doubts. But even though the article is aimed at Bitcoin, what is most disturbing about the article is its mischaracterization of fundamental economic literacy.

The crux sentence of this article is “A private mint will always have the incentive to say its coins contain more high-value stuff than they actually do.”

There are no words to describe the maliciousness of such a misstatement. It really plumbs the depth of depravity.

It is the old market failure argument, but updated and casually tossed off with breathtaking arrogance. If one follows the logic of this statement, one arrives at the conclusion that the private market will always attempt to mislead and that government is a necessity to insure against private market corruption.

If one accepts this nonsensical perspective then everything else flows logically. Government was necessary to create money, to supervise it, etc.

Additionally, and most importantly, since government has MADE money, the process of government can be used to change money and make its creation and distribution more ethical and fair.

And, in fact, this is what Money Power hopes you believe.

There is a huge push underway to get people to believe that if governments are responsible for money instead of “private” monopoly central bankers, the world will benefit and societies will be financially healthy again.

Nothing can be further from the truth. Make no mistake: Those who support Greenbackerism and speak approvingly of Silvio Gesell and Major Douglas are in league with Money Power. They are propounding a myth – that government itself can be the antidote to Money Power.

But only the free market can create and circulate money fairly. Money Power controls the state, which is why statists in the employ of Money Power, want to propound the falsity that the State can liberate money.

It is a con, a falsehood … a dominant social theme.

It starts with the idea that the state created money, a falsehood on every level. It continues with the idea that the state-run money can be controlled by “the people” who can use monopoly central bank for their own benefit. This is of course the language of the Third Reich and the fascism that is now coming back into fashion.

China, India, Russia … we are supposed to believe that because these countries have public central banks, their currency regimes are “better.” What nonsense.

Conclusion: Don’t fall for this sophism. Money was created by the free market and the sooner that the creation and circulation of money is returned to the market via currency competition (including gold and silver) the better off we shall be.

News & Analysis From The Daily Bell

I would encourage all of my readers to subscribe to The Daily Bell™. Click on he Banner below to be taken to their site. (E)

News & Analysis

MONDAY, MARCH 04, 2013

Brilliant Polemic Defends US Freedom … and Demands Appropriate Incarcerations

By Staff Report

Americans – Like Nazi Germans – Don’t Notice that All of Our Rights Are Slipping Away … Americans Are Acting Like Slowly Boiling Frogs … The German citizens were boiling frogs … the water heating up so gradually that they didn’t realize they had to jump out of the pot to safety. Because the exact same thing is happening to Americans (fear of terror makes people stupid no matter what country they live in), let’s remember exactly what we’ve lost in recent years … – Washington’s Blog

Dominant Social Theme: US freedoms are slipping away and they must be brought back again by the people themselves, using all due enforcement tools.

Free-Market Analysis: In another brilliant polemic, the famous Washington’s Blog lays out a substantial litany of what the US has lost in terms of rights, and from this article’s point of view it is mostly everything. It is an article containing both truth and sincerity.

We agree with it on numerous levels and are most in agreement with the idea that a kind Nazi fascism is overtaking the US. It began long ago but was immeasurably increased under the reign of George W. Bush whose family was enmeshed in Nazi funding until public rage forced the US government to strip the family of German investment assets in 1942.

Bush’s efforts, nakedly pursued but rarely reported, included the leveraging of a police state, the creation of “Homeland Security” with its overtones of the Nazi Fatherland and the repositioning of the US’s various intelligence and policing agencies as the sword of the state to be turned aggressively against the American people.

Under Bush, various trends noted by Washington’s Blog were immensely exacerbated. Washington’s Blog points out that currently the US government “is arresting those speaking out … and violently crushing peaceful assemblies which attempt to petition the government for redress.”

He also points out that the government is flying spy drones over the American homeland. “The domestic use of drones to spy on Americans clearly violates the Fourth Amendment and limits our rights to personal privacy.”

And he adds, “Even without drones, Americans are the most spied on people in world history … The American government is collecting and storing virtually every phone call, purchases, email, text message, internet searches, social media communications, health information, employment history, travel and student records, and virtually all other information of every American.”

The article enumerates many other areas where rights are being lost, including the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and the right to travel from place to place without harassment. The end of the article provides a powerful summation, pointing out that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Today, most Americans believe that the government is threatening – rather than protecting – freedom … and that it is no longer acting with the “consent of the governed.” And the federal government is trampling the separation of powers by stepping on the toes of the states and the people.

The article closes by reminding us that both the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency “competed to weaken federal regulation and [tried] to prevent state investigations … against fraudulent mortgage lenders.”

This is an odd close and not the summation we were looking for. It leads to our one question: If the federal government is over-reaching horribly, then why is it wrong to “weaken federal regulation”? We’ve noted this contradiction. We don’t understand how one can be against the neo-fascism of the US Leviathan but still enthusiastic about bringing the US’s horrible and corrupt criminal justice system to bear … no matter the nature of the crime.

The prison-industrial complex, like the military-industrial complex, is a great US evil. It includes an illegally globalized FBI, an out-of-control civil policing establishment (at both the state and federal level) and of course, a penal-industrial complex that incarcerates more than half of those in jail around the world, increasingly in “privatized” penitentiaries.

Conclusion: Does not advocating its use – rather than its reform – perhaps undermine the very points that US patriots wish to make?


The Man Who Should Be President

From: Chuck Baldwin

Today, I am going to do something that I have never done: I am going to devote virtually my entire column to posting another man’s words. That man is the man who should be President of the United States: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. The following is a written transcript of a speech Dr. Paul gave on the floor of the US House of Representatives back in 2007. Had Congressman Paul been elected President in 2008, the country would be four years into the greatest economic, political, and, yes, spiritual recovery in the history of America. As it is, the US is on the brink of totalitarianism and economic ruin. And you can mark it down, four years from now it won’t matter to a tinker’s dam whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney was elected President this November. Neither man has the remotest understanding of America’s real problems nor the courage and backbone to do anything about it if they did understand.

Read the following. This is a man who understands the Constitution. This is a man who understands sound economic principles. This is a man who understands liberty and freedom. This is a man who has the guts to tell the truth. This is a man who has put his life and career on the line for the principles of liberty for more than two decades. This is a man who has returned every dollar that he has been paid as a US congressman to the taxpayers. This is the man who should be President of the United States.

[Ron Paul’s speech begins here]

 For some, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. For others, it means dissent against a government’s abuse of the people’s rights.

I have never met a politician in Washington or any American, for that matter, who chose to be called unpatriotic. Nor have I met anyone who did not believe he wholeheartedly supported our troops, wherever they may be.

What I have heard all too frequently from various individuals are sharp accusations that, because their political opponents disagree with them on the need for foreign military entanglements, they were unpatriotic, un-American evildoers deserving contempt.

The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power.

The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment.

Peaceful, nonviolent revolutions against tyranny have been every bit as successful as those involving military confrontation. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., achieved great political successes by practicing nonviolence, and yet they suffered physically at the hands of the state. But whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.

True patriotism today has gotten a bad name, at least from the government and the press. Those who now challenge the unconstitutional methods of imposing an income tax on us, or force us to use a monetary system designed to serve the rich at the expense of the poor are routinely condemned. These American patriots are sadly looked down upon by many. They are never praised as champions of liberty as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have been.

