-8 votes

Obama, Wall Street, and the Federal Reserve, A Fascist Regime

Obama's partnership with the Fed and Wall Street cronies equates to a fascist regime. A fascist regime creates monopolies and cartels that eliminate competitive markets and have the ability to buy judges, politicians and elections. This usurpation of our right to representation is a betrayal of all the men and women who've fought and died for American ideals.

The generally accepted definition of fascism is a dictatorial centralized regime that imposes severe economic and social repression. The Federal gov't, Federal Reserve and Wall Street created a subprime bubble. This precipitated the financial crisis and the creation of Too Big To Fail (TBTF) banks, which according to the CBO will cost taxpayers 8.6 Trillion to prop up. The links are short videos of Sen. Brown citing the CBO report, Rep. Sherman saying Dodd-Frank's Resolution Authority equates to taxation without representation, and Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron saying Dodd-Frank "institutionalizes TARP for bank holding companies".


The subprime bubble led to the creation of TBTF banks, which led to Dodd-Frank. Dodd-Frank allows Trillions of tax dollars to be spent for future bailouts, without Congressional approval. So market manipulation by gov't and corporations has eliminated one of our core Constitutional rights, i.e., no taxation without representation. America's founders endured similar oppression under King George III and his private sector cronies, so they rebelled against tyranny and instituted a government to "secure" their unalienable rights, which are given to us by the Creator. For solutions to hold the fascist regime accountable and restore our rights, check out this post titled "Fraud and the Federal Debt".


Wild animals function in a social hierarchy based on the strong dominating the weak. They don't possess a transcendent morality like humans, which translates into moral judgments that protect the weak from being assaulted, robbed or killed by the strong. The same Darwinian principles that govern wild animals (strong dominate the weak), are practiced by Machiavellian tyrants who feign morality while imposing the full weight of moral judgement on their citizens. These Darwinian principles are used to justify the lawless, immoral activities of large corporations, their officers, and boards of directors. The combination of Machiavellian leaders and immoral corporatism has resulted in a fascist regime. The legal and moral double standard they practice is the root of increasing global corruption.

George Soros and others argue that markets are amoral, i.e., markets are not subject to judgments whether moral or immoral. But markets are created and run by humans, and all nations have laws against fraud, theft, murder, etc., and these laws are based on moral judgments. Furthermore, the human activities that animate markets are subject to these laws, so the argument that markets are amoral is just a clever attempt to place financial elites above the law.

When drafting our founding documents, the founders drew upon John Locke's Treatises on Government and Montesquieu's "The Spirit of Laws", among others. Within the moral framework of a Constitutional Republic, a competitive capitalist economy provides the greatest amount of economic freedom while providing for the free exercise of unalienable rights. And a capitalist economy requires rules, for example, if you commit fraud and bankrupt your business, you must be allowed to fail and go to jail. Rules when enforced, eliminate the problem of TBTF banks. Also, monopolies are anti-competitive and don't allow for price discovery based on supply and demand. So in a capitalist economy, rules are necessary to ensure the efficient allocation of resources, price discovery based on supply and demand, and an economy where success is based on merit, not privilege.

So the question is, which political and economic models provide the most freedom for the most people? I believe Ron Paul's libertarian concept of limited gov't is the political model that best secures unalienable rights, and within that moral framework, a competitive capitalist economy provides the most economic freedom. These are self evident truths proven by thousands of years of empirical observation. For common sense solutions to limit the power of fascist banking cartels and the government that supports them, check out this DP post.


Thomas Paine said the following: If there were to be a king, it would have to be the rule of law, and if a day of celebration were to be set aside, then homage should be paid to the law, a crown set upon it to remind those gathered that the law is king.

Check out these posts titled "Morals, Ethics and the Role of Gov't in a Capitalist Economy" and "Occupy Wall Street". The OWS post demonstrates the leftist connection to fascist corporations.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Defining terms......

Capital = Saved Production
Capitalism = Economic system that requires saved production.

What does a capitalist system look like......here is a simple version.

