-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.

OH political is a cue to just make stuff up?

Who's your daddy since you reject the notion of being without a ruler?

Free includes debt-free!

"Rights are an idea. They're

"Rights are an idea. They're just imaginary. They're a cute idea. Cute. But that's all."

All life's a fight.

Go. Fight. Win.

Just an idea?

The German word zeitgeist means: Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.

And the idea of rights, which is based on thousands of years of empirical observation, has transformed the world, and will continue to transform the world. In the end, you will be on the wrong side of history, that is unless you decide to stand up for your rights and the rights of others.

But let's put that aside, what do you think about ending the Fed's monopoly over our money supply? Post a new comment about this or something you think is important so others can get in on the thread. Thanks for the input.

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 rights can exist absent a moral framework

"Yet those whose main concerns are with financial probity cannot afford continuing to neglect that capitalist economics presupposes a morally upright people." - Angelo Codevilla

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)

Thanks for commenting.

What did you mean by capitalist economics presupposes a morally upright people? Post a new comment on this so others can get in on the thread. Thanks for the input.

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)

That was a quote from Andrew Codevilla, writing for Forbes

but I shared what I thought it meant here.... http://localismaphilosophyofgovernment.blogspot.com/2013/02/...

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)

Agree, No individual has rights by being morally ignorant.

Governments are ignorant by their very nature.

Free includes debt-free!

But gov't is made up of individuals so...

is not gov't also capable of being morally upright? And what do you think we can do to end the Fed's monopoly over our money supply? They're the biggest obstacle to practicing free market principles in America. Post a new comment on this so others can get in on the thread. Thanks for your input.

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. Not of it's own accord.

A collective can behave conscientiously if conscientious individuals are involved.

But a government or collective cannot develop a its own conscience.

I'll follow the link later.

Free includes debt-free!

I did not read too many comments.

The poster should spend some time studying Austrian Economics to find his/her answers to the questions. In a nutshell, a true free market has rarely existed in recorded history. I emphasize recorded because by definition history is recorded by the dominating ruling faction. So, a ruler had to exist to record, which means that there was not a free market. Rulers have existed, so far in human civilization, at the expense of the ruled. So a true free market can not actually exist when a self sanctioned ruler is skimming off a constant and ever-expanding stream of profits. As long as a parasitic entity is making and enforcing the rules a free market does not truly exist (The Federal Reserve denies the possibility of a free market since the exchange mechanism is forged) . The late great historian, Austrian Economist, and genius Murray Rothbard spent his incredibly productive life proving this very fact. One of his emphasis' was American history as it relates to monopoly capitalism. He has studied each and every early American industry, its attempt at cartelization, and its failure to do so without the employment of government. Basically, beginning at the turn of the 20th century every single American industry cartelized using government to implement laws meant to stomp out competition of smaller businesses (and has done so to this day). For an original Rothbard course on American Economy and the End of Laisez Faire 1870 to WWII begin listening here:

https://mises.org/media/authors/299/Rothbard/20

for later courses see here:

https://mises.org/media/authors/299/Rothbard/21

Murray has done so much incredible work in this area I can do no justice in this little comment box to his work. But for a brief explanation of why a free market cannot exist with a taxing (none can exist without tax) State read this:
https://mises.org/document/1011/Anatomy-of-the-State

Audio version:

https://mises.org/media/authors/299/Rothbard

Hello, I posted...

"Can unalienable rights exist in a free market". Thanks for the links. The point I was making, or trying to make in my post was essentially what you've said, i.e., there has never been a truly free market in recorded history for the reasons you point out. More importantly, I believe that cartels/monopolies have co-opted the term "free market capitalism" in an attempt to redefine the term and use it to serve their monopolistic purposes. I think this is an important point because the term is so often used without acknowledging that the term can mean different things to different people. Just because someone says they're a "free market captialist" doesn't mean they support the principles of capitalism, or freedom as intended by our founding documents.

So as not to serve the purposes of monopolies/cartels who use the term free market to equate their anti-competitive practices with capitalism, I choose to drop the "free" and describe my economic philosophy as competitive capitalism based on the rule of law. Why the rule of law? Rules are required to ensure a competitive market that efficiently allocates resources. Rules are required to ensure price discovery based on supply and demand. And rules are required to ensure that those who succeed in the market, do so based on merit, not privilege.

Futhermore, like the founders of this country, I believe government is a necessary evil because as the Declaration of Independence states, governments are instituted by people to "secure" their unalienable rights, and governments are abolished when they fail to secure those rights. So in a Constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, there can be no truly free market, which in my opinion would be would a form of anarchy. Given the lawless nature of Wall Street's Too Big To Fail banks, and their bipartisan criminal co-conspirators, all of whom claim to support free market principles, I believe they mean anarchy when they use the term "free market capitalism". So I drop the word free because it's used to muddy the linguistic waters, and I write posts like this one to clarify what it means to practice capitalism within the moral framework of a Constitutional Republic.

