-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.

Not to thread-jack, but what

Not to thread-jack, but what term would you consider correct for "negative numbers"?

End The Fed!
BTC: 1A3JAJwLVG2pz8GLfdgWhcePMtc3ozgWtz

I've never come up with a

I've never come up with a better one, probably part of why I decided to quit rebelling against the term. I do kind of translate the term in my head to an image of the number's direction. I finally "got" the whole concept when my husband, an engineer, said that the negative just meant the number was heading south. The directional explanation was a light bulb moment for me -- long after college math classes were done. I'm slowly working my way through calculus with him; I doubt I could if I was still frustrated by the term.

I haven't been misled because I believe...

a truly free market has never existed in the past, doesn't exist now, and will never exist in the future. Even in the absence on all laws, morals, customs and traditions, a.k.a. anarchy, the strong will dominate the weak and this is a form of market regulation. So the term "free market" is an insidious contradiction in terms that's used to promote an anarchical economic model, or in some cases, the command/control model practiced by monopolies and cartels. I wrote the post as a means to clarify which economic model offers the most freedom while allowing for the exercise of unalienable rights. And that economic model is a competitive capitalist economy that operates within the legal and moral parameters of a Constitutional Republic.

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

But there you go again. This

But there you go again. This time choosing your own definition of anarchy (as without morals, customs and traditions). I'm guessing you're as frustrated in trying to get anywhere in communicating as I am in trying to communicate with you. We have to agree on basic meanings of words or else communication is lost. You don't want to accept agreed upon definitions, and I get that frustration. I also get that you have to get over that if you want to communicate.

Why not just try, as a thought experiment to re-imagining your original post with a tacit acquiescence to the prevalent definitions of "free market" and "anarchy"? See what you'd end up with. See what you're really wishing to discuss aside from the nomenclature you've got your panties in a wad about. No harm, right? It might skip you off to the ideas you're actually grappling with or trying to convince about.

I've looked up the definition of anarchy and...

my description comports with the prevalent definition. In an anarchical environment, there is no agreed upon societal structure, i.e., morals, customs, traditions and laws. It's all subjective, so each individual decides for themself what is right or wrong, proper or improper, etc.

As for the prevalent definition of free markets, anarchists say they're free market, monopolies and cartels say they're free market, capitalists say they're free market, libertarians say they're free market, Constitutionalists say they're free market, and scholars disagree about the definition of free markets, so which is the prevalent definition?

At least my definition of a free market is rational and consistent, which is that free markets are a figment of the imagination, because even in the absence of all agreed upon rules, morals, customs and traditions, a.k.a. anarchy, the strong will dominate the weak and that is a form of regulation. And the existence of regulation precludes the existence of a free market. Professional hair splitters can perpetually talk in circles but that doesn't change the fact that I'm right.

You're assuming I'm frustrated but most of the people commenting want to have a legitimate discussion about free markets and rights. I enjoy that in spite of the disagreements. Hearing and discussing different ideas enriches ones life. I even enjoy wrangling with professional hair splitters, in spite of their inability to have a rational, intellectually honest dialogue.

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

I said professional hairsplitters can ....

perpetually talk in circles but that doesn't change the fact that I'm right. Hmmm? Too arrogant. Should've said that I'm just pointing out self evident truths.

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

To say that free trade does

To say that free trade has never existed is to say that the Black Market has never existed.

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

Natural law exists and that's the form of regulation...

that I'm referring to when I say a pure form of free trade or free markets cannot exist. And every nation has some regulations on trade. The black market operates outside the laws of nation states but not natural law.

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

Well then it must be

Well then it must be concluded that in order to have free markets, there must be an ABSENCE of government.

I've never heard anyone claim that the free market does not have a natural regulating mechanism, in fact that is what I've always understood the free market to be. A market that regulates itself, free of government regulations.

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

Even in the absence of gov't...

the strong will dominate the weak, and this is a form of market regulation, albeit, self regulation. Your definition of free markets, i.e., self regulating markets in the absence of gov't, is identical to Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan's definition of free markets. How did that work out? After the subprime bubble burst, even Greenspan admitted his free market ideology had failed.

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

Are you trying to suggest

Are you trying to suggest there was a free market during the time of Alan Greenspan? There has not been a free market since the Constitution was written, save the Black Market.

Natural Law relates to law as seen in nature. This would have to include that the strong will dominate the weak. As man is himself an animal, he is also subject to its laws. Today men dominate the weak of "mind". Dominance is accomplished by government, and this is only possible due to man's ability to convince the masses that government is necessary.

This is essentially the argument that you are making, that government is necessary to protect the weak from the strong. How's that working out?

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

It' not working out as intended because....

humans are inherently flawed so the governments they create are inherently flawed. That's why I support Ron Paul's libertarian concept of limited gov't. It's far from perfect but it's the best we can do in an imperfect world.

