-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.

You've helped me rethink my position...

on the free market. My original post was intended to challenge the Wall Street crony CRAPitalists attempt to equate their cronyism with a free market. Sorry if I was dismissive of your comments.

Recent comments have raised the issue of ending the Fed's monopoly on our money supply. Do you have any suggestions? Click on "new comment" and start a new thread at the top of the page on this issue or something else you think is important. Thanks for your 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 can mean abandoning the rule of law...

because someone could define a free market as being free to steal, defraud and kill as means to compete, a.k.a. anarchy.

I'm discussing the idea of a free market in the context of a Constitutional Republic, which is based on the rule of law. And in a rules based society, a truly free market cannot exist. So the economic model that provides the greatest amount of freedom in a rules based society is a competitive, capitalist market economy. Recognizing the difference between a free market and competitive capitalism is important because monopolies and cartels use the term "free market" to equate their command/control economic model with capitalism. And command/control economies are the opposite of capitalism, not to mention the imaginary 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)

Excellent points but I'm afraid you've reached an incorrect

conclusion. Quote:

“When mores are sufficient, laws are unnecessary; when mores are insufficient, laws are unenforceable.”

― Émile Durkheim

In other words, in a moral society laws are unnecessary. Why are there laws against murder and theft when everybody already knows they are wrong? It's against the law to lie in court but other than that it is apparently ok to lie and fib to others because no law exists (other than the ten commandments) to tell us it is wrong?

Laws are used as much to take certain rights away nearly as often as they are used to protect them. 'Eye for an eye' and 'old-west' justice are now forbidden and labeled as 'taking the law into your own hands'. Also against the law are notions like 'my house, my rules', 'my way or the highway', 'that's how we do things around here'. All imply that if someone doesn't like a situation they are free to go somewhere else where things are different but the 'law' steps in and interferes with the free-market scenario implied by 'my house, my rules' and forces the homeowner to act against their own desires...

Laws also sometimes directly prevent free-market activity like competition by creating unnecessary laws such as laws against 'loss leaders' in retail. Loss leaders are things that are sold at less than cost in an effort to get customers in the door in the hopes they'll buy something else that offers a profit. Some would say that laws are needed to protect smaller businesses that can't compete when it is apparent, as the recent leaked memo from Walmart demonstrates, that the greater laws of business and supply and demand will trump legislation every time; the most obvious solution for Walmart's problems will be to raise prices which proves that selling as they do at super-tiny margins is overall a bad business decision in the long, long run.

I saw the best minds of my generation, destroyed by pandas starving hysterical naked

-Allen Ginsberg

You asked the question...

"Why are there laws against murder and theft when everybody already knows they are wrong?" Simple, people can choose to do what they know is wrong. That's why civil society requires a gov't based on the rule of law, and a mechanism to enforce the law. That can be something as simple as an unwritten tribal code of behavior that's enforced by the tribe.

You said, "Laws are used as much to take certain rights away nearly as often as they are used to protect them." That's true because the law can be used to do wrong, and that's precisely why Ron Paul, and I, advocate for limited government. We need gov't based on the rule of law because people can choose to do what they know is wrong, but we need limited gov't because people in gov't can also use the law to do wrong. Finding the proper balance between gov't and individual liberties is the key. And in spite of the inherent flaws in this system(human nature is flawed therefore government is flawed)it's the best we can do in an imperfect world.

But irregardless of circumstances, a truly free market does not exist, period. Let's assume there are no morals, customs, laws, traditions, etc., a blank slate. You're only free to engage in market activities until someone stronger decides to interfere with your activities. So the regulatory structure is the strong dominate the weak, a.k.a. anarchy.

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 advocating for rule of law or rule of punishment?

Because murder and theft certainly have to answer for themselves and face judgement and punishment even in a fabled 'old west' scenario. And even the justice of a posse has to answer to the law. If they mete out more 'justice' than is deserved, or commit any other crime, they would have to answer for that to another judge, jury and executioner of form.

Don't get me wrong - I up-voted your post but sort of have to down-vote your penultimate paragraph. Your making me think critically about things that wouldn't have occurred to me anywhere else but the Daily Paul.

I saw the best minds of my generation, destroyed by pandas starving hysterical naked

-Allen Ginsberg

In my days selling candles in bars...

I would regularly accept beer and cigarettes in lieu of cash. Instead of paying $2.50 for a pint of beer I'd get a pint out of a pitcher that cost them $6.50. Cigarettes were equivalent to 50 cents each.

