-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".

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3343308
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3343222
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3343218

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".

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1047

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.

http://www.dailypaul.com/274979

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.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=917
http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=523

Comment viewing options

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

It depends on your

It depends on your definition.

In my view, government is part of the free market. Government is a specific response by those who cannot "win" in a market without government. Similar, to any other groups or individual that come up with novel ways to win in a market that they are losing in...

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Your point that gov't is part of the free market has been....

a major point of contention in the comments on this post. A couple comments above yours is a comment by snakepit22. He and I went 12 rounds disputing the point your making. In the end I have to defend the prevalent definition of a free market which is a market economy with little or no gov't intervention.

I initially supported your position because all the biggest players in our economy are in bed with gov't, and one could even say they are the gov't. But ultimately I think it's best to defend the prevalent definition of free market capitalism, i.e., little or no gov't intervention.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me

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

All I am saying is that in

All I am saying is that in the pure anarchist definition, where whatever happens, happens, government is part of the free market.

Personally, I've never understood the radicalization on this issue. Liberals/Progressives want everything to be regulated, conservatives/libertarians want nothing to be regulated.

Moreover, I've seen very few people address the fact that regulation, public or private, doesn't really seem to work. Much of the food we eat and the air we breathe is regulated, yet that doesn't stop companies from selling poison and polluting the environment. The financial markets were largely regulated by private entities and private money (the investment system), and we saw how that collapsed.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

This seems contrary to...

what the anarchists have been saying in previous comments. They argue that a completely free market means the absence of gov't. That is until it serves their purpose to argue otherwise.

Saying conservatives and libertarians want no regulation is incorrect. Libertarian Ron Paul advocates for limited government, which explicitly means some regulation. I'm a conservative and support the concept of limited government with minimal taxation and regulation.

Your framing of the choices, i.e., the left wants to regulate everything and the right wants no regulation, precludes a reasonable middle ground. Bipartisan leaders and media deliberately eliminate a middle ground option for the purpose of dividing the electorate and leaving citizens with a choice between two evils.

Also, I believe that insiders who craft regulation, do so in a way that's intended not to work. Then they say that representative gov't doesn't work and the people are getting what they deserve. It's about shifting blame for crimes committed by elected leaders onto voters, who only have a choice between two evils.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me

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

Rights always exist.

Rights always exist.

I belive that too because....

that's the way the Creator made the world. But we also live in a state of duality, i.e., the knowledge of good and evil. And people can choose to do evil and restrict the ability of others to exercise their rights. So as the founders said in the Declaration, we must institute a gov't to "secure" those rights. (even though they already exist)

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

Or you could have market

Or you could have market alternatives to government.

What would those market alternatives be and....

how would they "secure" unalienable rights like free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, etc., because it's possible that dominant forces in market alternatives to to gov't would try to infringe on those rights, just like big government tries to infringe on those rights.

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

Free Market is Effect not Cause

I believe in Ayn Rands definition of free market capitalism: the economic system that results from protecting the individual rights to life liberty, property (and contract). I consider myself first an foremost a proponent of equal, individual rights.

CNBC is full of "free market capitalists"

I watch CNBC not because I believe their BS, but because I like to read between the lines of their criminal crony dialogue. And one of their favorite phrases is "free market capitalism". Why do you think the crony crapitalists on CNBC lie about who they are? It's because they want the world to think that cronyism is capitalism. Same with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and the list goes on. They're doing everything they can to pervert the meaning of free market capitalism. A lot of people buy into their BS, and like cockroaches, carry the perverted concept of capitalism back into their nest and spread it around. And that's why millions of people believe that crony CRAPitalism is free market capitalism.

