25 votes

Rick Santelli Rant: What Would We Do Without The Government?

While the guests on Friday's CNBC closing bell were giddy with excitement about earnings, US stocks, and 'the recovery' being "a lot stronger than people give it credit for", Rick Santelli asked a simple question, if it's all so great why is the Fed still printing billions of dollars each month? A disquieted crowd of asset-gatherers attempted a response but made the mistake of uttering the most inflammable 7 words Santelli could hear... "Where would we be without the government?" What ensued is worth the price of admission...

and then it gets really good...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-24/rick-santelli-summa...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

MAIL A LETTER!

http://youbentmywookie.com/wookie/gallery/1108-what-happens-when-you-mail-a-letter-with-change-instead-of-a-stamp/before_mailing.jpg

Cyril's picture

Yes I noticed Rick has been losing patience for at least 2 years

Yes. I noticed Rick has been losing patience for at least 2 years now.

And probably for even longer.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Sounds like

Rick Santelli has attended the Ron Paul School of Economics.
"Everything the government touches costs more."

DJP333's picture

Inside Santellis brain

"It’s not pessimistic, brother, because this is the blues. We are blues people. The blues aren’t pessimistic. We’re prisoners of hope but we tell the truth and the truth is dark. That’s different." ~CW

The "people the government ignores" slice

is too small to be visible, and that's just sad.

DJP333's picture

Actually

its "people that ignore government", the apathetic, the ones who "don't like politics".

"It’s not pessimistic, brother, because this is the blues. We are blues people. The blues aren’t pessimistic. We’re prisoners of hope but we tell the truth and the truth is dark. That’s different." ~CW

You ought to make a t-shirt out of that anti-government chart

You'd make Millions!!!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Swatting flies

No matter how many times he knocks down the pro-government argument, he will always hear

'Yeh,....but..."

They are too entrenched in their fantasies to be reached. Better to avoid them.

Cyril's picture

"What Would We Do Without The Government?"

"What Would We Do Without The Government?"

Any government? In this country? Not sure.

However, with much, much, much less government, without any Federal entity, there's an absolute certainty:

the People would prosper anew with an infinitely greater Justice.

On every possible, imaginable accounts.

And here is why:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

It's a no-brainer here, AFAIC, anyway.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

I'd appeal for a NAP amendment to bind the legislator tighter

Note: besides repealing all amendments from the 14th, inclusive, and up, my personal taste would appeal to an amendment that makes the Non Aggression Principle (wrt. to the individual) as a clearly explicited prerequisite of any legislation project, and for the specific attention of the legislator.

I suspect this would drastically reduce the risks of proliferation of unjust laws - that is, any law that does not solely focus on the better rendering of Justice in disputes, and ONLY Justice.

The same unjust laws that we have seen interested only in always more arbitrary management of people, or their property, or the infringement on the People's natural rights.

Rationale for a NAP amendment?

Well, observably, the already unambiguous and recurring phrase "Congress shall make no laws, etc..." was maybe not hammering the nail heavily enough vs. the champions of the semantics who had an agenda, in that respect.

The NAP amendment would be a great ally to the first 10, in a restraining fashion:

before considering the making of a new law, one would need to prove it doesn't do or imply anything forceful which isn't for the sake of a better rendering of the Justice from the law of the land encompassed by the first 10.

ANY law that is NOT conceived solely as a servant of Justice, to protect the People's Rights for all individuals - is doomed to become subjective, malleable, then unjust, and evil, if it wasn't already by very design.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

All we have to do is uphold the law

"
Non Aggression Principle (wrt. to the individual) as a clearly explicited prerequisite of any legislation project, and for the specific attention of the legislator.