Man starts widgets out of his garage at night, funding this adventure with savings from his day job....capital.
Widgets sales are brisk and its time to grow the business. Man goes to bank to borrow capital. The banker loans him the savings, saved production, out of the savings accounts from the workers of the town.
Man hires three workers who then set up a savings account at the local bank. Now the entire town is vested into the business venture.
Let us say the business owner is a pig who mistreats his people.....which means he mistreating the bankers accounts.....

Capital is saved production

Now what does Wall Street work on....fractional reserves, a captive audience via the insurance and 401 world and regulatory capture for the regulation is done by government and not those vested.

Capital is saved production...it has nothing to do with private ownership, that is an effect of the Constitution.

In a capitalist system the labor can bring down a bad boss......by cutting his funding. When the bankers has to have savings to have money the banker will protect his cash cow, the producers of the society.

Regulatory capture

If Wall Street has achieved regulatory capture, isn't the government just a taxpayer funded subsidiary of Wall Street? And isn't this merging of the State and corporate world fascism?

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

The relationship

The relationship between WS and the central government is symbiotic.
Clarification - I consider Wall Street to be the six paper banks and the corporations they fostered...GE,Monsanto, BP, Big Pharma, etc....

From my seat it started with fascist controlling the credit and currency and then "helping" out their buddies and like minded thinkers.

Tax payers do not pay the bills, they are simply collateral. We are the prize they fight for.

Like so many other things, this scheme has rival factions. The elites are not all on the same page. They fight over us all the time, like right now.

Remember, we are the prize.......providing you are a producer. Real capital is created by saved production and the elites need real capital to control us.

The fact is, we the producers of the world, are in control. We just wont admit it and take responsibility. We get what we deserve !

The fascist regime is a tiny minority...

and they are far more vulnerable than the producers of the world believe. This misperception with regard to the real power of producers, and vulnerabilty of fascist elites, is the result of fraud. The tiny fascist minority spends billions, if not trillions on propaganda intended to convince producers they are powerless to throw off the yoke of tyranny. Because of this scheme to defraud producers, I don't agree that they're getting what they deserve.

The fascists see producers, and bottom feeding non-producers as the prize because they need to use bottom feeding non-producers as scapegoats. These scapegoats are blamed for the crimes and profligacy of the top 1% of non-producers (the fascist minority).


http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Because there's quite a few

Because there's quite a few confusing definitions and jumps in logic -- from my perspective -- I'm going to try to address what seems like one of your major points with a current example from my life.

Your statement: A completely free market cannot exist in a society based on the rule of law. Even in a market environment free from an agreed upon set of rules, a.k.a anarchy, the strong will dominate the weak, and this is a form of regulation. And the existence of regulation precludes the existence of a free market. So the question is, which political and economic models provide the most freedom for the most people?

My example: Amazon's book rating system can be considered a truly free market in reviews of a trading product. There aren't many (any?) rules imposed even by Amazon. A book reviewer can post whatever he wants about a book, minus (I'm assuming) filtered dirty words.

There's an inherent conflict in this market, like in most/all markets. The producers -- authors -- want lots of 5-star reviews; potential readers want accurate, authentic reviews by other readers of this particular genre.

The producers try to game the market. Authors ask all their friends to go on Amazon and write glowing reviews. The market -- the network of people involved -- gets tilted. Such reviews are usually lazy and readers learn to spot them. Consumers fight back and Amazon initiates an ability for users to rank reviews. The author's friend reviews don't get high ratings. The market tilts back to the consumer. Authors form little associations, which agree to cross-pollinate each other's reviews. Except now they tell each other, "Just give a 4-star review. Because 5-star raises eyebrows."

Maybe such a group of authors invites me to join their group. One of the expectations is that you give all the other members' books good reviews on Amazon. Maybe I tell them, "That's creepy; that devalues a nifty market feedback mechanism." Maybe I tell them, "It's tribal. Maybe rubbing up against immoral." Maybe they say, "But that's how the game is played. Everyone is doing it." Maybe I say, "Reputation is what counts long term and you're hurting readers, hurting the very market you wish to embrace you by lying to it." Maybe a couple of them say, "Umm...that could be right. I won't give a good review to a book I don't like or haven't read." Maybe the whole group feels kind of loser-ish for going down that road. Maybe several of them say, "Yeah, it would be better if we focused on writing our books rather than writing bogus reviews."