Why do you think CRAPitalists spend billions on propaganda to spread their CRAPitalist disease? Because propaganda works! If true capitalists are going to counter the crapitalist plague, we can't allow their propaganda to go unchallenged. Let's get one thing straight, America's market economy is nearly extinct. Even mom and pop businesses are going to have to play the crapitalist game to survive. And crapitalists have their minions on the ground telling us to forget about being a legitimate businessman, just join your local organized crime cartel and get you piece of the pie. For those who want to get the mark of the beast in exchange for their soul, good luck with that.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me

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

A better question:

Can a free market exist without unalienable rights?
Or, can a freemarket exist in a culture of caos?

The purpose of this thread eludes me.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Purpose of the post and thread

Greenspan has trashed the reputation of the free market ideology. Did this just "happen". I don't think so. I think Greenspan, the Fed board, the FOMC, and Too Big To Fail (TBTF) banks despise the idea of a free market, or as I prefer to call it, competitive capitalism. I believe they deregulated derivatives for the purpose of letting it explode. The Fed and TBTF banks have never had more power, and it's largely due to the financial crisis. Coincidence? I don't think so. How could the Fed let the dark derivatives market grow to over 650 Trillion and not expect a disaster? It's not possible for me to believe the financial crisis was an accident.

They've intentionally destroyed the public image of a free market, so if liberty lovers are going to successfully advocate for a libertarian economy, we have to drop the term "free market" and redefine it as competitive capitalism within the moral framework of limited government. If not, we don't have a snowballs chance of restoring a market economy in America. Anyone using the term free market, is following the lead of crony crapitalists claiming to be free market. And that's helping them put the final nail in the coffin of our market economy. Words and definitions matter, so libertarians and Constitutionalists must be clear about the language and definitions we use to advocate for a market economy.

That's part of the purpose of my post and thread. The other part is to offer possible solutions, and hopefully hear others propose possible solutions for restoring a market economy in America. Because right now, crony crapitalism rules. I won't even associate the word capitalism with cronyism, so I call it CRAPitalism. If you think I might be a socialist pretending to be a Constitutionalist, check out my post on gun control. Here's the link.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1264

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

Crapitalism is a good meme

I think I will use it.

Please do use it

Here's another:

Stock Portfolio=Stock PortFOOLio

http://www.standupforyourrights.me

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

Definition of Free Market: A

Definition of Free Market:
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.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp#ixzz2Lwbx...

an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government.
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/free%20market

Can Alan Greenspan's economy truthfully be said to be free from government intervention, free from government subsidies, free from taxation??? I would think it an obvious farce to consider the economy of Alan Greenspan a free market.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

The Fed and the Free Market

Since 1933, an exclusive monopoly over the national monetary supply was granted by Congress to one bank (or banking cartel).

Prior to that, even 1913-1933, the nations money supply was private and any bank (that met standards) could issue money.

So, there's an a priori issue when discussing "the free market" in the US which is that the monetary market itself is a nationalized and socialized market, as there is one and only one supplier under law.

We can't even discuss a free market until the exclusive franchise on money has been revoked.

Interestingly and as an aside, you do not have to "end the fed" to do this. You just need to take away their exclusive franchise and the Fed will end ITSELF as a result of producing an inferior product to competing monetary products produced by other market players.

Let's end the Fed's exclusive franchise, suggestions?

Do we even know what the U.S. has for gold reserves? And given that China and Russia are buying so much gold, are they better positioned to return to a gold standard? I would be interested in hearing your ideas on ending the Fed's franchise because, like you said, that's the number one road block to a market economy.

I think you've raised a very important point and rather than quibble over terminology, i.e., free market vs. capitalism, post a new comment on this topic and start a thread on this topic. Sorry if my comments were on the snarky side, It's just that I'm sick of hearing crony CRAPitalists in the media pretend to be practitioners of free market principles.

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

It would take a congressional bill...

...to reverse the bill passed in 1933 granting exclusive franchise.

Naturally, the fed and the PTPB will argue that to do such a thing will mean the end of the world and Revelation-style world-wide tribulation - which is of course ridiculous.