It worked out to an advantage for them and me by using these alternate forms of currency.

And when it came time to pay sales tax on these particular transactions I mailed an envelope full of cigarette butts to the state.

I saw the best minds of my generation, destroyed by pandas starving hysterical naked

-Allen Ginsberg

That's funny and creative so....

you should post what you've said as a new comment and start a new thread at the top of the page for people to get in on. Thanks for your input.

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

What do think about the Fed's monopoly...

control of our money supply. Some recent comments raised the issue that the Fed makes it nearly impossible to exercise free market principles.

The reason I wrote the original post was point out that Wall Street crony CRAPitalists call themselves free market advocates for the purpose of convincing people that cronyism is capitalism. But I want to get beyond that issue and discuss possible solutions to ending the Fed's monopoly. Thanks for participating in the discussion.

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)

Based on your comment, I made some changes to...

my penultimate paragraph that you may or may not find more agreeable. Thanks for the input. DP is kind of like open source programming for economic and political systems.

The rule of law cannot exist without punishment. But the punishment should fit the crime. And punishment should be severe enough to provide an effective deterrent, keeping in mind that no level of punishment will ever deter all crime.

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)

Unalienable rights refer to individuals.

Free markets refers to bussiness

That's right but....

in the late 1800's, the owners of large corporations began suing States claiming they were person's based on the 14th Amendment. A corrupt Supreme Court eventually established corporate personhood and this has been used to usurp the rights of individuals. I say corrupt Supreme Court because the founders did not confer the unalienable rights of individuals on businesses and 100 years passed before a corrupt Supreme Court decided otherwise.

What do think about ending the Fed's monopoly on our money supply? Post a new comment on this topic or something else you think is important and start a new thread that others can get in on.

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)

And nowhere else.

The term "free market" is no more misleading than the terms "free will", "free minds", or "free men". That which is free is unrestrained from artificial encumbrances. Free minds are regulated by reason, free men are regulated by physics, and free markets are regulated just as rigorously and just as mercilessly by economic consequences as are men by gravity and entropy.

"Unalienable rights", or human rights (so far), or sapient rights, are an invention of human intelligence. As briefly as I can, and without ringing in magic: Human rights are the inherent interests of individuals to be accorded those protocols of civilized behavior that history has shown the general practice of which to produce the societies with the highest levels of opportunity, prosperity, security, and longevity. To wit: life, liberty, property, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness.

Governments, at their inception, BEGIN by violating human rights, in as much as they arrogate to themselves the authority to maintain a monopoly of violence over their particular turf.

The free market is the best friend of human rights.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

I accept your position that "free market" in not misleading

The reason for my contention on this point is Wall Street crony CRAPitalists try to equate their cronyism with free market principles. And unfortunatley, a lot of people seem to buy their lies. Sorry for being dismissive of your valid points.

Recent comments raised the issue of ending the Fed's monopoly over our money supply as it's one of the main obstacles to practicing free market principles in America. Post a new comment on this or something else you think is important and start a new thread that others can get in on. Your input would be appreciated.

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

You said...

"Governments at their inception, BEGIN by violating human rights." Apparently, you believe Thomas Jefferson and all those who signed the Declaration of Independece were wrong when they agreed that a government, although a necessary evil, must be instituted in order to secure our unalienable rights.

The term "free market" can be misleading if not framed in the context of natural law. In addition to the limits that natural law places on a free market, the economic model known as capitalism places more regulations on a free market, and capitalism practiced within the moral framework of a Constitutional Republic places even more regulations on a free market.

So a truly free market cannot exist within the moral framework of a Constitutional Republic. And it should be noted that most of the comments, implicitly or explicitly, demonstrate clear opposition to the moral principles our country was founded upon, and the limits they place on a free market. Obviously, there's a lot of anarchists hiding behind Ron Paul's libertarian concept of limited gov't, which is based on the Constitution's enumerated powers doctrine, States rights, and the practice of individual liberties within a moral framework.

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)

No "necessary evil"

If it's necessary, it can't possibly be evil. Supporting life and liberty is always good. If it's evil, it's never necessary. I don't have to murder, rape, or abuse other people. Such evil might be desireable (to some pathological types), but it is never necessary in the sense that oxygen is necessary.

The slave-owning secessionists who won their particular war to prolong slavery in the united States were wrong to place their trust in the goodness of a "moral government", just as they would be to trust "compassionate bullies" or "honest thieves."