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

Those who created the

Those who created the Articles of Confederation created limited government. But since it had no authority whatsoever to tax, something new was needed...

Yes, humans are flawed. They think government will protect the weak from the strong. Yet man is an animal, a creation of nature. And subject to its laws...

The strong dominate the weak, there is no escaping this. It is a law of nature. When governments are instituted, the strong will dominate government, and the weak.

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

You must have a crystal ball because...

the last chapter of that book had yet to be written. And I predict you will be on the wrong side of history.

Are you only opposed to gov't that has the power to tax, or gov't in general because it has the ability to criminalize the actions of some who would steal, defraud and kill as a means to compete?

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

I'm only opposed to goverment

I'm only opposed to goverment that has power over the people, instead of government where people have the power.

In a republican form of government, the governments power is only titular. The People hold the real power. The government would be free to enact any law they wanted to. When an Individual was brought before the people for trial, the people would decide upon the Law, not a group of 9 judges who were a part of the very government who had created the law to begin with.

A jury of 12 peers would not only decide if I had violated a statute, but they would also decide if the statute was just. If only ONE of those 12 disagreed with the statute, then there would be no conviction. Only the most obvious of laws (rape, murder, theft, ect.) would likely stand up to such a jury. Any law found to be just by all 12, would be enacted equal the same on the 12.

It is unlikely that corporate immunity could exist under such a system. It is unlikely that an individual would be punished failure to submit to government confiscation under such a system. It is likely that widely accepted free market code of conduct would be enforced under such system.

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

I reject the notion of a free market, but...

your definition of a free market, a self regulating market in the absence of gov't, is identical to Greenspan's definition of a free market. A real world example of your (and Greenspan's) definition of a free market is the dark derivatives market, which operates outside of gov't regulation. And the notional value of this dark market, a.k.a. black market, is estimated to be over 600 Trillion. And it was the unchecked risk inherent in this black market that precipitated the financial crisis.

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

The participants in the

The participants in the derivatives markets are corporations. These corporations are creations of government. They operate under government regulation that sees them a legal persons. The corporations commit felonies, and they see these crimes a simply the cost of doing business. No individual is punished for these felonies. This is the "privileges and immunities" of a legal person. Thus the benefit of incorporating, government protection from felony acts.

If the derivatives market collapses there will be a handful of individuals who walk away unscathed and will profit handsomely from the whole ordeal. Yet without corporate protection created by government regulation, these individuals would not be willing to enter into such risk, both the risk of their own money and the risk of possible prison time.

Without government regulation the derivatives market would not exist to the extent that it does with government immunities.

The subprime markets would never have existed without government created agencies Fannie Mae, Feddy Mac and HUD.

The Black Market does not operate with these immunities, nor with the advantage of government guarantees against loose.

It is the insistence that government is required to protect the weak that allows the creation of these agencies that in fact prey upon the weak. None of these agencies/institutions of government creation could exist WITHOUT government.

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

You're arguing with the wrong person...

I reject the entire notion of free markets and am just using your, and Greespan's definition to point out that free market is a contradiction in terms. Even indigenous societies with no written rules or formal gov't, have codes of conduct governing trade and business practices in general. I know it's hard for you to accept this reality but, that's life.

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

But Greenspan's definition of

But Greenspan's definition of a free market included government regulation, hence the failure of his free market was not the failure of a free market. Just because Greenspan calls it a free market does not make it so.

The free market most definitely has rules of conduct. But ALL players in a free market play by those rules. In Greenspan's free market individuals can operate under corporate immunities, unlike unincorporated individuals. Some players have advantage over others, through government interference of free markets.

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

So you claim your definition of a free market is...

different from Greenspan's, which is the same definition used by the financial industry. Sounds like you're splitting hairs. In my last comment I referenced indigenous societies that have no formal gov't, and yet, they enforce an agreed upon code of conduct on business and trade. Can you give one real life example, not just some figment of your imagination, that fits your personal definition of a free market?

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

I already gave an example of

I already gave an example of a free market. The Black Market.
Unregulated, untaxed.

The regulated market stands no chance of survival against the Black Market. Thus the reason for it being outlawed.

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

So there is no...

agreed upon code of conduct (gov't), written or unwritten, regulating participants in a black market? You are consistently inconsistent. You're trying to justify criminal activity that even indigenous societies deem unacceptable. Your ideology is a threat to civil society, but thankfully, we have a gov't and laws that protect your right think and speak freely about your criminal ideology.

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)

Actually I have consistently

Actually I have consistently said that the free market is self regulated. I have not justified any criminal activity. Selling an item for a profit is not a crime. Not paying taxes upon that profit is not a crime. It is illegal, by government regulation.