Okay, long example. but the idea here is that the rub of seller and buyer goals is in constant opposition. Each trying to dodge the latest work-around. All this is a free market. Free market doesn't imply everyone acting truthfully and honorably for the greater good. It's just a mechanism that allows parties to keep evolving and colluding and figuring ways to get their needs met.

Now if I'd had the ability to ban this author's clique from posting reviews on Amazon, that would be interference from outside the market. If I gathered their Amazon screen names and made a point of following each of their reviews with a review that alerted readers to their collusion, that would be a free market mechanism.

While such collusion is creepy in my mind, I get that they think it's moral -- the folks in this group value "supporting a friend," i.e. tribalism, above genuine communication. It's a legitimate morality, I suppose, not one that seems to recommend a good author, but it's one many folks believe in. For me it's immoral and I'll do a bit to curtail it. Our moralities will clash in the market place.

So I would postulate that the marketplace, far from being governed by a lack of morality, is a network of people with competing needs and competing moralities duke it out. The clash helps a culture define its moral obligations to each other.

A cart-before-the-horse issue, I guess. I'm thinking free markets help a people define and refine its morality. Interference from outside, perverts the process.

Competing moralities

In a previous comment, you suggested I accept the prevalent definition of a free market because "we have to agree on basic meanings of words or else communication is lost."

In this last comment, you said the marketplace is where people with competing needs and competing moralities duke it out. But shouldn't the same logic you applied to prevalent definitions of words apply to morals, i.e, we have to agree on the prevalent definition of morality in order to communicate about what is moral or immoral?

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

No. Morality is the NOTION of


Morality is the NOTION of HAVING behavior/thought guidelines. It is not the PARTICULARS. In my example, I did not call the authors who wanted to game the Amazon system amoral -- lacking morals. I said their morals on this subject don't align with mine. (If you want to be all definitional about it, my camp would call their camp immoral and their camp would call my camp immoral. Neither would accuse the other of being amoral. Does that make sense? I accuse them of using friend-first or tribal morality outside its justification.)

I can thrust my particular morality in this case into the marketplace; they can thrust theirs. The network of people who comprise the the marketplace will decide which morality they're more into. (More likely they won't decide it on such absolute terms; they'll just have a greater trust in the reputations of one sort of author over another.) In neither case is morality absent. The particulars differ and are worked out in the terrible, wonderful clash the marketplace offers.

It's messy and not entirely linear and not without loss. But it's pretty cool in that it's individual people working that out, not someone(s) telling them what PARTICULAR MORAL CODE is going to defined as ORDAINED morality. Fewer mistakes, over the long run. Right?

P.S. I should say that I'm not against tribal, friends-first moralities in general. I just cringe when they mess with the bigger picture. I mean if you hit my friend at a bar, I'm going to intervene even if my friend was a jerk to you. Even if I would have hit her, too, for such jerky-ness. But I'm not going to stand by while someone outside the tribe does so. But I would not testify in court that she hadn't been a jerk to you. I would never gang-bad-review a book, like folks on DP called for numerous times during the election. For me the process of judging and acquiring information is far more important than agreeing with information. I kinda think that even when we latch onto some particular given moral code, it's wiggly and picks and choose from several structures. God may command mankind not to kill and then command the Israelites to kill indiscriminately. Even God seems uncertain about how the MORALITY plays out in the particular. Markets are one way we work toward a best fit for a moving target -- in an imperfect, dynamic world.

Notions vs. Definitions

In the first paragraph, you said you didn't call the authors who gamed the system "amoral". This is a non sequiter because I made no mention of amoral. I said a conversation about morality needs to be based on the prevalent definitions of moral and immoral.

And your suggestion that morals are notions but words and their definitions are not, is illogical. Words and their definitions have evolved over time, just like morals. Therefore they are both notions, i.e., evolving opinions and subject to change over time. So when discussing either, the prevalent definition must be used in order to communicate effectively.

Are there any nations or societies on earth that permit the intentional killing of another human being if not for self defense? No. Even wars of aggression are illegal under international law. So based on a moral judgement, the entire world has defined the intentional killing of another human being, if not for self defense, as illegal. And the definition of the word illegal, and morality, are both notions with prevalent definitions. So, if we don't use the prevalent definitions of morals and words, communication is lost.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

No. Let me argue from the

No. Let me argue from the the last of your post forward.