Liberals, who withhold their taxes as a protest against war, are vilified as well, especially by conservatives. Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be unpatriotic. Arguments against a particular policy that endorses a war, once it is started, are always said to be endangering the troops in the field. This, they blatantly claim, is unpatriotic, and all dissent must stop. Yet, it is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.

It is conveniently ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of dangerous undeclared no-win wars that are politically inspired. Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national security and, for that matter, may even damage our security, is hardly a way to patriotically support the troops.

Who are the true patriots, those who conform or those who protest against wars without purpose? How can it be said that blind support for a war, no matter how misdirected the policy, is the duty of a patriot?

Randolph Bourne said that, “War is the health of the state.” With war, he argued, the state thrives. Those who believe in the powerful state see war as an opportunity. Those who mistrust the people and the market for solving problems have no trouble promoting a “war psychology” to justify the expansive role of the state. This includes the role the Federal Government plays in our lives, as well as in our economic transactions.

Certainly, the neoconservative belief that we have a moral obligation to spread American values worldwide through force justifies the conditions of war in order to rally support at home for the heavy hand of government. It is through this policy, it should surprise no one, that our liberties are undermined. The economy becomes overextended, and our involvement worldwide becomes prohibited. Out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic, most of the citizens become compliant and accept the argument that some loss of liberty is required to fight the war in order to remain safe.

This is a bad trade-off, in my estimation, especially when done in the name of patriotism. Loyalty to the state and to autocratic leaders is substituted for true patriotism; that is, a willingness to challenge the state and defend the country, the people and the culture. The more difficult the times, the stronger the admonition comes that the leaders be not criticized.

Because the crisis atmosphere of war supports the growth of the state, any problem invites an answer by declaring war, even on social and economic issues. This elicits patriotism in support of various government solutions, while enhancing the power of the state. Faith in government coercion and a lack of understanding of how free societies operate encourages big-government liberals and big-government conservatives to manufacture a war psychology to demand political loyalty for domestic policy just as is required in foreign affairs.

The long-term cost in dollars spent and liberties lost is neglected as immediate needs are emphasized. It is for this reason that we have multiple perpetual wars going on simultaneously. Thus, the war on drugs, the war against gun ownership, the war against poverty, the war against illiteracy, the war against terrorism, as well as our foreign military entanglements are endless.

All this effort promotes the growth of statism at the expense of liberty. A government designed for a free society should do the opposite, prevent the growth of statism and preserve liberty.

Once a war of any sort is declared, the message is sent out not to object or you will be declared unpatriotic. Yet, we must not forget that the true patriot is the one who protests in spite of the consequences. Condemnation or ostracism or even imprisonment may result.

Nonviolent protesters of the Tax Code are frequently imprisoned, whether they are protesting the code’s unconstitutionality or the war that the tax revenues are funding. Resisters to the military draft or even to Selective Service registration are threatened and imprisoned for challenging this threat to liberty.

Statism depends on the idea that the government owns us and citizens must obey. Confiscating the fruits of our labor through the income tax is crucial to the health of the state. The draft, or even the mere existence of the Selective Service, emphasizes that we will march off to war at the state’s pleasure.

A free society rejects all notions of involuntary servitude, whether by draft or the confiscation of the fruits of our labor through the personal income tax. A more sophisticated and less well-known technique for enhancing the state is the manipulation and transfer of wealth through the fiat monetary system operated by the secretive Federal Reserve.

Protesters against this unconstitutional system of paper money are considered unpatriotic criminals and at times are imprisoned for their beliefs. The fact that, according to the Constitution, only gold and silver are legal tender and paper money outlawed matters little. The principle of patriotism is turned on its head. Whether it’s with regard to the defense of welfare spending at home, confiscatory income tax, or an immoral monetary system or support for a war fought under false pretense without a legal declaration, the defenders of liberty and the Constitution are portrayed as unpatriotic, while those who support these programs are seen as the patriots.

If there is a war going on, supporting the state’s effort to win the war is expected at all costs, no dissent. The real problem is that those who love the state too often advocate policies that lead to military action. At home, they are quite willing to produce a crisis atmosphere and claim a war is needed to solve the problem. Under these conditions, the people are more willing to bear the burden of paying for the war and to carelessly sacrifice liberties, which they are told is necessary.

The last 6 years have been quite beneficial to the health of the state, which comes at the expense of personal liberty. Every enhanced unconstitutional power of the state can only be achieved at the expense of individual liberty. Even though in every war in which we have been engaged civil liberties have suffered, some have been restored after the war ended, but never completely. That has resulted in a steady erosion of our liberties over the past 200 years. Our government was originally designed to protect our liberties, but it has now, instead, become the usurper of those liberties.

We currently live in the most difficult of times for guarding against an expanding central government with a steady erosion of our freedoms. We are continually being reminded that 9/11 has changed everything.

Unfortunately, the policy that needed most to be changed, that is, our policy of foreign interventionism, has only been expanded. There is no pretense any longer that a policy of humility in foreign affairs, without being the world’s policemen and engaging in nation building, is worthy of consideration.

We now live in a post-9/11 America where our government is going to make us safe no matter what it takes. We are expected to grin and bear it and adjust to every loss of our liberties in the name of patriotism and security.

Though the majority of Americans initially welcomed the declared effort to make us safe, and we are willing to sacrifice for the cause, more and more Americans are now becoming concerned about civil liberties being needlessly and dangerously sacrificed.

The problem is that the Iraq war continues to drag on, and a real danger of it spreading exists. There is no evidence that a truce will soon be signed in Iraq or in the war on terror or the war on drugs. Victory is not even definable. If Congress is incapable of declaring an official war, it is impossible to know when it will end. We have been fully forewarned that the world conflict in which we are now engaged will last a long, long time.

The war mentality and the pervasive fear of an unidentified enemy allows for a steady erosion of our liberties, and, with this, our respect for self-reliance and confidence is lost. Just think of the self-sacrifice and the humiliation we go through at the airport screening process on a routine basis. Though there is no scientific evidence of any likelihood of liquids and gels being mixed on an airplane to make a bomb, billions of dollars are wasted throwing away toothpaste and hair spray, and searching old women in wheelchairs.

Our enemies say boo, and we jump, we panic, and then we punish ourselves. We are worse than a child being afraid of the dark. But in a way, the fear of indefinable terrorism is based on our inability to admit the truth about why there is a desire by a small number of angry radical Islamists to kill Americans. It is certainly not because they are jealous of our wealth and freedoms.

We fail to realize that the extremists, willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill their enemies, do so out of a sense of weakness and desperation over real and perceived attacks on their way of life, their religion, their country, and their natural resources. Without the conventional diplomatic or military means to retaliate against these attacks, and an unwillingness of their own government to address the issue, they resort to the desperation tactic of suicide terrorism. Their anger toward their own governments, which they believe are coconspirators with the American Government, is equal to or greater than that directed toward us.

These errors in judgment in understanding the motive of the enemy and the constant fear that is generated have brought us to this crisis where our civil liberties and privacy are being steadily eroded in the name of preserving national security.

We may be the economic and the military giant of the world, but the effort to stop this war on our liberties here at home in the name of patriotism is being lost.