But it's strong persuasion for the weak-spined swine called Congressmen who would likely buckle under that pressure and not pass such a bill.

What was the name...

of the 1933 bill that should be reversed?

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

I think it was...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Banking_Act

But there's some more detail i need to research as the last dated privately issued united states currency note was 1929, dated 1929 anyway. So, it could be that there was an intervening act between 1929 and 1933, but i dont believe so. i believe the last date of issuance was simply 1929.

btw, for reference
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/058310-2009-09-25-gol...

Thanks for the info

I'll take a look at it.

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

The end of the world argument was used to pass TARP...

and I'm sure it would be used again to protect the Fed's control of our money supply. But even if they had the means to cause a global depression, I think that's a risk we have to take.

The people will have to be the backbone of our spineless members of Congress and in order for that to happen, we have to be like Thomas Paine and use media tools to build a ground swell of support that could force a monetary revolution. The founders understood the price of freedom, total committment with no guarantee of success.

What do you think would be the vehicle to compete with the Fed after it's exclusive franchise is revoked?

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

I don't think we need to define that.

a) the free market will define it, but I know you are critical of that from this thread as being too "theoretical" EXCEPT

b) we have actual examples of it from 1783-1929 where private banks issued united states dollars in coin and script form, who were not the Fed and it worked fine

Putting a) and b) together, I don't think it would take long to have a functioning privatized currency market again. Just in the past few years we have bitcoin, e-gold, Liberty Dollars, etc., that a lot of people are chomping at the bit to use and where solutions have even been made web-based for electronic exchange.

As far as what "backs" the currency, who the h*ll cares?!?!?!
I personally would prefer a currency backed by precious metal, and that may be the one I choose to accept, but let Gresham's law and the market determine what is best to back a currency.

The market will determine what the superior private money issues are, i.e. the banks that produce the best privatized United States Dollars, just like it did before. And nothing could be worse than what we have today under the Fed's monopoly franchise. It can only get better.

The market will decide

Assuming there is a market economy, which there isn't. The US economy is a command/control economy. So are you saying we should let the command and control freaks dictate who wins and loses?

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

I think the goal of allowing a "private" bank...

and market establish a sound money policy is unatainable (kind of like the mineral "unobtainium" in the movie Avatar) because the end game will always be something like the Fed. This is demonstrated by the history of Western banking. Thomas Jefferson believed that allowing private banks to control the nations currency would lead to economic slavery, and I agree with Jefferson. June 4, 1963, President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110. This returned to the U.S. government, the power to issue currency backed by silver without going through the Federal Reserve. But a few months later, after his assassination, the U.S. government discontinued issuing currency backed by silver.

I think the solution is an electorate that understands the fundamentals of monetary policy. The ten minute video below is about the NWO and includes Ron Paul, Henry Kissinger, and Bush 41 talking about the NWO. Near the end, it accurately describes the basics of the Fed's fascist monetary policy. At the very end it makes a religious statement, some of which I don't agree with. But the basic facts about the Fed could easily be taught in high school, this would create an informed electorate capable of determining a "sound money" monetary policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=t57SISVNy6Q...

In 1929, global markets crashed and the world was plunged into the Great Depression. Congressman Louis T. McFadden believed the Federal Reserve was largely responsible for the Great Depression. McFadden had been President of the Pennsylvania Bankers Association, President of the First National Bank of Canton, and Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee for ten years when he made a speech denouncing the Federal Reserve. The following is an excerpt from his speech to the U.S. House of Representatives on June 10, 1932:

"In 1912 the National Monetary Association, under the chairmanship of the late Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, made a report and presented a vicious bill called the National Reserve Association bill. Senator Aldrich did not write the Aldrich bill. He was the tool, but not the accomplice of European born bankers who for nearly twenty years, had been scheming to set up a central bank in this country and who in 1912 spent, and were continuing to spend, vast sums of money to accomplish their purpose.