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

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

Please also do not confuse

the framers of the Constitution with the founders of the country or with the men and women who struggled for the rights that have again been taken. Unalienable rights are clearly myth. So many have been alienated. Rights must be maintained, or like everything else, they are eventually destroyed or just decay. For a while, I had to continually ask myself: Who wrote the Constitution and why? Who elected people to write a Constitution? Who were "we the people" really? I didn't like all of the answers.

I don't see a significant difference between...

the framers, the founders and those who continue the struggle to secure our rights. And I don't believe rights have to be maintained, they have to be secured, meaning unalienable always exist and never decay, but oppressive situations occur that inhibit the exercise of those rights. So as the saying goes, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

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

Please don't confuse anarchy with the crimes of WS.

Anarchy is simply without a ruler. Rulers exist always in a system of predation off the rest of the tribe. Every given area has at least on of these monopolies and up to four sets of laws, rulers, punishments, etc. held above you head. It is a monopoly on the initiation of force. When a member of their clan breaks a law can you do to him what he is able to do to you? There is no escaping this levitation. You were born in it and you are forced to pay and play.

In a free market you may pick your village where the rules are set up as you like. Maybe there is an absents of a ruling class. Maybe the only rules are do not aggress against your fellow participant nor his stuff and uphold your end of you contracts or else.

No that would be about as free a market that could exist. It would be perfect. But I think It will be about as fair as my pea brain mind could come up with Right no. I am sure a genius could do far better.

Jefferson's Ward Republic's are similar to what you describe

Basically, in terms of a rules based society, smaller is better because the interests of the individual are better served, i.e., local control. While there's a tendancy to romanticize indigenous societies, they resemble the village scenario you describe.

But your description of anarchy is contrary to the accepted definition. The village life you describe certainly couldn't be considered anarchy. A more accurate description of Wall Street would be to say they've achieved regulatory capture, i.e., they essentially make and break the rules at will. Like Mayer Rothschild said, "Let me control a nations money supply and I care not who makes its laws".

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

Definition

The first definition from Websters:
Anarchy a : absence of government

So, it does not mean chaos. And even though the monopolistic State is gone does not mean no rulers, homes have heads. I think there ought to be an opt out mechanism in case you don't like it. Right now we pay upwards of 60% of our earnings to this Leviathan that provides a few shoddy roads and a dying PO. The rest is the biggest rip-off any group of men have ever been subjected to - and most Americans believe they are prosperous and free. Even though I see the complete reality of it what can I do? It is a monopoly. Do you think Obama would listen to me? How about Gov. Scott? My mayor? We are slaves. But the best kind of slaves, we love our servitude and believe we are free.

In my previous comment I said...

Wall Street banks have achieved regulatory capture, and as a result, they can make and break the rules at will. I believe this represents anarchy masquerading as government. Therefore, the "monopolistic State" you refer to is Wall Street and the multinationals they finance. Here's a short video clip about Wall Street's regulatory capture. The next clip is Senator Brown citing a Congressional Budget Office report saying it will cost taxpayers 8.6 Trillion to prop up failing banks.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4232111
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3343308

You said "most Americans [falsely] believe they are prosperous and free". Johann von Goethe said: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." This is the state of most Americans who don't recognize that Wall Street's anarchical business and political practices have bankrupted our nation, which manifests itself in two ways. 1)Via Wall Street's lobbyists on the right, financial sector debt is being forced on taxpayers. 2) Via Wall Street's lobbyists on the left, unwitting citizens are continually encouraged to demand rights (economic entitlements) not defined by the Bill of Rights.

If this trend doesn't change the result will be a bankrupt government. This bankruptcy will be used as an excuse to demilitarize America while Communist China continues its military buildup. Wall Street and the multinationals it finances, have partnered up with China's Communist Party as a means to crush representative gov't in America. They've chosen China's totalitarian regime to be the new host of a Globalized Military Industrial Complex. Here's a few short clips about China's military buildup and the arming of its client states, Iran and North Korea. The last clip demonstrates that "free" trade is selling out America and making it possible for Chinese gov't ownership of U.S. assets.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4062073
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4062076
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4062085
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4062088
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600148025

For more info on Wall Street's treasonous partnership with Communist China, go to:

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=115

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

That's not anarcy.

Anarchists follow the NAP. Wall Street is in cahoots with the monopolists to define all monopolies, the State. Please read or listen to the material I gave you.

I agree with your definition of anarchy...

but do you think it's possible that globalization is an intentional attack on the sovereignty of individual nations and represents a covert trend toward a stateless society masquerading as global gov't? Post a new comment on this so others can get in on the thread. Also, what do you think we can do the end the Fed's monopoly on our money supply?

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)

Thanks to all who commented

While I had to agree to disagree with many of the comments, the input of all had value. Those who disagreed with me, helped me clarify my position. After replying to many informed comments, I became aware of many flaws in my original post, so I've made significant changes to the original version.

The Daily Paul, and the platform it provides for a civil exchange of ideas, is a testament to the durability and timeless nature of our founding principles. Don't ever give up the fight for individual liberties, even if the battle appears lost. Future generations may look back on our work and be inspired to carry on the fight. In sports we teach athletes to compete even if the game appears lost, and our unalienable rights are far more important than a game.