The erosion of our personal liberties started long before 9/11, but 9/11 accelerated the process. There are many things that motivate those who pursue this course, both well-intentioned and malevolent, but it would not happen if the people remained vigilant, understood the importance of individual rights, and were unpersuaded that a need for security justifies the sacrifice for liberty, even if it is just now and then.

The true patriot challenges the state when the state embarks on enhancing its power at the expense of the individual. Without a better understanding and a greater determination to rein in the state, the rights of Americans that resulted from the revolutionary break from the British and the writing of the Constitution will disappear.

The record since September 11th is dismal. Respect for liberty has rapidly deteriorated. Many of the new laws passed after 9/11 had, in fact, been proposed long before that attack. The political atmosphere after that attack simply made it more possible to pass such legislation. The fear generated by 9/11 became an opportunity for those seeking to promote the power of the state domestically, just as it served to falsely justify the long-planned invasion of Iraq.

The war mentality was generated by the Iraq war in combination with the constant drumbeat of fear at home. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who is now likely residing in Pakistan, our supposed ally, are ignored, as our troops fight and die in Iraq and are made easier targets for the terrorists in their backyard. While our leaders constantly use the mess we created to further justify the erosion of our constitutional rights here at home, we forget about our own borders and support the inexorable move toward global government, hardly a good plan for America.

The accelerated attacks on liberty started quickly after 9/11. Within weeks, the PATRIOT Act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Though the final version was unavailable up to a few hours before the vote, no Member had sufficient time to study it. Political fear of not doing something, even something harmful, drove the Members of Congress to not question the contents, and just voted for it. A little less freedom for a little more perceived safety was considered a fair trade-off, and the majority of Americans applauded.

The PATRIOT Act, though, severely eroded the system of checks and balances by giving the government the power to spy on law-abiding citizens without judicial supervision. The several provisions that undermine the liberties of all Americans include sneak-and-peek searches, a broadened and more vague definition of domestic terrorism, allowing the FBI access to library and bookstore records without search warrants or probable cause, easier FBI initiation of wiretaps and searches, as well as roving wiretaps, easier access to information on American citizens’ use of the Internet, and easier access to e-mail and financial records of all American citizens.

The attack on privacy has not relented over the past 6 years. The Military Commissions Act is a particularly egregious piece of legislation and, if not repealed, will change America for the worse as the powers unconstitutionally granted to the executive branch are used and abused. This act grants excessive authority to use secretive military commissions outside of places where active hostilities are going on. The Military Commissions Act permits torture, arbitrary detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants at the full discretion of the President and without the right of habeas corpus, and warrantless searches by the NSA. It also gives to the President the power to imprison individuals based on secret testimony.

Since 9/11, Presidential signing statements designating portions of legislation that the President does not intend to follow, though not legal under the Constitution, have enormously multiplied. Unconstitutional Executive Orders are numerous and mischievous and need to be curtailed.

Extraordinary rendition to secret prisons around the world have been widely engaged in, though obviously extralegal.

A growing concern in the post-9/11 environment is the Federal Government’s list of potential terrorists based on secret evidence. Mistakes are made, and sometimes it is virtually impossible to get one’s name removed even though the accused is totally innocent of any wrongdoing.

A national ID card is now in the process of being implemented. It is called the REAL ID card, and it is tied to our Social Security numbers and our State driver’s license. If REAL ID is not stopped, it will become a national driver’s license ID for all Americans. We will be required to carry our papers.

Some of the least-noticed and least-discussed changes in the law were the changes made to the Insurrection Act of 1807 and to posse comitatus by the Defense Authorization Act of 2007. These changes pose a threat to the survival of our Republic by giving the President the power to declare martial law for as little reason as to restore public order. The 1807 act severely restricted the President in his use of the military within the United States borders, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 strengthened these restrictions with strict oversight by Congress. The new law allows the President to circumvent the restrictions of both laws. The Insurrection Act has now become the “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.” This is hardly a title that suggests that the authors cared about or understood the nature of a constitutional Republic.

Now, martial law can be declared not just for insurrection, but also for natural disasters, public health reasons, terrorist attacks or incidents, or for the vague reason called “other conditions.” The President can call up the National Guard without congressional approval or the Governors’ approval, and even send these State Guard troops into other States.

The American Republic is in remnant status. The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into a military dictatorship, and few seem to care. These precedent-setting changes in the law are extremely dangerous and will change American jurisprudence forever if not revised. The beneficial results of our revolt against the King’s abuses are about to be eliminated, and few Members of Congress and few Americans are aware of the seriousness of the situation. Complacency and fear drive our legislation without any serious objection by our elected leaders. Sadly, though, those few who do object to this self-evident trend away from personal liberty and empire-building overseas are portrayed as unpatriotic and uncaring.

Though welfare and socialism always fails, opponents of them are said to lack compassion. Though opposition to totally unnecessary war should be the only moral position, the rhetoric is twisted to claim that patriots who oppose the war are not supporting the troops. The cliché “Support the Troops” is incessantly used as a substitute for the unacceptable notion of supporting the policy, no matter how flawed it may be.

Unsound policy can never help the troops. Keeping the troops out of harm’s way and out of wars unrelated to our national security is the only real way of protecting the troops. With this understanding, just who can claim the title of “patriot”?

Before the war in the Middle East spreads and becomes a world conflict for which we will be held responsible, or the liberties of all Americans become so suppressed we can no longer resist, much has to be done. Time is short, but our course of action should be clear. Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes.

But let it not be said that we did nothing. Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty.

 [Ron Paul’s speech ends here]

There it is. The speech Dr. Paul gave in 2007 seems even more relevant today than it did then. Don’t you think?

You want to elect a real American statesman? You want to elect a man who would preserve liberty and freedom in America? You want to elect a man who would resist the devilish New World Order? You want to elect a man who would reestablish sound economic principles? If so, you will vote to elect Ron Paul as President of the United States. (And, no, no one has paid me a penny to post his speech or make this endorsement.)

Forget all the smoke and mirrors and the dog and pony shows that you see and hear from the other Presidential candidates. The issues that Dr. Paul addressed in this speech are the issues that are going to determine our country’s future. Again, this is the man who should be President of the United States.

And please visit my web site for past columns and much more at:

© Chuck Baldwin


I ran across this recently in my wanderings and was amazed when I understood that Ron Paul has already won the election if he will avail himself of the opportunity that a third party run would give him. Read this and I think you will be wondering yourself if we are not on the brink of something akin to a revolution. 

Let us hope so at least for I fear if a radical shift does not occur politically it may   lead us into a very dark place. Forces are gathering and people want and are going to demand changes. If they do not see some sort of radical shift politically e.g. Ron Paul being elected, there may be an eruption of forces that cannot be controlled. E.


 by James Jaeger

The fact that Ron Paul effectively tied for second place in IOWA — a very conservative state — and then won second place in NEW HAMPSHIRE — a much more liberal state, shows the enormous spectrum of Dr. Paul’s appeal.

For the Republicans (the GOP) this must be quite uncomfortable — the idea that they are being forced to modify some of their wayward views just because a principled, constitutionalist and WE THE PEOPLE demand it.