"Are there any nations or societies on earth that permit the intentional killing of another human being if not for self defense?"

Of course there are. Have you seen the stoning videos of Islamic women?

Of course there are. Have you noticed that thirty-three states (I think) have a death penalty?

Of course there are. Have you noticed how many recently paroled violent criminals never reported to their parole officers? Do you think all of them went AWAL? Or do you think victims' relatives sometimes decided their morality includes something that's no where near self-defense?

We haven't even figured out a universal moral code for the most egregious crime of murder.

Certainly a conversation about morality OFTEN comes to a conversation about particular moral codes, but morality, as a word, isn't defined by the particular. The Islamist who stones a woman for infidelity has a moral argument girding his act. A relative of a victim has a moral girding for her act of killing a perpetrator long after the threat.

I'm in no way saying that morality doesn't have an agreed upon meaning. I'm a bit baffled; I took great pains to make a distinction between the term "morality" and some personal devotion to a set of right or wrong actions. It seems pretty obvious to me that two moral people can have different moral responses to the same stimuli.

In the case of Islamic extremists...

their morality trancends the physical body, so they stone women for alleged immoral behavior as a means to defend the immortal soul from condemnation, and defend the collective spiritual life of the community. This same rationale justifies suicide bombings. So in their eyes, it is an act of self defense. I believe Muslims are being intentionally radicalized by perverted Islamic sects like Wahhabism. The purpose of which is to subvert a univerally accepted notion of morality. Wahhabism is the official sect of the Saudi royal family, which is on its face corrupt and immoral. And Saudi royals fund a global network of Islamic extremism. The following link demonstrates this.


And of course, the fascist US and Saudi regimes are "allies" in the War on Terror. They use each others fascist global policies to justify more immoral oppression of their respective populations. This Sunni/Anglo fascist agenda is part of the larger Sino/Shia, Sunni/Anglo fascist global agenda, which includes Communist China and its client state, Shia Iran. This immoral arrangement allows fascist regimes, with similar objectives, to play both sides of global conflicts intended to subvert universal notions of morality. Syria is a prime example, the US and Saudi regimes support the Islamic extremist Free Syrian Army, and China/Iran support Assad's brutal regime. This global scheme is designed to always leave the people with a choice between two evils. These short video clips demonstrate that China, a US partner, is arming Iran with nuclear and chemical weapons technology.


The end game of immoral fascist elites is to make China's totalitarian regime the new host of a Globalized Military Industrial Complex. Why? Because in spite of all its flaws, the U.S. is founded on universally accepted notions of morality. The US gov't, Federal Reserve and Wall Street are intentionally bankrupting the U.S. government. This bankruptcy will be used as an excuse to demilitarize the U.S. while China continues its military buildup. This short clip demonstrates China's "unprecedented military buildup."


Getting back to your comment, the death penalty is clearly the State acting in self defense on behalf of citizens.

And there are various punishments for murder, but universal agreement that murder is immoral.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Right, the Islamist who stone

Right, the Islamist who stone adulterers have a morality -- a system and foundation that justifies actions -- as you wrote, here defending the immortal soul and the community's spiritual health. I can call stoning immoral, if I don't agree, but not amoral.

The death penalty has certainly been touted as a deterrent to murder, which would make it in some ways self-defense. But that's a questionable claim. The alternative to the death penalty is life in prison. Either option removes the murderer from society. Unless you believe wholeheartedly that the DP is a deterrent, the DP then becomes more retaliatory than self defense. And you have to take the extra step of defining "self preservation" as not "self" in the usual meaning, but "self" in a collective meaning.

You wrote: And there are various punishments for murder, but universal agreement that murder is immoral.

Yes of course. Killing is the ambiguous term. Once a group's morality define the killing as immoral, it is labeled "murder." That's just definitional. For example, stoning would not be murder inside the morality of Islamist sects. It would be called murder within the U.S. The meanings of killing and murder are defined BY the GIVEN morality. (I mean GIVEN in the logic sense, in which you define your presuppositions. If I were arguing the nature of such a killing with an Islamist of this ilk, we would not agree on the definition of murder in this case and could not use it as a given to debate the morality of stoning for adultery.)