If government decrees that an individual must surrender their first born, it is not a crime when the parent refuses, it is only a violation of statute. Most indigenous societies would agree that it was the STATUTE that was the crime.

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

So in the free market you define, there is...

regulation, but participants arbitrarily decide which acts are criminal and which are not? You say humans are just another animal, and animals have no notion of what is criminal or not criminal. So you're argument is riddled with inconsistencies that you cannot reconcile. Nice chatting with you. Have a good, or not good day, depending on your definition of good.

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

I never said that animals

I never said that animals have no notion of what is criminal or not criminal. Go stick you hand in a bees nest. Go try to take a bear cub from its mother. YOU don't need a law book to understand those are criminal actions. If you do not understand such, you WILL understand it after you try.

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

So now you're saying...

the instinctual self preservation exhibited by bees equates to the legal system created by humans, which is based on morality that transcends the the strong dominate the weak principle? The legal system created by humans has many examples of the law protecting the weak from the strong. This moral code in non-existant in the world of wild animals, which may instinctually protect their own young but prey upon the young of others. If you think instinct and morality are the same thing, we'll have to agree to disagree.

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

I never said anything even

I never said anything even remotely close to such, that the Laws of Nature equate to the legal system. In fact, quite contrary. The laws of nature exist, they are not created and they are never ending. The legal system is created, and changes all the time.

Nature only preys on the weak as a means of survival, of necessity. A predator may encounter numerous prey, but only takes what he needs out of necessity. There is no violation of "code" is such, it is the way the world turns. Pack animals may have a dominant individual that "leads" the pack, the strongest of the pack. But the weakest of the pack stays by choice and benefit, not by force. The idea that the legal system is based upon morality is laughable. That it SHOULD be, I agree. It is not, it is based upon the strong dominating the weak through government decree.

I would agree that the legal system has many examples of protecting the weak from the strong. It also has many more examples of the ILLUSION of protecting the weak from the strong, and in so doing conquering the weak for the benefit of the strong. The 14th Amendment which created the legal person is one example where the legal system pretended to protect the weak, but in fact created the Corporate personhood which enabled certain individuals to circumvent justice in economic matters. Most of the ill we face today are the result of the 14th Amendment and the creation of corporate personhood, including 650 trillion in derivatives. Individuals, including very wealthy ones would not risk their life and fortunes to the extent that we currently see. Corporate personhood with its immunity from the law for individuals removes those risks.

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

Care to suggest ideas to end the Fed's monopoly on...

our money supply? I'm starting a new thread on the topic so click on "new comment" and post it at the top of the page. Thanks for the input.

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

A free market has nothing to do with abandoning the rule of law.

"Agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise."
~Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801.

"I think all the world would gain by setting commerce at perfect liberty."
~Thomas Jefferson letter to John Adams, 31 July 1785

"Harmony, liberal intercourse with all Nations, are recommended by policy, humanity and interest. But even our Commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favours or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of Commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with Powers so disposed; in order to give trade a stable course."
~George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

Is there such thing as a free market monopoly?

Can you show me an example or name one?

If the market is free from political intervention how could buying the influence of politicians help to build a monopoly?

I have time linked to a specific place in the short film below to a section on monopoly and the free market (although, it is worth watching the whole film[55 mins] from the beginning).

The Incredible Bread Machine Film:

http://youtu.be/ycGRERrGsMo?t=23m3s

[Disclaimer: The commentary before and after the short film above is not provided by Austrian School economists]

For an Austrian overview on the subject of monopoly and competition you could start by listening to the audio lecture below:

http://mises.org/media/5219/Monopoly-and-Competition

As for the law, why would you presume that a free market would not be possible without a rule of law?

A free market has its roots in property rights, whereas the law has its roots in protecting those rights.

Below is a link to a short but excellent essay on the law in a society based on property rights and freedom.

This excerpt is from the introduction:

The Law, first published as a pamphlet in June, 1850, is already more than a hundred years old. And because its truths are eternal, it will still be read when another century has passed.

Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) was a French economist, statesman, and author. He did most of his writing during the years just before — and immediately following — the Revolution of February 1848. This was the period when France was rapidly turning to complete socialism.

As a Deputy to the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Bastiat was studying and explaining each socialist fallacy as it appeared. And he explained how socialism must inevitably degenerate into communism. But most of his countrymen chose to ignore his logic.

The Law is here presented again because the same situation exists in America today as in the France of 1848. The same socialist-communist ideas and plans that were then adopted in France are now sweeping America.

The explanations and arguments then advanced against socialism by Mr. Bastiat are — word for word — equally valid today. His ideas deserve a serious hearing.

The Law by Frederick Bastiat:

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G002

If you do take the time to look into these subjects I would be very interested in what you think.