I suspect this would drastically reduce the risks of proliferation of unjust laws - that is, any law that does not solely focus on the better rendering of Justice in disputes, and ONLY Justice.
"

Your statement here seems to presume that legislation has application as law to people. This is where We the People have failed to understand the law. Nowhere does the Constitution enable legislative acts to have arbitrary application to the people nor would this ever make sense. Your concern of "proliferation of unjust laws" has also been addressed in the DOI Organic Law. Just (lawful) powers are derived from consent of the governed. When applying Organic Law to the already inherent Common Law elements required for lawful agency to exist there must be consent of the governed who is the identified liable principal to those actions of claimed agency. Without an identifiable liable principal and actions within defined bound capacity of the laws that govern that agency, there can be no lawful agency therefore meaning ANY action of man who claims to be acting within agency of government fails to be operating justly/lawfully. In short, no accuser liable for the accusation no agency of government thus no actions are lawful. These unlawful actions under false claims of agency is what is defined in law as COLOR OF LAW. This is ECXACTLY why trying to protect rights within political processes makes absolutely NO sense. Each man or woman already holds the entire lawful power to accuse (or not) and invoke the agency of government under their liability to act on THEIR OWN behalf. When they act with no consent of the governed via a liable principal accuser who possesses all elements in a valid cause of action they have NO lawful power to do ANYTHING including attempting to apply arbitrary codes (especially one's that violate law) to anyone.

We the People's failure to understand the proper application of the Common Law of Agency within the context of applicable Organic Law is the PRIME source of error in our country. We don't need amendments and unlawful application of codes have NO applications to those who understand the law. NAP is already inherent to the fabric of Common Law and is exactly why required elements are inherent to application of common law. We don't need amendments or codes to fix this; we need to know and uphold the law. Legislative acts have no application to the people nor do they claim to and arbitrary application of code to everyone MAKES NO SENSE just as application of the Constitution to the People MAKES NO SENSE. While the People may be a party to Constitutional Contract ALL defined duty and prohibitions of capacity are applicable only to those under the capacity of the oath because that is the bounds of the agency that can only be invoked by the one(s) accepting liability for the actions because actions within common law is all about WHO IS LIABLE for injury.

Government legislative acts apply to those who contracted to have application of that code (government employees, commercial entities) who contracted for regulation in exchange for limited liability. Even for those who have contracted for code application the code can only be lawfully enforced through consent of the governed because that is the ONLY access to ANY lawful powers that exist within lawful government. We only need to understand the proper application of law and actively protect the law so the law can protect us.

I understand where you are coming from and ultimately yes the ninny ,gimme, slimy garbage of amendments 14 and up should be purged but on the lawful grounds that they never had lawful application due to the nature of the fraud and crimes that were committed to get them on the record. Also the original 13th amendment should be returned to its lawful status.

But what REALLY needs to happen more than anything is that individuals need to understand how law works so that the usurpers and useful idiots of those usurpers do not destroy the entire protections of law and render complete chaos upon us which seems like we are pretty much there from a legal perspective. This is what the real breakdown of the rule is, we operate on opinion of what law needs to be instead of discovering the laws inherent protections that are derived from the source context of what LAW actually is; a set of congruent (non-conflicting) truths that enables protection of peace and remedy for injury where the non-conflicting nature is simply no law can violate any other law.

So within real law they do not need to be bound tighter because the DOI binds them COMPLETELY to our authority. We only need to uphold this fact.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Cyril's picture

You make a pretty convincing point.

You make a pretty convincing point.

I especially liked this part:

These unlawful actions under false claims of agency is what is defined in law as COLOR OF LAW. This is EXACTLY why trying to protect rights within political processes makes absolutely NO sense. Each man or woman already holds the entire lawful power to accuse (or not) and invoke the agency of government under their liability to act on THEIR OWN behalf. When they act with no consent of the governed via a liable principal accuser who possesses all elements in a valid cause of action they have NO lawful power to do ANYTHING including attempting to apply arbitrary codes (especially one's that violate law) to anyone.

Thank you for pointing out this view.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Totally agree but

I'd still be happy if we could somehow get the Constitution back without the bad guys going apeshit and taking direct military control or starting WW3.

Why, we would pine of course...

http://www.dailypaul.com/301712/forlorn-nation-pines

Chris Indeedski!

Daily Paul cured my abibliophobia.