The Aldrich bill was condemned in the [campaign] platform upon which Theodore Roosevelt was nominated in 1912, and in that same year, when Woodrow Wilson was nominated, the Democratic platform as adopted at the Baltimore convention expressly stated: "We are opposed to the Aldrich plan for a central bank." This was plain language. The men who ruled the Democratic Party then promised the people that, if they were returned to power, there would be no central bank established while they held the reigns of government.

Thirteen months later that promise was broken, and Wilson's administration, under the tutelage of those sinister Wall Street figures who stood behind Colonel House [Wilson's advisor], established here in our free country the worm eaten monarchical institution of the "kings bank", to control us from the top downward and shackle us from the cradle to the grave. The Federal Reserve Act destroyed our old and characteristic way of doing business...it fastened down upon this country the very tyranny from which the framers of the Constitution sought to save us."

I think this scenario will be repeated again and again until the lessons of history are learned, i.e., allowing "private" banks to control our nations currency will lead to economic slavery. The following is an excerpt from President Lincoln's speech on monetary policy. The source is the U.S. Library of Congress, No. 23, 76th Congress, 1st session, p. 91.

"The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency. The privilege of creating and issuing money, is not only the supreme prerogative of the government, but it is the government's greatest creative opportunity. By adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power."

You can find more info on U.S. monetary policy in the pdf file titled "Knowledge is Power" under the section titled "A brief overview of U.S. monetary policy". Here's the link.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1026

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

Why?

We had private currency until 1933.

The difference is that the constitution dictated what constituted LAWFUL CURRENCY.

The private currency did have to conform to the constitutional standard of lawful currency under the constitution.

The situation with the fed is not a problem with private currency, it's a problem with exclusive franchise. All private currency and lawful money was confiscated in 1933 and replaced with the new Fed notes once the monopoly franchise had been put in place.

I answered your question...

in the previous comment. First of all, as a taxpayer, I don't want to pay interest on gov't debt. And one can't make the argument that interest on gov't debt has restrained gov't spending. Throughout the history of Western banking, allowing private banks to control the money supply of sovereign nations has always resulted in tyranny. That's why Mayer Rothschild said "let me control a nation's money supply and I care not who makes its laws". And he has been proven right over and over again.

Check out the section "A brief overview of U.S. monetary policy" in the pdf titled "Knowledge is Power". Here's the link.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1026

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

I think you are not connecting the dots.

The private currency issued per the lawful money constitutional standard prior to 1933 were not backed by debt, hence there were no taxes to pay to support it.

The reason you are forced to pay federal income taxes, as the 1986 Grace Commission Report demonstrates, is to pay the bonds backing federal reserve notes, very specifically.

100% of income tax receipts, per the report, are collected by the IRS for delivery (100%) to the fed to buy back bonds.

Remove the fed's exclusive franchise, the fed will end itself. Private currencies based on the constitutional lawful money standard, per Gresham's Law will prevail.

So you're saying that prior to 1933 the U.S. gov't...

didn't have to pay interest on debt because of the constitutional lawful money standard? During the Civil War, private banks were extorting over 20% interest from the U.S. gov't, that's why Lincoln began issuing greenbacks.

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

Thank you for making my point.

As your definition said: "a completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy", i.e., a completely free market has never existed in the past, does not exist now, and will never exist in the future.

And a market economy with minimal gov't regulation is what I've described and advocated for in my post. By minimal I mean a balance between regulation and markets that ensures price discovery based on supply and demand, the efficient allocation of resources, and success in the market based on merit, not privilege. This balance is necessary for the exercise of unalienable rights.

You asked if Greenspan's economy was free from gov't intervention, subsidies and taxation? What you've described is a completely free market, and as your definition states, a completely free market is the ideal and does not exist. Greenspan's dark derivatives market is an extreme version of a deregulated market economy that demonstrates the need to regulate the dark side of human nature.

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