But here’s what really terrifies them: Ron Paul is not only in a position to hand the election of 2012 over to Barack Obama and be labled a “spoiler” — he’s in a position to be a “winner.”

Etymology of the term “spoiler”:

The term “spoiler” is a derogatory term that was dreamt up by statists in the Democratic and Republican parties. They use this term to make you feel guilty and to sucker the public into continuously voting for no one outside the Establishment. In other words, if you vote your conscience, YOU are a “spoiler.” If you run for office on principles dictated by your conscience and take votes away from an Establishment candidate, YOU are a “spoiler.”

Thus, since Ron Paul votes his conscience, since he rejects certain aspects of the Establishment — such as the Federal Reserve‘s abuse of the monetary system and its financing of the welfare-warfare empire we have now become — there is no way apparatchiks in the GOP will nominate Dr. Paul no matter what WE THE PEOPLE want.

And to this end, lackey pundits in the CFR-dominated, mainstream media continuously chant that Ron Paul has “no chance to get the Republican nomination.” They spew this so often, it’s obvious they don’t believe their own lies.

But here’s the joker: Ron Paul does not even need the GOP to win the general election. If he were to walk away for a third party, he would take at least 12% of the Republican vote with him. He would also take another 15% from the Independents and at least 11% from the Democrats. This would give him 38% — enough of the vote to win the Presidency in a 3-man race.

GOP strategists know all this and this is why you will never hear them utter these statistics in the mainstream media. If the public were to become too “hopeful” — if they were to understand the mathematics of the situation — even more people would vote for Ron Paul if for no other reason than to be on the winner’s bandwagon.

So, the GOP has some serious choices to make.

Either they morph into a small-government party and support the Ron Paul Revolution of “getting back to the Constitution,” or they risk loosing their power to a new political party. And a new political would not only mean just the demise of the Republican party, but the Democratic party as well.

Since the Democratic Party AND the Republican Parties are BOTH the parties of BIG government, a new political party of SMALL government would reveal to the public more than ever, what the two mainstream parties have become.

The two mainstream parties — the Democrats and Republicans — have become, in essence, two departments of the same police state. They are the same political party in effect: growing the government ever larger and ever more militaristic, both domestically and internationally. The PATRIOT Act expands the police state domestically, and the UN, IMF, WTO, NAFTA, GATT and NATO — which they BOTH continuously and blindly support — expand the police state internationally.

Due to serious abridgements of the U.S. Constitution and principles stated in the Declaration of Independence, the united States are now run by a dictating oligarchy known as the UNITED STATES. And this dictating oligarchy is dominated by cultural Marxists and corporate fascists who have hijacked the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively.

The “DemoPublicans” have established the Department of Homeland Security for the purpose of administering their police state and the PATRIOT Act has become their new Constitution.

If you accept the idea that the Democrats and Republicans (again the “DemoPublicans”) have become two departments of the same police state — two wings of the same ugly bird — you will have to accept that ultimately it does not matter whether a Democrat or Republican is elected to the presidency. It does not matter if Obama or Romney is elected President. Establishment politicians in either of these “two” parties will continue to use the Federal Reserve System to monetize debt (print money out of thin air) and use this fraudulentfiatcurrency to build their welfare-warfare state.

It could be said that Republicans specialize in printing money to build weapons and wage wars — Democrats specialize in printing money to address the sick and the poor. The Republicans thus CREATE the sick and the poor with their WAR-fare policies and the Democrats HEAL the sick and the poor with their WELL-fare policies.

Thus when an entity controls the HEALING and HURTING of Humankind, doesn’t that entity, in essence, CONTROL Human kind? Well, welcome to the DemoPublican control mechanism — something you might think about the next time you vote or mindlessly scream out for your Clinton-, Bush-, Obama-, Gingrich- or Romney-candidate.

Taken as a whole, the DemoPublican machine — now assembled more by supra-national, international banking families than American citizens — has destroyed U.S. politics that used to center on Constitutional principles. Controllers in this CFR-led embryonic world government have created a well-oiled machine to maximize the plunder of millions, if not billions of people, through the mechanism of central banking, debt and the hurting-healing cycle. Would it not be reasonable to posit that the Democratic and Republican Parties are thus primary tools in what seems to be a master plan of globalization?

Ron Paul — a strict limited-government Constitutionalist with an appreciation for ethnonationalism — does not fit in with the New World Order’s management plans. Therefore, whenever he wins ANYTHING: the DemoPublican controllers have a more serious problem.

Where Dr. Paul to ever get close to a GOP nomination, they would most likely either rig the elections or blackmail him by threatening his family, like they did when Ross Perot was getting too popular.

But if Dr. Paul walks away from the GOP to go Indy, in reality he will “spoil” nothing, for as discussed above, the Democrats and Republicans are the same political party in effect, so there is nothing that CAN be “spoiled”.

Since the DemoPublicans must continue the cockfight between them — so the illusion that they are “different” parties can be maintained — this fighting has been, of necessity, escalating to a GRIDLOCK. Note the endless fighting about extending payroll tax cuts, Obamacare and illegal immigration, and now Santorum is bringing religion and race into it. Thus, even if Ron Paul is labeled a “spoiler” — for thwarting the Establishment controller’s plan to get one of their cultural Marxist or corporate fascist puppets nominated or elected — he will spoil nothing.




Message More Important Than Party:

Undoubtedly Ron Paul hopes his cause will be able to save the Republican Party, but surely he believes the greater cause is to save the country. For many the idea of reforming the Republican Party is a glorious dream — but for many more, it’s a pipe dream.

And the reason for this is simple. Ron Paul’s vision comes from the U.S. Constitution, a document that the GOP establishment wandered away from decades ago.

Thus, if Ron Paul is really serious about change, he probably knows that the VEHICLE he uses to deliver that change is not that important. His Constitutional VISION is more important than the PARTY that delivers it.

Thus the GOP is right to fear that Dr. Paul may “quit the party when the primaries are over and run as a third-party candidate on the Libertarian or some other line in the November election” as political analyst and author of Suicide of a Superpower, Patrick J. Buchanan, observes.(1)

This fear was also expressed by Reagan campaign strategist, Ed Rollins, when he said that “Ron Paul should be given the respect he deserves.”

Buchanan feels, however that it is assured that Dr. Paul will not go third party. This is “not going to happen. Such a decision would sunder the movement Paul has pulled together, bring about his own and his party’s certain defeat in November, and re-elect Barack Obama,” says Buchanan.

But if Paul does NOT go third party, his life’s work may NOT culminate.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with this statement depends on their philosophy of the GOP. If ones philosophy is that a tiger can change its stripes — that the GOP will somehow become the party of small government — then perhaps it makes sense for Dr. Paul to stick it out and be loyal. But is that really going to happen?

As evidenced by the current $15 trillion national debt, the Republican Party has become a big-government party similar to the Democratic party. This has happened on the watch of both parties. Both political parties are taking us down the “road to serfdom,” as F.A. Hayek might say. And the reason for this is the endless fiat money being issued by the Federal Reserve System (as we discuss in FIAT EMPIRE at ). Fiat currency funds the welfare state the Democrats want and the warfare state the Republicans want.

Again, neither major political party talks about this, or fiat money. Only Ron Paul talks about fiat money.