As for hidden anarchists -- come on out of the closet! There is nothing shameful about moral clarity or intellectual integrity.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

I should have said....

government is necessary because of the existence of evil.

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

Yes, but not in an anarchy.

Yes, but not in an anarchy. Rights in anarchy are very much "alienable"

Ventura 2012

I subscribe to the concept of unalienable rights described by...

Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration. He said unalienable rights always exist, but must be secured. Living in an anarchical or tyrannical situation may prevent the exercise of unalienable rights, but the rights still exist. For example, if a slave works on a farm that produces many kinds of food, but the master won't allow the slave to eat the food, the food exists, but the slave cannot exercise his ability to eat it.

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

UNALIENABLE. Incapable of

UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce, as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable in consequence of particular provisions of the law forbidding their sale or transfer; as, pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.

So if you can transfer the right i.e. sell yourself into slavery, your rights are not unalienable, by definition. Nothing in anarchy prevents such a thing. Furthermore, nothing secures the unalienable rights in the bill of rights from being transferred/forfeited via contract.

Ventura 2012

Unalienable rights are not transferable

In the scenario you describe, the individual chooses not to exercise their unalienable rights by becoming a slave. But why would anyone voluntarily choose the become a slave?

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

To pay off debt...

They're not just choosing not to exercise, they're trading the right to their life/liberty/pursuit of happiness away. To pay off debt, one possibility.

Could you imagine a situation where people signed away their inalienable right to due process? What if you couldnt afford the "due process" plan that the private protection agency offered? Your right to due process just became their right to ignore your due process.

Isnt it amazing how the anarchists love to use that little downvote? A bunch of sniveling cowards :D I know you didn't do it, Mark.

Ventura 2012

I don't use the up/down vote feature very much in....

other people's posts and I haven't used it at all in the comments on this post. I did give the post itself an upvote. As far as unalienable vs. alienable, I'm going to stick with Thomas Jefferson's "self evident truths", which demonstrate that certain unalienable rights exist irregardless of circumstances, but they must be "secured" in order to be exercised.

There's a series of comments where I discuss anarchism with a couple of people trying to convince me of the merits of anarcho-captialism, a.k.a., ancap. I think you'll find them interesting. The series begins with a comment titled "It doesn't depend on" by Faithkills and ends with my comment titled "Your argument falls apart right...". Scroll down a bit and you'll find them.

My website: 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)

Looks good. My argument,

Looks good. My argument, whether you fully agree with it or not, actually strengthens yours in my opinion.

Ventura 2012

What do you think can be done about the Fed's...

monopoly over our money supply? Recent comments have raised the issue and I thinks it's an important topic given the Fed is anti free market capitalism.

The reason I wrote the original post was to point out that Wall Street crony CRAPitalists have hijacked the term free market and use it to convince people that cronyism is capitalism. And croyism is a threat to our ability to exercise our unalienable rights. But I want to move on and discuss possible solutions for ending the Fed/Wall Street monopoly. Your input would be appreciated.

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

Fiat Money Can Destroy Any Free Society

No anachrist society can protect itself against another society with a fiat money system. It takes a minarchist society to set rules in place to protect the people against the corrosive affects of fiat money. You may refuse the fiat, but if it appears good for a generation, most will take it, until slowly the owners of the "Magic Money Machine" will buy more and more ownership of that society until even the refuseniks find they are surrounded by the fiat empire.

No friends, anarchy cannot protect the freedoms it offers. It takes a certain amount of government to protect us from bad governments, whether militarily or economically. Localism provides the framework of protection, and the people in each locality can plug in what they want there, so everyone is happy, to the extent that form of government can produce happiness.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/localism-a-philosophy-of-gov...

http://www.amazon.com/Localism-A-Philosophy-Government-ebook...

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

We need a big political

We need a big political movement to eventually abolish the Fed and that starts at the grassroots.

Ventura 2012

I agree, think about ways we could do that and....

post it as a new comment so others can get in on the thread. Thanks.

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

Your position does help because I look at the DP Forum as open source programming for political and economic systems. And all input has value. Based on the input from you and others, I've made some changes to my post and added some links, so you may find it worth reading again. Thanks for participating.

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)

Hogwash.

You have no proof to back your opinion.

Only an agenda for more and bigger government to save the day, it seems.

Free includes debt-free!

Who asks for "proof" in a

Who asks for "proof" in a discussion about political philosophy? Be more careful.

Ventura 2012