I can't see my previous post to check, but perhaps I didn't give the examples or moral killings in several other cultures' moralities. Ancient Hawaiians and Alaska native groups routinely killed one of any twins born. Many cultures have included blood feuds in their moralities, whereby it was moral to kill the relative of someone who had killed one of your relatives. I'm sure there's more examples, but those are a couple I happened to have researched for other reasons.

I'm kinda lumping what I remember from your previous post in here. I think you're conflating the meaning of a general term with the meaning of a specific term. Morality just refers to a group's set of accepted codes of conduct/thoughts/etc. A person within such a group can act immorally -- with disdain for, or in opposition to, that group's morality. A person outside that group can act immorally, according to that group's definition of morality. In order to act amorally, the person has to act with no regard or thought for any code of conduct that admits others have rights.

Say what you mean.

Mark, what you really mean to ask is, "Can unalienable rights exist in an anarchy"? Here is a perfectly good definition of free market capitalism. -A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.

None of that has to do with the system you are complaining about. You are angry at fat cats who use government to slant the playing field in their favor. You are misusing the term free market capitalism the same way most liberals do. The danger of that is that people who don't understand liberty and individual property rights hear "capitalism" and they think it is the system we have today, which they loathe. So then they aren't open to the ideas of individual liberty, because those ideas are linked to capitalism, which they have eroneously been taught to link to evil.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

You should say what you mean

Just admit you're an anarchist who opposes Ron Paul's concept of limited government. Why? You may have forgotten what you said in a previous post so here's the link.


Here's a couple of quotes from your comment:

"Mark, do you believe that taxation is theft, and thus morally wrong? I do, and that is an important part of what makes me a free market capitalist."

"A true free market capitalist would see taxation as theft of an individuals means of production by use of force, and thus, it is morally indefensible."

How can you support Ron Paul's concept of limited government without being willing to pay some taxes? And how can you support this country's founding documents, which created a limited government with the power to tax, when you oppose all taxes? The only way to eliminate all taxes is to eliminate government and create a stateless society, which is anarchy. So why don't you say what you mean and admit you're an anarchist who opposes the founding principles of this country. You want to eliminate our gov't as founded because it has the power to tax, so you sure don't support the second amendment.

I've consistently advocated for the rule of law and provided evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors that have not been prosecuted. I oppose criminals who commit fraud, bankrupt their business and extort Trillions of dollars from taxpayers by threatening to destroy our economy. I'm a capitalist, not a free market capitalist, who believes in Ron Paul's concept of limited government and the rule of law, which requires a minimal amount of taxation. So why don't you say what you mean and denounce Ron Paul for supporting a limited government with the power to tax?

If you go to my website, you'll see that I repeatedly make the case that Wall Street is not capitalist. Too Big To Fail is the antithesis of capitalism. Wall Street and Obama's ideology closely resembles the socialist fascism under Hitler and Mussolini, where corporations partnered with the State to create an oppressive political and economic regime. The current US regime is a socialist fascist regime from hell. Fascism is not anarchy, so I agree with you, the system I'm complaining about has nothing to do with free market capitalism.

I've never said I'm angry at "fat cats", that's the language of Occupy Wall Street fascists. OWS organizers are Goldman Sachs minions who push for more socialism while their Nazi leaders sip cocktails in Wall Street penthouses and collect gov't subsidies. For more on the OWS connection with fascist corporations check out the post below.


http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Not really.