If the Democrats and Republicans won’t confront fiat money by discussing it, let alone by auditing and/or ending the Fed, THEN HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT EITHER PARTY WILL EVER BECOME A SMALL GOVERNMENT PARTY?

These two parties will thus destroy the dollar and eventually the U.S. as an industrial nation opening it up even more to the ravages of the PATRIOT Act mentality who value “security” more than freedom OR productivity. If this happens: THIS will be Ron Paul’s legacy, a coward that failed to go for the golden ring at a time when it could have made all the difference to millions.

The “movement Paul has pulled together” is unique in our times. It is nothing less than a revolution, and that’s why it’s called THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION. And contrary to Counsel on Foreign Relations propaganda, this revolution was the impetus for the Tea Party movement, a movement which now seems to have been co-opted and neutered by the GOP establishment.

The GOP is NOT Ron Paul’s friend:

The GOP has never REALLY been Ron Paul’s friend, nor will it ever be — unless the unthinkable happens, RON PAUL GETS CO-OPTED BY THE GOP ESTABLISHMENT ITSELF. His supporters, of course, know this would never happen. In fact many observes think the GOP is only now pretending to be Ron Paul’s friend because he has them backed into a political corner. And the Ron Paul butt-kissing is all over the mainstream media to prove it. But none of this is sincere. Remember the days in the Winter of 2008 when Ron Paul was winning one FOX poll after another and Sean Hannity, a perfect GOP specimen, was practically spitting bullets? In fact, Hannity was so arrogant and disparaging to Dr. Paul, his fans practically tackled the super-pundit when he was leaving his building one evening on 7 Jan 2008. See angry Ron Paul fans screaming at Hannity in the video at if you have forgotten the days when the GOP was showing its real colors to the Fed-slaying political messiah.

And let’s not forget the disrespect GOP-hopeful, Rudy Giuliani, showed for Dr. Paul when, in the 15 May 2007 debate, he mocked him before the world for stating that “the terrorists are over here because we are over there,” an observation first made by Pat Buchanan. See this debate at if your memory of the GOP needs refreshing.

But don’t believe me, that the GOP once spat upon Ron Paul — Ed Rollins confirmed this treatment when he stated: “They didn’t treat him well, four years ago, when he (Ron Paul) stayed in the race to the bitter end.” See video of Ed stating this at

So today — as evidence that self-sufficiency makes stronger individuals than the nanny state makes the collective — the growth of the Libertarian-conservative RON PAUL REVOLUTION, again, shows that Dr. Paul does not even NEED the GOP to win a general election for if he were to walk away for a third party in July, he would take at least 12% of the Republican vote, another 15% from the Independents and at least 11% from the Democrats. This would give him 38% — enough to WIN the presidency in a 3-man race.

Another reason one can be assured GOP pundits are terrified by a Ron Paul third party run is because they are desperately attempting to get him to commit to NOT running. Witness Sean Hannity trying to get a commitment from Dr. to NOT go third party at

But, even if Ron Paul did walk away from the GOP he would not BECOME a pariah in his party, he already IS a pariah in his party. He always has been and he always will be. Those who watched Ron Paul argue with Alan Greenspan on C-SPAN back in the mid-1990s know Ron Paul is also a pariah with the Federal Reserve System. That, in fact, is how I discovered Ron Paul and interviewed him for the documentary film, FIAT EMPIRE — Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution. At that time, there were no other congressmen arguing with Dr. Greenspan. There were not even any other congressmen that COULD argue with Dr. Greenspan. Only Ron Paul could because he not only understands economics, he understands the difference between Austrian economics and the Keynesian economics that is now burying the nation — and WORLD — in debt! This is why THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION runs philosophically deep.

This is why Dr. Paul has been able to be consistent and why he has consistently stated that he cannot endorse any of the other GOP candidates and he doesn’t see how he could possibly run on a ticket with any of them due to differences in principle. How could Ron Paul double up with someone that doesn’t understand the difference between Austrian and Keynesian economics? How could Ron Paul double up with or support someone that doesn’t even know what fiat money is or what Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states? How could Ron Paul support someone that has no idea where Congress gets most of its money? Dr. Paul, as a true Constitutionalist, knows all of these things. The others are ignoramuses who just give the Constitution and economics lip-service.

A Third Party Run’s Effect on Rand Paul:

Some have argued that, were Dr. Paul to run as a third party candidate, his son, Senator Rand Paul, would be forced to endorse his father and essentially abandon the GOP. Rand Paul’s career with the GOP would thus be ruined.

Actually, whether Rand Paul endorses his father or not is no ones business except Rand Paul’s and it’s not even relevant to THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION.

As great as it may be for a father to have a son follow in his footsteps, there are times when a greater concern outweighs family goals. If Rand Paul truly understands the importance of his father’s work, he will gladly support anything he does without personal concern. On the other hand, if Rand Paul would rather stay loyal to the GOP, that’s his prerogative. No rational person would stigmatize Rand Paul just because he made a different choice from his father.

But the greater question — given the great promise Rand Paul has so far demonstrated — is why would he even WANT to be a “future Republican leader” in a political party that was bringing the nation to ruin? With its profligate spending; empire-building ploys; debt-monetizing insanity, why would Rand Paul want to run the risk of becoming but a footnote in history by swimming counter to the currents of THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION?

Given the fact that the youth of the nation are endorsing THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION of small government, ending the Fed and an end to perpetual wars, the future of the GOP — which is against all these things — is NOT bright at all. In fact, the GOP, and the Democrats, are doomed. Like the sinking Titanic, all Republicans have been doing this past 30 years is re-arranging the deckchairs while the panem et circenses band plays on.

It is true that Ron Paul would be wise to stay with the GOP up until the last minute so he can maintain his media presence, but the very fact that he has to even DO this should tell us all something about the mainstream media. And that something is the fact that, like the GOP, the mainstream media is NOT any friend of Ron Paul or even of WE THE PEOPLE. So long as it endlessly consolidates and places its corporate advertisers’ interests above the public concerns, the mainstream media is a liability to a democratic market of ideas. Unfortunately, Ron Paul, a libertarian at heart, has been forced to operate on this media’s stage in order to get any play at all. Had Dr. Paul gone third party four years ago, he would have received almost no exposure and few today would know very much about his message. Note what happened to third party candidates, such as Ralph Nader, Harry Brown and Gary Johnson, etc. The exception was the multi-billionaire, Ross Perot, who got mainstream play ONLY because he self-financed his own media campaign.

Ron Paul started and represents a major populist CAUSE that millions endorse, yet the mainstream media still pushes the other candidates who just support the horse race for the status quo.

It is thus impossible for the GOP to “grow up” or change because it is locked into this competition with the Democratic Party. If the GOP stops with its program of handouts and entitlements, the public will always place Democrats in to power. This is the dilemma for the GOP and why no reform is possible, as we more fully discuss in the movie “SPOILER – How a Third Political Party Could Win.” See

Even still, Ron Paul giving his commitment to support the GOP is what apologists for the GOP want. But if Ron Paul does this, he will have compromised his principles. Even if the GOP promises to change its ways, many will have serious doubts they will keep their promise.