Our founders ended the Declaration of Independence with these words: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor". They understood that the price of freedom is total committment, with no guarantee of success. God bless you and God bless America.

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)

Paul Harvey.......

Good day to you too sir!

Thanks for participating in the discussion, you're comments were some of the most insightful. In my attempt to respond to others, I didn't take enough time to carefully consider what you were saying. My apologies. Recent comments raised the issue of the Feds monopoly and the obstacle it represents to practicing free market principles in America. Post a new comment on this so others can get in on the thread, I'd appreciate your input. Thanks.

The purpose of my original post was to counter Wall Street's claim that crony CRAPitalism equates to a free market, not to challenge the generally accepted definition of a free market.

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)

Yes, that's the point of 'unalienable'

The question is in which society are you least likely to have to use your rights. That would be the free society. Your right to life is not the right not to die. Your right to property is not the right to a chicken in your pot. Your right to liberty is not a right never to have to labor to provide goods or services your fellow man may desire more than those he can provide for himself.

Your rights are moral authority to act. They are moral, for one reason, because others may claim the same moral authority to act and not create a contradiction. You do not have the right to take my stuff, for one, because if we both have that right against each other it causes a contradiction. If you act anyway on that motivation you are acting without right. If I defend myself I am acting with right.

That depends on the definition of a free market...

Tryannical leaders would define a free market as freedom to enslave their citizens. And I don't know of a single bipartisan leader who doesn't claim to support free market principles. And yet, we are in the jaws of a tyrannical gov't hellbent on snapping its jaws shut. If you listen to Wall Street hacks on CNBC, they all claim that the Fed's QE to infinity (a massive market intervention) and Too Big To Prosecute banks are "free market capitalism". The reality is, free market has been redefined to mean anarchy. So we're kidding ourselves if we believe an anarchical definition of "free market capitalism" is not jepordizing our ability to exercise unalienable rights.

Can unalienable rights be taken away? Well, the founders risked their lives and fortunes to set up a government that would secure their unalienable rights. So while rights exist, even under tyranny, they must be secured to be exercised. Tyrants know that language is a vital tool for usurping the people's rights and the word "free" is one of their favorite tools. Free trade, free markets, spreading freedom and democracy with the military industrial complex, the whole world should be filled with peace, love and freedom. But even a halfwit can look at the world and see that, in this Orwellian world, free is not free when it comes to average citizens. So "we the people" must wise up to the linguistic tricks of tyrants and once again secure our unalienable rights.

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)

It doesn't depend on

It doesn't depend on anything. Again the right to life is not the right not to get cancer. The right to property is not the right to a Cadillac. The right to liberty is not the right not to have to serve your fellow man in kind for his service to you.

Law, to be just, should codify those rights, but if it does not, you still have the right. If they passed a law to execute all DP readers would that mean you somehow didn't have a right to resist?

A sign of a civilized society is that you rarely have to exercise your rights.

Yes, ancaps do in fact subscribe to natural rights and think that the society most likely to afford not having to exercise your rights is when there is no statutory law whatsoever.

When I go camping and there is no 'law' around, but lots of society, I have yet to have to exercise my rights. So I suspect the ancaps are correct.

So if you're camping and...

some ancap comes by and thinks it's his natural right to rape and rob you, it's all good, right? I've never met an anarchist who wasn't a compulsive BSer.

The Bill of Rights was limited to ten amendments so people couldn't demand the right to a Cadillac, healthcare, job, food, etc., but as you know, the central planners are continually planting seeds in people's minds suggesting they demand ever more rights that don't exist.

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

Explain how the right to rape

Explain how the right to rape and kill can be unalienable rights. Go ahead. I'll wait.

I'm a fan of the BoR. I'd be happy to get that back. Don't think I'm your enemy because you haven't yet thought things through. If we can get back to the Constitution I would count it a win and cheer with you.

But don't pretend you understand what we're talking about. You could understand but you're afraid to give up the moral claim that someday you must steal, rape, murder or cage. But the logical fact is you have no moral claim to do those things unless you accept the moral claim of others to do the same to you. This is nihilism.

All asymmetrical ethical systems are nihilism. You believe a man with a badge is morally different from those without. This is nihilism.

Why would I explain how the right to rape and kill is...

an unalienable right when they're not unalienable rights? I would like you to clarify this sentence: "You could understand but you're afraid to give up the moral claim that someday you must steal, rape, murder or cage." Are you saying that I must, in certain circumstances, steal, rape, murder or cage?

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

That was your claim not mine.

That was your claim not mine. I am clear on what rights are and are not. Ancaps in general are much more clear. They don't think rights come from old pieces of parchment. We know there is no right to steal, regardless of words on a piece of paper that says it grants that right to some men in suits.

Ancaps are clear alright

Clearly demented. It's one thing to try parce my words, but to just make stuff up that I didn't say is juvenile. Not that I care, anyone who can read knows the truth.

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