Roads, mail service, and militias all existed before the federal government. You don't need taxes to have government. The government I'm talking about is simple: Members of a society agree to a founding set of rights (Bill of Rights) where individual property rights are the cornerstone. Any positions in government which the people deemed "necessary" would be part time, and filled by those who truly wish to be pulic servants, not those trying to get rich off the people. Government used to be a part time job, and in a free society, where small government is valued, those part time positions would easily be filled by patriots who felt the were called to service, not called to collect a paycheck. In a "Ron Paul" type country, this government would be so small that it really doesn't need to be paid for. They don't need to build roads, deliver mail (Lysander Spooner is a great example), or keep a standing army. Militias are part time volunteers and remember that when the colonies needed them, they joined. We didn't need them full time. In short, government doesn't require taxes because the only just government is one that doesn't steal from the governed. In that sense, all I mean when I say I support unalienable rights in a free market is that I support the people adhering to personal property rights, and when they don't, the volunteer government steps in to help individuals protect those rights.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Before the U.S.federal gov't...

the British King and colonial governments assessed taxes that provided services. Are you going to deny that the American Revolution wasn't primarily motivated by the opposition to excessive taxation without representation? The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights created a limited government that "secured" our rights and included the power to tax for necessary services. You say a Ron Paul type government would be so small the gov't wouldn't need to be paid for. You're not being honest. Ron Paul advocates for a return to the limited gov't described by the Constitution and that requires taxes to pay for it.

Previously you said taxes are "theft" and therefore "morally indefensible", no qualifications or equivocation. But because I've pointed out that you're really advocating for anarchy, you're trying to back out of that statement. Why don't you say what you really mean and admit you're an anarchist?


http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)


Again, we need to know what definitions we are using. I wrote an entire post about it if you'd like to read it. It's called "A government without taxes?"
In any case, lets take the dictionary.com definition of government: the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration.
Now, without taxes, lets take this example; Five men get together and agree to a system by which they all respect each other's property rights. If one man steals, the other 4 agree that they will use the smalles amount of force necessary to restore the property to the victim by taking it back from the theif. In this example, the 5 men don't need to hire a police chief, or congressmen. They simply agree to the idea that if one person steals from another, the others will intervene. By the definition, this is a political body who is "controlling" the actions of the theif. It doesn't require taxes, only the agreement of the memebers to respect individual rights. It isnt' anarchy because the five men have agreed to use force if any individual breaks the covenent of individual rights. None of them need to be paid however, nor do they need to have full time employees to enforce this agreement.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

I took your advice and changed the title of the post to..

"Obama, Wall Street, and the Federal Reserve, a Fascist Regime", because that's what I really mean.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

I agree with that definition of a free market and...

when talking about liberals we should include Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ben Bernanke, most of the Republican Party and all the CNBC hacks who use the term "free market capitalism" to equate crony crapitalism with the free market.

That was a point I failed to make clear in my post and that's my fault. As far as saying what I mean, I also believe there are many anarchist's who want to confuse Ron Paul's libertarian concept of limited gov't with anarchy. And I oppose that as much as I do the crony crapitalists who pretend to be for a free market.

Do you have any idea's on ending the Fed's exclusive franchise on our monetary supply?

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Who is......

John Galt......if all the producers of the nation simply quit producing the fed would self destruct.....but so to would our society.
Classic example of a moral hazard, damned if we do, damned if we dont.

So, if we are damned the answer should be to end it quickly and start the pain.

Reject Wall Street, reject plastic cards, reject any and all government assistance and live well beneath your means....and work for a better day.

The answer is for the people of this society to reject the idea it is acceptable to consume and spend the unborns future earnings so we can live beyond our means.

Our Constitution is a contract between the dead, the living and the unborn. We have lied to the dead and stolen from the unborn, we get what we deserve. Our debt is to live well beneath our means, we are falling miserably.

Strangling the Fed

I think a more practical solution was suggested by FBI_Exposer, which was to reverse the 1933 legislation giving the Fed an exclusive franchise over our money supply. Thereby forcing the Fed to compete with non fiat currencies, which would likely strangle the Fed over time.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)


That is the long drawn out game of incrementalism.....that is the philosophy of "making it work, backwards"
From my seat we lost our chances of this....making it work backwards.

At the core is a belief the elites already have their salvation and are immune from the deamons they unleash. One cannot incrementally dissolve moral corruption, one cannot defeat deamons with deamons.

Let us say we have competition in currencies, without addressing directly the perverse effects of the last one hundred years, then we have given false hope. We have "made our move" to no avail.........

The wars have begun.....choices have been made. Saving the currency will not heal the predictable effects of violating the dead and the unborn. Our job is to actually pay for the sins of our fathers.....not kick the can.