The GOP and the DEMS have had their chance. They have both brought the country to the verge of bankruptcy and totalitarianism over the past 98 years. They will never reform or be able to BE reformed. No placation-speech — allotted to Ron Paul at the Republican National Convention — is going to reform either entrenched party or rescind the PATRIOT Act. The ONLY possibility for reform will come if Dr. Paul goes Indy sometime after the GOP selects its CFR-approved, status-quo nominee. In going Indy, the only risk is that Dr. Paul might not get 38%, hence the presidency. If this happens then Obama DOES get back in; but again, so what! Only blind partisans — or people that don’t quite grok the fact that both parties are identical in effect — will be concerned about this. Mitt Romney can NEVER be Ron Paul’s friend. Mitt Romney is a corporate fascist, as we define in the movie, CORPORATE FASCISM at He has depended on the bogus, artificial interest rates afforded by fiat money for every major business venture he has ever been involved with. Mitt Romney would NEVER end the Fed because the Fed is what butters his bread. It is doubtful if he would ever even AUDIT the Fed. Same goes for Gingrich and Santorum. Both these guys are big government guys, especially Santorum who will expand the military-industrial complex to the high heavens.

Constitutional Constituency Trumps Party Constituency:

Ron Paul’s constituency is NOT unipolar. Ron Paul’s constituency falls ACROSS the political spectrum as it well should. People who want smaller government, who want to audit the fed; reduce the debt; get out of foreign wars and rebuild the middle class are NOT only in the GOP, they are also in the Democratic party, but mostly Independents. They are the youth and people in the military. At least 38% of the people in the country WANT Ron Paul and only 12% of these come from the GOP. Thus, Ron Paul is actually BIGGER than the GOP. THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION supersedes the GOP and any particular faction. That’s why what’s happening is so special and why WE THE PEOPLE sometimes have difficulty understanding the magnitude of these events.


Ron Paul’s most salient issues: auditing the Fed and eventually ending the fiat-currency fraud; downsizing of the U.S. empire; closing many or most of the 900 military bases in 130 countries; and establishing a mind-our-own-business foreign policy will never happen in the business-as-usual GOP or welfare state-crazed Democratic Party.

Thus, if Dr. Paul fails to use the power he has at this critical moment in history he will never have it again, nor will anyone else for a long time. The mainstream media is substantially bought and paid for by the entrenched parties. You can bet the Washington establishment and the K-street corporate fascists that have hijacked Congress, once the race is over, all will turn on Dr. Paul and make him as much of a non-person as the J.P. Morgan/Thomas Edison Establishment of the day turned on Nikola Tesla and literally erased him from the front page of TIME.




Again, since Dr. Paul’s constituency is supra GOP — even if he defects from the GOP and fails at a presidential run — he will only estrange the people in the GOP that are stuck in the partisan game of Democrats vs. Republicans. In other words, he will only estrange the “spoiler mentality.” More and more of the country, as witnessed by the growth of the Independents, now recognize that BOTH political parties are wings of the same ugly bird. These people are the future. Ron Paul AND Rand Paul should be more concerned about these people than propitiating to the GOP establishment for a token speech or career some advancement.

The fact that Ron Paul has an investment portfolio with 21% in real-estate, 14% in cash and about 65% gold should be absolute proof that Dr. Paul believes the fiat financial system is doomed. He is thus more than a prophet, he is leading the way out. This leadership takes rank over any other consideration.

Eric Hoffer wrote a book entitled, THE TRUE BELIEVER: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. In this work, Hoffer maintains that revolutions are usually accomplished with only a small percentage of a population – between 1% and 7%. The vast majority are inert. If Hoffer’s observations are correct, THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION has, or will shortly have, more than enough supporters to make its CAUSE quite real.


The term “spoiler” is used by two groups of people:

1) the ignorant or IQ-challenged person who knows little or nothing about politics or the art of war, and;

2) the statist propaganda-merchant who is trying to give the public the illusion that there is a “difference” between the Democratic and Republican Parties.

The reason the statist propaganda-merchant is trying to perpetuate the meme that there is a difference between the two major parties is so the general public will not look elsewhere for the solution to their problems. If one can get the Democrats and Republicans fighting with each other, it gives the illusion that they are “different” to the degree they “fight.” Indeed they DO have “differences”, however the differences are over trivial issues. On all the major issues the Democrats and Republican’s are identical, overtly and covertly, thus they are the same political party in effect. You saw how many of Bush’s policies Obama kept in place when he came into office ostensibly to “change” things. The same thing will happen if the Republicans take back the White House, ad infinitum.

So this is why Ron Paul is such a threat to the Establishment. He’s running on the GOP ticket basically so he can get mainstream media exposure. The mainstream tried to ignore him in the last election. Remember how Hannity practically spat on Dr. Paul in the 2008 election? Remember how all the other pundits treated him? Then, when he suddenly raised millions of dollars with his “money bombs” and millions of voters started joining the grassroots Ron Paul Revolution — which kicked off the Tea Party Revolution — it wasn’t “politically correct” to spit on him any longer. Worse, they couldn’t ignore him into oblivion like they ignored all other dissenting candidates. Third party candidate Ross Perot was only able to get mainstream media exposure because he purchased it with his personal wealth. Ralph Nader nor Harry Brown, on the other hand, have been able to purchase such exposure, thus they have never been able to get an alternative vision into the public domain.

For Ron Paul to win and use the vote to destroy the cultural Marxist-infested, totalitarian fiat empire, being built by controllers of the “liberal world order” is incomprehensible to them even though Pat Buchanan details in his new book,Suicide of a Superpower, the reasons why the moment of globalism and “free” trade has passed.

But such is the power of the zeitgeist, for the world is in revolt, from the Middle East to Wall Street. The 99-percent don’t know exactly HOW they have been screwed, but they do know that they HAVE been screwed — at least for the past 100 years. From the Tea Partiers to the Wall Street Occupiers in America, WE THE PEOPLE are fed up with:

1) a Congress that has been bought and sold by corporate fascists;

2) Presidents that start wars and act like Marxist dictators;

3) an activist Supreme Court that legislates from the bench making one-size fits all laws that ignore the original intent of the Founders.

WE THE PEOPLE are fed up with many other things, but both the “Right” and the “Left” can agree with much of what Ron Paul offers, because his principles are American principles, and American principles are Constitutional Principles which accommodate both liberals and conservatives, Left or Right.

So don’t let CFR-infested, establishment propaganda spewed through the mainstream media or the DemoPublican police state dissuade you from voting for Ron Paul, whether he stays on the GOP ticket, goes Independent or starts a new party.

It is vital that all Americans stay true to their conscious, NOT their political parties. The U.S. Constitution does not even mention political parties; in fact many of the Founders warned us against them. The Founders called political parties “factions” and said that membership in them is dangerous to a democratic form of government. They warned us to stay away from entrenched political parties — such as the Democrats and Republicans — because entrenched political parties are only one step away from dictatorships. The Founders also warned us about entrenched politicians, and this is why no presidents ran for more than two terms up until the Grant presidency.

It is not too late to act. Vote out the incumbent congressmen, president and most of all, the incumbent DemoPublican political party. Vote in Ron Paul no matter what scare tactics the pundits on CNN, FOX NEWS or MSNBC proselytize with. Ron Paul CAN get 38% of the vote and win the presidency. This is not an opinion, it’s mathematical fact.


Please forward this to your mailing list. The mainstream media will probably not address this subject because they have conflicts of interest with their advertisers, stockholders and the political candidates they send campaign contributions to. It’s thus up to responsible citizens like you to disseminate important issues so that a healthy public discourse can be initiated or continued.Permission is hereby granted to excerpt and publish all or part of this article provided nothing is taken out of context. Please give reference to the source URL.

Any responses to this article, email or otherwise, may be mass-disseminated in order to continue a public discourse. Unless you are okay with this, please do not respond to anything sent out. We will make every effort, however, to remove names, emails and personal data before disseminating anything you submit.

Don’t forget to watch our documentary films listed below so you will have a better understanding of what we believe fuels most of the problems under study at Jaeger Research Institute. We appreciate you referring these documentaries to others, purchasing copies for your library, screening them for home audiences and displaying them on your public-access TV channels. The proceeds from such purchases go to the production of new documentaries. Thank you.


Hush-Hush Congressional Research Report: The Myth of Social Mobility … Not

Original article:

Monday, March 19, 2012 – by Staff Report
Income inequality in the United States is more pronounced than in other developed countries, a new report from the Congressional Research Service finds, while the possibility of economic mobility is more constrained than commonly believed. “Based on the limited data that are comparable across nations, the U.S. income distribution appears to be among the most uneven of all major industrialized countries and the United States appears to be among the nations experiencing the greatest increases in measures of inequality.” – FAS Secrecy News Blog

Dominant Social Theme: In America, anyone can get rich.

Free-Market Analysis: Here’s a big myth: US social mobility is fungible and anyone can grow rich. Now a report from the Congressional Research Service has found that income inequality in the US is extreme and growing worse. Also, that where you’re born, socially speaking, is where you stay.Did you read about these findings? Didn’t think so. For one reason or another, Congress doesn’t seem inclined to make a big fuss over this information. Wonder why.Actually not. We think we know why. Congress’s approval ratings are stuck near the SINGLE DIGITS and have stayed there for years. This is because most people in the US likely see Congress as an instrument of repression and the increasingly savage status quo.There is a lot of truth to this assumption. Who at this point would want to work in Congress but a sociopath or psychopath? And there is plenty of evidence that the US Congress includes both.• In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US has been using depleted uranium weapons regularly for nearly a decade. The poisoning of these poor people has been so intense that many die of obscure cancers and mothers are routinely told not to have babies. Neither of these wars has been successful, and the depleted uranium poisoning has injured hundreds of thousands of returning US vets as well.• In the US, one third of citizens now have some exposure to the criminal justice system by the time they are in their early 20s. The US system of jurisprudence has resulted in some six million behind bars at any one time, more than half the world’s population of incarcerated individuals. The costs in damaged lives and families in tremendous. Routinely, as well, innocent people are put to death, victims of Draconian US “justice.”• The US population on food stamps has exploded, with some 50 million using food stamps now. And ALL US citizens eventually come to use some form of government assistance, especially if one includes Social Security. Medicare is another ubiquitous and badly run program encouraging citizen dependence on the government.• The Federal Reserve system, authorized and overseen by Congress, is responsible for the degradation of the US dollar by some 95-99 percent. The entire dollar reserve system is now on the verge of unraveling as the “depression” of the 2000s winds on with no real signs of abating.• The income tax system, and taxes generally, remove up to 50 percent or more of a person’s disposable income when one actually peers behind the various charges that are leveled on producers and consumers. Products are taxed all the way through the supply chain, so that the end price may reflect dozens of tax charges.This is but a tiny sampling of the kinds of results that Congress has been partially responsible for. The executive wing, of course, is equally culpable, as is the US Supreme Court. Those born in the US are subject to millions of regulations and thousands of taxes that they had no say in creating. They are saddled, as well, with the US’s “national debt.”The US has likely reached a point of no return when it comes to its regulatory, tax and monetary structure. The regulatory structure especially tends to freeze people into place from an economic and social mobility standpoint.This is, of course, exactly what the larger power elite wants. The apparent handful of dynastic families that control central banking around the world use regulation, taxes and fiat-money inflation as a way of ensuring that the billions beneath them have little hope of advancement.Yes, a tiny group of people seeks to implement world government apparently and uses various methodologies of control to shove the world and its billions in this direction. This is why societies around the world, including Western societies, are increasingly dysfunctional.This is a change from several hundred years ago when the US itself emerged as the hope of the world for social mobility. This is also why the US has been under tremendous attack from the elites for nearly its entire existence.The US “exception” shows us how a somewhat “free” society can actually work. Free banking, an economy based in part on gold and silver and a lack of formal regulation all catapulted the US into the topmost tier of the world’s wealthiest countries.But by the 20th century, the elites unceasing attacks on the libertarian positioning of the US had taken their toll. The proximate cause was the Civil War, which put the New York Banks (the European axis) in charge of the federation. From there it was just a matter of time.In the 20th century, the authoritarians struck. The silver standard, removed in the 19th century, was suddenly buttressed by the graduated income tax and the Federal Reserve. Two world wars effectively militarized the entire US, gave rise to an empire and a shadow world government managed out of the City of London with branches in Washington DC, Tel Aviv and elsewhere.The empire that the US has become is commonly seen by the bought-and-paid-for media as the apogee of sociopolitical and cultural achievement. But as we have pointed out, empire is nothing more than the last exhalation of a dying and corrupt culture.It is the time PRECEDING empire during which cultures achieve greatness, when people have social mobility and control over their own lives, inspirations and inventions. Empire is inevitably a military excrescence that takes each positive enumeration of civil society and weaponizes it.Pre-empire cultures are great places to live. But cultures that celebrate empire are miserable ones, full of hate, fear, paranoia and socio-economic and political control.The US, now in the empire phase, is failing fast. US citizens can only look back to the pre-Civil War period for a glimpse of the freedom that created a great country that spanned the world with its agricultural, cultural and mechanical gifts. The phrase “Yankee ingenuity” became a cliché for a reason.Above all, the US, “free banking” economic system based on gold and silver was the envy of the world. Though the power elite owned both gold and silver, it is evident and obvious that the elites could NOT control the US economy no matter how much gold and silver they owned.In fact, this directly rebuts Greenbackers’ contention that those who own the gold and silver will control the world even within a free-market economy. In the US, they didn’t and could not. This helps bear out the truth of Austrian economiststhat it is impossible to sustain unwanted monopolies in free market societies.They needed to use force, as they always do, to control society. First they fought the Civil War to destroy private banking and private money and to build up Wall Street and the power of the New York banks. After this in rapid succession came the graduated income tax, the Federal Reserve and various world wars.And now social mobility is all-but-frozen in the US. The power elite has been immeasurably aided in their quest to subvert the freedoms in the US by the various myths that still exist in the country regarding the way it used to operate. The article, excerpted above, makes this point as well:“Americans may be less concerned about inequality in the distribution of income at any given point in time partly because of a belief that everyone has an equal opportunity to move up the income ladder. A review of the literature suggests that Americans’ perceptions about their likelihood of changing position in the income distribution may be exaggerated,” the CRS report said.“It … appears that going from rags to riches is relatively rare; that is, where one starts in the income distribution greatly influences where one ends up.” See The U.S. Income Distribution and Mobility: Trends and International Comparisons, March 7, 2012.We have long been aware of the increasing inequities in US society and the “welfarization” of the economy that has accompanied its authoritarianism militarization and regulatory and penal deconstruction. But eventually, the new realities probably will begin to wake up more people in the US.When they do, we expect there may be considerable social trouble. People currently still anticipate the current “recession” will end. They cannot be blamed, struggling as they are, for not understanding that the power elite has apparently turned a fundamental page.The elites now seek frank world government from what we can tell and are promoting economic disaster, regional and world wars and increased authoritarianism around the world in order to realize their goals. Out of chaos … order.The problem, as we long have pointed out, is that what we call the Internet Reformation is increasingly educating and radicalizing much of the ‘Net intelligentsia. This is a critical breech in the elite’s plans.