Your fatalistic attitude is exactly....

what the Fed, Wall Street and their bipartisan criminal co-conspirators want to hear. I agree with what you said in a previous comment, the producers have the power, not the non producers who run the Fed, Wall Street and gov't. We have the power to repudiate debt owed to Communist China based on national security concerns, unwind the parasitic paper banks that are Too Big To Fail, revoke the Fed's charter, and use the government's Constitutional power to issue sound money backed by silver, gold, oil, natural gas, etc.

Regarding paying for the sins of our fathers, I wouldn't count my father, grandfather, great grandfather, or great great grandfather, who came to this country as a LEGAL immigrant in the mid 1800's, among those who've committed financial sins.


http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Act of War

Repudiating the debt to China is an act of war.
We borrowed in good faith, from the communist, to live beyond our means.

An act of treason

Since 2000, the US has run a 2 Trillion dollar trade deficit with Communist China, an enemy of the U.S., and trade deficits add to the debt. Aiding the enemy is an act of treason and that's what US leaders are guilty of, as well as intentionally increasing US debt via trade deficits.

And what is China going to do? Stop selling trinkets to the US? HA! We've got them over the barrel, they need us far more than we need them.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)


Under our Constitution all nations are in a state of peace UNLESS the congress declares a state of war.....you do believe in the Constitution, right ?

Please reference the declaration of war as ratified by our Congress....

Chine is not an enemy, they loaned us our dollars back in good faith.

Why do we allow our government to borrow from the communist....is it because we buy so much cheap crap from Wal Mart ?


Action is where the power is, not speech.
I do not advocate empowering the fed, thus I own the mistakes.......

If you and yours are not responsible you cannot fix anything. The first step in problem solving is taking ownership for the problem. You cant fix what is not yours, can you ?

No such thing as financial sins.

Consider the words of Jefferson...http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html

No power in speech?

Then why is dictator Obama flapping his lips at one campaign stop after another instead taking, as you say, action? And why do fascist regimes and those who support them spend billions spreading propaganda? Because there is power in speech.

I do not take responsibility for "fixing" the problem, that's what the criminals that run gov't do. They "fix" things is the sense that someone might "fix" a boxing match by taking a fall.

I come from a long line of hard working producers that have made positive contributions to their communities and nation. But one can take responsibility for a problem they didn't create and that's what I do. I do what I can to restore sound money policies and good governance to our nation, even if my efforts seem to be in vain. But that doesn't matter because personal victory is achieved just by taking a stand on principle, no matter the odds.


http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)


Why does the mouthpiece run its mouth........its what they do.
His actions speak far louder than his words. The "peace" candidate, words.
The wars.....actions

Mark, as a person living here and advocating a Constitutional Republic then by default you must take responsibility for what your government does. Its our burden we have.....you know - Government by the people, for the people. Of course it is your responsibility to pay off the debt our fathers left us.....explain how it is not in the land of personal responsibility ?

Nothing personal here, Mark. Just talking about us, thats all.

Consider this - Man works honestly, buys a house. Saves up his standard 20% and borrows the rest from the "bank". THe bank did not loan him real capital, he loaned him money from thin air. This new money got its value by stealing it from other monies earned, including this mans 20%. So here the honest man goes, paying his loan to the bank. He ends up paying a lot more than he borrowed.....yet the bank did not print the interest monies, they have to come from somebody else. Its real, good men borrow stolen loot and pay back the thieves.....and never once think about the person who lost value to make the original loan from thin air.

The honest man borrowed the money from himself and his neighbors, for its real value was created by inflation. Yet he pays back the bank, who never returns the value stolen to create money from thin air. Is it moral to do this, borrow stolen money and pay back the thief ?

Government derives it's just powers from...

the CONSENT of the governed. The current US gov't is illegitimate and it's powers are not just or derived from the consent of the governed. It is a fascist dictatorship and the fact that you defend the dictatorship as a legitimate form of representative gov't is revealing.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)


Mark, you totally avoided my post and then put up this straw man......

It is not a fascist dictatorship, it is a crumbling Republic.

Can an honest man borrow money from a corrupt bank and maintain his morality ?
If you know for a fact the banks are debasing the currency, are you an accomplice if you borrow the stolen loot ?