Conclusion: The successful conclusion of the elite’s plans is by no means certain, even though they try to make it appear so. They have certainly managed to deconstruct US exceptionalism and make the lives of many a living hell. But even this can be reversed over time and we don’t count out the possibility that it shall be.


Financial Illiteracy of Those Who Mock Conspiracy Theorists

 Saturday, January 28, 2012 – by Anthony Wile

Anthony Wile


From Social Psychological and Personality Science (SPPS), a journal from the independent publisher Sage Publications, comes an article that has predictably seen wide distribution on the Internet. It implies that those who believe in globalist conspiracy theories are illogical – even downright nutty.

The article is entitled  “Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories” and the thesis of the article is that people who believe in conspiracy theories eventually become so immersed in them and so mesmerized that they do not realize they are holding contradictory beliefs.

“Conspiracy theories can form a monological belief system: A self-sustaining worldview comprised of a network of mutually supportive beliefs. The present research shows that even mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively correlated in endorsement.”(SPPS Abstract)

“Conspiratorialists” become so distrustful of “government” and “authority” that they will impute any and every kind of malevolence to them.

Thus it is that people can claim, on the one hand, that Osama bin Laden is “dead” and died years ago, while simultaneously claiming that bin Laden remains alive and that US and Pakistan government authorities are not being truthful about him and his physical state.

Of course, I’ve never run into anyone, who claims that bin Laden is ALIVE. But it’s true that here at the Daily Bell we’ve run articles explaining that bin Laden probably died years ago. See, for instance, “Osama bin Laden is Dead Again?

The SPPS article would likely have you believe this is an outrageous conspiracy theory. But given that FOX news ran a report on bin Laden’s death in 2001, and given that Pakistan’s former president Benazir Bhutto herself claimed that bin Laden died in the early 2000s (supposedly as the result of an assassination), it doesn’t seem so far-fetched to speculate that bin Laden didn’t die as the result of a US raid in 2011.

But that’s almost minor stuff. Articles like this, despite their scientific patina, are deeply illiterate. Why so? Because invariably such articles won’t deal with the bedrock financial illiteracy of current economic and political paradigms.

Imagine if the world were based on lies. Well, unfortunately, that’s the truth. The lies go far beyond “who shot JFK” or whether the US government was directly or indirectly involved in 9/11.

When one uses the logical framework of Austrian, free-market analysis to analyze the Way the World Works in the modern age, one inevitably comes to the conclusion that modern society is built around fundamental untruths.

The first one is economic: It is the idea that central bankers can efficiently and effectively set the price of money. They cannot.

Every time central bankers decide on how much money to print or where short interest rates should be, the decisions are “fixing” prices – and price-fixing never works. Price-fixing distorts economies and causes a wealth shift from those who create it to those who don’t and may not know what to do with it. Over time, aggressively mis-priced money causes first recessions and then depressions.

The second lie is that laws and regulations are necessary and that they can save society from “anarchy.” In fact, anarchy is only the absence of government. That’s the real definition. And absence of government does not necessarily imply “chaos.” Just as setting interest rates fixes the price of money, so every law and regulation is a price fix as well, preventing someone from doing something within the context of the marketplace. This also constitutes a wealth transfer.

One can have a perfectly adequate and satisfying society without formal government, certainly without the kinds of intrusive and murderous governments we’ve got today. History is full of examples of societies that flourished with at least minimal government, especially societies where power truly flowed from the bottom up.

The third lie is that government is essential for purposes of defense and defending its citizens. But a quick survey of modern wars shows a disturbing tendency of governments – especially certain Western governments – to foment the very wars that citizens believe they’re being protected from.

War is the “health of the state” – the way that those in power consolidate their hold while punishing their enemies using phony pretexts having to do with “treason” and “leaking classified information.” Sound familiar?

It is what we call the Internet Reformation that has gradually shed light on the fundamental untruths permeating modern society in both the developed and developing world.

The Internet, like the Gutenberg Press before it, is a revolutionary device that has allowed people access to information that was hitherto denied or covered up, especially in the 20th century when the power elite‘s control over society was perhaps at its apex.

A conspiracy likely DOES exist. The Internet easily reveals not just facts that illuminate it, but also PATTERNS that show the same command-and-control strategies implemented throughout history, over and over.

It is easy, unfortunately, to mock those who believe in so-called “conspiracy theories” because the truth of what has occurred in this weary world is so extreme and shocking that most people simply cannot believe it. What truly horrifies us becomes a target for mockery. It’s a defense mechanism.

Here’s the seeming hard truth: A tiny group of Anglosphere banking families controlling most if not all of the world’s major central banks have used the trillions to which they have access in order to foment what can be called a “New World Order.”

This tiny group of intergenerational plotters and their enablers and associates have apparently built a seamless matrix of control around the entire globe to implement their schemes. They are building world government and are putting in place its building blocks.

What is it about the UNIMFWorld BankInternational Criminal CourtWorld Health Organization and hundreds of others lesser known globalist facilities that people who deny or decry modern “conspiracy theory” don’t understand?  

An entire gamut of globalist entities has been superimposed on the world in the past 75 years. Most recently − only this past week, in fact − the US military held a formal exercise over the skies of Los Angeles using the same black helicopters that conspiracy theorists were mocked for mentioning not a decade ago.

But the biggest issue by far – bigger than even the establishment of the facilities of the New World Order – is the fundamental illiteracy of those who choose to support modern society as it is today and as it has evolved over the past 100 years.

While human societies have always been based on fairly bizarre rituals, it is safe to say that the current crop of behind-the-scenes leaders have raised statist insanity to a new level.

Every part of modern society, from its basic economic building blocks to its liturgical belief in dysfunctional “laws and regulations” to its deep-seated reverence for the manipulated destruction of war, is questionable on a factual basis.

The reality of modern society is increasingly pathological – and the ones with the pathology are those who lead the rest of us along using paradigms that are evidently and obviously dishonest and dysfunctional.

Articles that mock the looniness of “conspiratorialists” need to deal with the fundamental economic and sociopolitical dishonesty of their own assumptions. They should begin by admitting the evident and obvious logical fallacies of the “modern” society they celebrate.

I’m not holding my breath.

Anthony Wile:   View Bio 

Internet Reformation :   View Glossary Description 

Gutenberg Press :   View Glossary Description 

%d bloggers like this: