Check out my new site and bookmark it

www.libertynewslink.com

Unicoi Co. Commission backs state’s votes on guns/johnsoncitypress.com/August 31, 2009

Reported by Jim Wozniak, Erwin Bureau Chief, jwozniak@johnsoncitypress.com

ERWIN – The Unicoi County Commission normally takes a dim view of the actions of state government, but last week the panel quickly voted to support a resolution that backed the Tennessee Legislature’s votes on guns.

“The Tennessee Legislature is commended for their recent passage of several laws lessening the restrictions on people keeping and bearing arms,” the county’s resolution states. “This legislative body (in Unicoi County) supports the rights of its citizens to keep and bear arms in conformity with the rights provided in the United States Constitution.”

The resolution was quickly adopted last Monday in a unanimous vote.

The resolution was the brainchild of Sheriff Kent Harris, who had been approached by Dr. Dan Moore about the idea of supporting the Second Amendment. He liked what Moore had in mind.

“Me and him had spoken about what was going on on the state level and different things about the Second Amendment, the Constitution, about the right to bear arms,” Harris said. “He wanted my opinion of it. I told him what my opinion is – that people have a right to carry a firearm. I believe in people’s right to bear arms.

“My officers have never bothered anybody that’s going armed unless they’re out here breaking the law. Law-abiding citizens, we’re glad they got a gun. We might need them to help us. Whether somebody’s got a gun permit or not, if we stop them and they tell us they got a gun and they’re good, why bother them?”

Harris said he has not had a major problem with anyone who has a handgun permit. He said he supports the handgun permit program even though he believes a person has a right to carry a gun without one.

Moore drafted a resolution that was presented to County Mayor Greg Lynch, who favored it, and County Attorney Doug Shults, who reworded it to comply with all of the laws, Harris said. Moore considered the resolution that was presented to the commission to be watered down, but he said the development nonetheless was positive.

“I’m very proud of our sheriff and the county,” Moore said.

He said he went to Harris because of the importance of the sheriff to protect the community against foreign or domestic invasion and the possibility U.S. residents would have their guns taken away. He said other sheriffs were not as supportive as Harris about the resolution.

“We just wanted to send a message to the world that our county strongly supports the Second Amendment,” Moore said. “(Harris is) setting an example for the other sheriffs to truly uphold the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the of the land, other than God’s law.”

Why is a county government delving into this issue? Harris said it was a sign of support for the state Legislature and to convey the belief that Unicoi County backs gun ownership.

Moore said he and others are planning a rally “for freedom” during the Apple Festival. Details have not been finalized, but Harris said topics include the Second Amendment, taxes and government waste. The sheriff said Moore has asked him to speak, and he has agreed.

“It’s all about the Constitution,” Moore said.

He and Harris said there is a constitutional movement occurring in Unicoi County. Moore said it applies to other parts of the country as well.

“People are tired of seeing their freedoms taken away,” he said

Obama Joker Posters-via thestar.com

www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/688445

CDC Uses Social Networking To Spread Vaccine Propaganda-via reuters.com

Read article via link below

www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE57Q5T320090828

The Most “Charming Liar” via Air America

www.redstate.com/bs/2009/08/20/its-pretty-bad-when-you-have-air-america-calling-you-a-liar-mr-president/

Bill Would Give President “Emergency Control” Of The Internet, via Guns and Gas.com

www.gunsandgas.com/125/bill-would-give-president-emergency-control-of-internet/

End The Fed

http://list.lewrockwell.com/t/1624063/28408831/98128/0/

Folks In Massachusetts Need To Take Control Of The “Controllers” August 28, 2009

www.naturalnews.com/026934_health_public_health_quarantine.html

How Many “VOLUNTEERS” (at $350.00 a pop) Does It Take To Turn H1N1 Into A “Justified” Problem?

Answer: All of them.

www.wkrn.com/Global/story.asp?S=10951595

How Much Fluoride Is In Your Body?

Fluoride is poison. Check out the link below.

www.drkelley.info/articles/archive.php?artid=336

Video: “Something In The Air” by Thunderclap Newman

Thunderclap Newman… Something In The Air

www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0l1FsEZv-k

Coming Soon: Sunday Bloody Sunday-Video

Fortunately, it will be a lot more difficult to deploy the bastards here. We’re ready.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_2QRCEtl0

Audio: Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine – circa 1961

Though Ron Reagan wasn’t the champion of the Constitution that Ron Paul is, he was right on with his observations concerning the socialization of the United States.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edailypaul%2Ecom%2Fnode%2F99614&feature=player_embedded

The Bankruptcy of the United States

Congressman Traficant speaks out-United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993

United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993
Vol. 33, page H-1303

Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:

“Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11.. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner’s report that will lead to our demise.

It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 – Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.

The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: “The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States?’

Gold and silver were such a powerful money during the founding of the united states of America, that the founding fathers declared that only gold or silver coins can be “money” in America. Since gold and silver coinage were heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions, they were stored in banks and a claim check was issued as a money substitute. People traded their coupons as money, or “currency.” Currency is not money, but a money substitute. Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar equivalent in gold or silver money. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises, and are not “money.” A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the federal United States government, not “money?’ The federal United States government and the U.S. Congress were not and have never been authorized by the Constitution for the united states of America to issue currency of any kind, but only lawful money, -gold and silver coin.

It is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real money and paper money substitute. One cannot get rich by accumulating money substitutes, one can only get deeper into debt. We the People no longer have any “money.” Most Americans have not been paid any “money” for a very long time, perhaps not in their entire life. Now do you comprehend why you feel broke? Now, do you understand why you are “bankrupt,” along with the rest of the country?

Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are unsigned checks written on a closed account. FRNs are an inflatable paper system designed to create debt through inflation (devaluation of currency). when ever there is an increase of the supply of a money substitute in the economy without a corresponding increase in the gold and silver backing, inflation occurs.

Inflation is an invisible form of taxation that irresponsible governments inflict on their citizens. The Federal Reserve Bank who controls the supply and movement of FRNs has everybody fooled. They have access to an unlimited supply of FRNs, paying only for the printing costs of what they need. FRNs are nothing more than promissory notes for U.S. Treasury securities (T-Bills) – a promise to pay the debt to the Federal Reserve Bank.

There is a fundamental difference between “paying” and “discharging” a debt. To pay a debt, you must pay with value or substance (i.e. gold, silver, barter or a commodity). With FRNs, you can only discharge a debt. You cannot pay a debt with a debt currency system. You cannot service a debt with a currency that has no backing in value or substance. No contract in Common law is valid unless it involves an exchange of “good & valuable consideration.” Unpayable debt transfers power and control to the sovereign power structure that has no interest in money, law, equity or justice because they have so much wealth already.

Their lust is for power and control. Since the inception of central banking, they have controlled the fates of nations.

The Federal Reserve System is based on the Canon law and the principles of sovereignty protected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, the international bankers used a “Canon Law Trust” as their model, adding stock and naming it a “Joint Stock Trust.” The U.S. Congress had passed a law making it illegal for any legal “person” to duplicate a “Joint Stock Trust” in 1873. The Federal Reserve Act was legislated post-facto (to 1870), although post-facto laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution. [1:9:3]

The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct from the federal United States government. The Federal Reserve is a maritime lender, and/or maritime insurance underwriter to the federal United States operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The lender or underwriter bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific performance in paying the interest, or premiums are the same.

Assets of the debtor can also be hypothecated (to pledge something as a security without taking possession of it.) as security by the lender or underwriter. The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt was to be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for ever paying the principle.

Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913)

“Hypothecated” all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a “beneficiary” of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their “subjects,” the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.

In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States corporation all the credit “money substitute” it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn’t have any assets, they assigned the private property of their “economic slaves”, the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.

Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another.

This has been going on for over eighty years without the “informed knowledge” of the American people, without a voice protesting loud enough. Now it’s easy to grasp why America is fundamentally bankrupt.

Why don’t more people own their properties outright?

Why are 90% of Americans mortgaged to the hilt and have little or no assets after all debts and liabilities have been paid? Why does it feel like you are working harder and harder and getting less and less?

We are reaping what has been sown, and the results of our harvest is a painful bankruptcy, and a foreclosure on American property, precious liberties, and a way of life. Few of our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. have dared to tell the truth. The federal United States is bankrupt. Our children will inherit this unpayable debt, and the tyranny to enforce paying it.

America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial credit and its reputation for courage, vision and human rights. This is an undeclared economic war, bankruptcy, and economic slavery of the most corrupt order! Wake up America! Take back your Country.”

---

Image: United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303

To silence Traficant, certain members of Congress found a means to put him in prison on trumped-up charges. The hearings were like a kangaroo court; whereby, he was not allowed to bring in certain witnesses, documents, and testimony. Judge Lesley Wells of the U.S. District Court in Cleveland, Ohio, was prejudiced toward Traficant and refused to set bail for Traficant, ordering that service of his term should begin immediately. Denial of bail also sets aside all pending appeals to Traficant’s conviction. Traficant is now serving an eight year prison sentence in federal prison for his April 11, 2002 conviction on trumped-up felony charges of bribery, corruption and tax evasion. By a vote of 420-1, Traficant was also expelled from the House of Representatives. House Resolution No. 495 read simply, “Resolved, That, pursuant to article I, section 5, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, Representative James A. Traficant, Jr., be, and he hereby is expelled, from the House of Representatives.” Traficant is the second member of the House to be expelled since the Civil War and the fifth in congressional history. Traficant, addressing the House, said “I’ll go to jail before I resign and admit to something I didn’t do.”” Traficant, A former county sheriff, had been elected to Congress nine times by the people of his Mahoning Valley, Ohio district. He plans to run for re-election as an independent candidate and intends to serve from jail if elected.

The 545 People Responsible For All Of U.S. Woes

BY Charley Reese

(Date of publication unknown)– — –  Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices – 545 human beings out of the 235 million – are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all but the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislation’s responsibility to determine how he votes.

A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY

Don’t you see how the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O’Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes.

O’neill is the speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetos it, they can pass it over his veto.

REPLACE SCOUNDRELS

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts – of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can’t think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon, it’s because they want them in Lebanon.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses – provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.

This article was first published by the Orlando Sentinel Star newspaper

A Four Step Healthcare Solution-by Hans-Hermann Hoppe-via Ludwig von Mises Institute-August 14, 2009

A Four-Step Healthcare Solution

Mises Daily by Hans-Hermann Hoppe | Posted on 8/14/2009 12:00:00 AM

It’s true that the US health-care system is a mess, but this demonstrates not market but government failure. To cure the problem requires not different or more government regulations and bureaucracies, as self-serving politicians want us to believe, but the elimination of all existing government controls.

It’s time to get serious about health-care reform. Tax credits, vouchers, and privatization will go a long way toward decentralizing the system and removing unnecessary burdens from business. But four additional steps must also be taken:

1. Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health-care personnel. Their supply would almost instantly increase, prices would fall, and a greater variety of health-care services would appear on the market.Competing voluntary accreditation agencies would take the place of compulsory government licensing — if health-care providers believe that such accreditation would enhance their own reputation, and that their consumers care about reputation, and are willing to pay for it.Because consumers would no longer be duped into believing that there is such a thing as a “national standard” of health care, they would increase their search costs and make more discriminating health-care choices.
2. Eliminate all government restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices. This means no more Food and Drug Administration, which presently hinders innovation and increases costs.Costs and prices would fall, and a wider variety of better products would reach the market sooner. The market would force consumers to act in accordance with their own — rather than the government’s — risk assessment. And competing drug and device manufacturers and sellers, to safeguard against product liability suits as much as to attract customers, would provide increasingly better product descriptions and guarantees.
3. Deregulate the health-insurance industry. Private enterprise can offer insurance against events over whose outcome the insured possesses no control. One cannot insure oneself against suicide or bankruptcy, for example, because it is in one’s own hands to bring these events about.Because a person’s health, or lack of it, lies increasingly within his own control, many, if not most health risks, are actually uninsurable. “Insurance” against risks whose likelihood an individual can systematically influence falls within that person’s own responsibility.All insurance, moreover, involves the pooling of individual risks. It implies that insurers pay more to some and less to others. But no one knows in advance, and with certainty, who the “winners” and “losers” will be. “Winners” and “losers” are distributed randomly, and the resulting income redistribution is unsystematic. If “winners” or “losers” could be systematically predicted, “losers” would not want to pool their risk with “winners,” but with other “losers,” because this would lower their insurance costs. I would not want to pool my personal accident risks with those of professional football players, for instance, but exclusively with those of people in circumstances similar to my own, at lower costs.

   Because of legal restrictions on the health insurers’ right of refusal — to exclude any individual risk as uninsurable — the present health-insurance system is only partly concerned with insurance. The industry cannot discriminate freely among different groups’ risks.

   As a result, health insurers cover a multitude of uninsurable risks, alongside, and pooled with, genuine insurance risks. They do not discriminate among various groups of people which pose significantly different insurance risks. The industry thus runs a system of income redistribution — benefiting irresponsible actors and high-risk groups at the expense of responsible individuals and low-risk groups. Accordingly, the industry’s prices are high and ballooning.

   To deregulate the industry means to restore it to unrestricted freedom of contract: to allow a health insurer to offer any contract whatsoever, to include or exclude any risk, and to discriminate among any groups of individuals. Uninsurable risks would lose coverage, the variety of insurance policies for the remaining coverage would increase, and price differentials would reflect genuine insurance risks. On average, prices would drastically fall. And the reform would restore individual responsibility in health care.

   

   $10 $7

4. Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate such subsidies, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid.

Only these four steps, although drastic, will restore a fully free market in medical provision. Until they are adopted, the industry will have serious problems, and so will we, its consumers.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, an Austrian School economist and libertarian/anarchocapitalist philosopher, is professor emeritus of economics at UNLV, a distinguished fellow with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and founder and president of The Property and Freedom Society. Send him mail. See his article archives. Comment on the blog.

This article originally appeared in The Free Market, April 1993.

You can subscribe to future articles by Hans-Hermann Hoppe via this RSS feed.

You can receive the Mises Dailies in your inbox. Go here to subscribe or unsubscribe.

Video: An Interview About Vaccines With Dr. Tenpenny

http://drtenpenny.com/20090730.aspx

Must Watch! Video via Infowars.com: Media Freaks Out After Man Carrying Legal Firearm Outside Obamacare Event-August 11, 2009

www.infowars.com/media-freaks-out-after-man-filmed-carrying-legal-firearm-outside-obamacare-event/

President Obama’s Health Care For Clunkers-Ron Hart-August 05, 2009

www.thedestinlog.com/opinion/president-10379-care-ron.html

Economics of Oblivion – George Koether – Mises Institute-August 11, 2009

Economics of Oblivion

Albert Jay Nock believed Gresham’s Law operated in ideas as surely as in economics, with error displacing reason from men’s minds as inexorably as bad money drives good money from men’s markets. Nock’s theory seems fast on the way to proof a posteriori, especially in our colleges and universities and particularly in the teaching and textbooks of the “new economics.”

The “new economics” — as propounded by Professors Samuelson, Tarshis, Bowman and Bach in these textbooks used in hundreds of America’s best-known colleges and universities — is nothing more than Keynesianism, which, in turn, has many points of similarity to Marxism and the theories of that hyperinflationist, John Law. In sum, the “new economics” is simply socialism, not “new” at all, but the same old bird dressed up in the feathers of “compensatory fiscal policy,” “national income approach,” and the “mixed economy.”

Keynes, who popularized but did not spawn the “new economics,” frankly admitted his affection for socialism:

The State will have to exercise a guiding influence on the propensity to consume … a somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment … the necessary measures of socialization can be introduced gradually….[1]

Today’s professors are more cautious. They look down their noses at “socialism,” preferring the phrases “public economy” and “welfare economics.” All the while they pay ostentatious lip service to the achievements of freedom:

[O]ur mixed free enterprise system … with all its faults, has given the world a century of progress such as an actual socialized order might find it impossible to equal. (Samuelson, p. 746)

[I]it must not be supposed that to seek profits is an act of villainy…. Naturally everyone wants to make as much income as he can…. These actions are not censured. (Tarshis, p. 30)

Traditionally, American ideology has glorified such a [private enterprise] system. Individual initiative and independence are its positive values…. The state exists for the individual rather than the individual for the state. (Bowman and Bach, p. 42)

The Mixed-up Economy

Naturally the professors do not want to kill the free market entirely, else where would they get prices from which to calculate their impressive computations in the “new economics”? But even while embracing “free enterprise” they suffocate it. Their consummation of this love-death is curiously contrived. They begin by assuming that laissez-faire died a deserved and natural death.

[I]nequality in access to profit and job opportunities [implies] an inherent inconsistency in the private-enterprise, free price system itself. (Bowman and Bach, p. 14)

Even if the system worked perfectly … many would not consider it ideal…. The private economy is often like a machine without an effective steering wheel or governor. (Samuelson, pp. 39, 397)

We have given up our psychological and philosophical predilection for laissez-faire reluctantly. Most of us have not welcomed government intervention in economic life…. We have been compelled to call upon the government. (Tarshis, pp. 53–4)

Laissez-faire is dead, long live the “mixed economy!” Unfortunately it is often difficult to tell which is more mixed, the economy or the professors. They try their best to seem as sincerely opposed to “complete” socialism as they are obviously cocksure rugged individualism is gone forever. Their “mixed economy” seems to be a course midway between capitalism and socialism, with careful avoidance of the “bad” in each.

The difficulties they encounter in trying to steer between the Scylla of socialism and the Charybdis of capitalism would be amusing if the implications were not so tragic. Samuelson, for example, begins bravely:

After one has thoroughly mastered the analysis of national income determination, it is not hard to steer one’s way with confidence in these seemingly difficult fields (p. 11).

Then, embarking on a carefully calculated Keynesian course, he asserts that private enterprise cannot

guarantee that there will be just exactly the required amount of investment to ensure full employment: not too little so as to cause unenlployment, nor too much so as to cause inflation … the system is without any thermostat … the system is in the lap of the gods. We may be lucky or unlucky … (pp. 261–2)

and so, to prevent the ill luck that might result from private investors following their own inclinations in a free market, Professor Samuelson pompously tells us,

Fortunately, things need not be left to luck. We shall see that perfectly sensible public and private policies can be followed which will greatly enhance the stability and productive growth of our economic system. (p. 262)

Wherewith he plots a pretty series of “propensity-to-consume” and “propensity-to-save” curves based on figures compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics taken from a 1944 study of urban families (“with data for all families rounded and smoothed off”) and shows us how to compute, numerically, the “marginal propensity to consume (MPC)” and its “Siamese twin” the “marginal propensity to save (MPS),” triumphantly concluding: “We are now prepared for the theory of income determination.” But wait, there is a catch coming.

[A] few final warnings are in order…. Suppose my income were to go from $5000 a year to $40,000 a year. Would I spend and save my money in the same way that the budget studies showed $40,000-a-year people spend their money? Not necessarily. Especially at the beginning, I would be a nouveau riche and have different patterns of behavior. (p. 269)

Cake Is When You Eat It

So statistics are too tricky to trust as a basis for generalizations in economic theory. The elaborate equations, graphs, curves and charts, must take into account “important qualifications” and “other reasons why the propensity-to-consume schedule might shift around.” Samuelson admits,

[A]t the end of World War II, many economists made a famous wrong prediction. They neglected the fact that people came out of the war with greatly … savings; for this and other reasons, the consumption schedule turned out to be at a higher level than many pessimistic predictions had indicated. Again we are reminded that no social science can have great exactitude. (pp. 269–70)

Wrong again. Economics does have great exactitude, but it is a qualitative, not a quantitative exactitude. The economist cannot know the number or size of all the cakes in the world, or when they will be eaten, but he is dead certain that whoever eats his cake no longer has it.

That is more than the Keynesians seem to know. Their theory implies you cannot have your cake until you do eat it. You can spend your way into prosperity. The formulas say so:

Could a nation fanatically addicted to deficit spending pursue such a policy for the rest of our lives and beyond? … the barrier to this would not be financial. The barrier would be political. (Samuelson, p. 416)

There is no sign that a high debt exhausts the credit of the government…. And since as a last resource “it can borrow from itself,” there need be no fear on this account. (Tarshis, p. 535)

Even the Brannan Plan fits into the “new economics”:

Government programs to limit crops … and to raise the price to the producer while keeping it low to the consumer are all understandable in terms of diagrams of supply and demand. (Samuelson, p. 452)

As for the problems of increasing American investment in foreign lands (i.e. the problem of the “dollar shortage”), Professor Tarshis has the typical Keynesian answer:

If we could only export one of the printing presses used for the manufacture of Federal Reserve notes to, let us say, China, our foreign investment would be enormously higher. (p. 391)

This “new economics” is neither new nor economics. Instead, it is a concatenation of statistics, mathematics and social philosophy used in support of the age-old sophistries of government inflationism. Every one of these old nostrums, served up with formulas and charts, was exposed long ago. The “periodic business crises,” lamented as an inherent deficiency of free enterprise, have been shown to be nothing more than inevitable periods of deflation following repeated periods of inflation brought on by government-directed credit expansion. These followers of Keynes forget, when they reiterate the necessity of “maintaining full employment,” that labor is more scarce than the material factors of production, that in a truly free market there can be no such thing as prolonged mass unemployment.

They forget, when they apply their formulas and extend their curves, that there are no constant magnitudes in economics, that statistics of “national income” are merely data of history not useful for the development of economic theory. They forget that trying to maintain a high “national income” with printing-press money is as hopeless and as helpless for people as trying to cure sick patients by writing unfilled prescriptions. And they forget, when advocating government intervention, that government does not own anything which is not first taken from the people, that government can only help some people at the expense of others or, by inflationism, make matters worse for everybody.

These advocates of a “mixed economy,” well meaning and sincere though they may be, fail to realize that there can be no such thing as a “mixed economy” — part capitalistic and part socialist. Production is directed either by the market or by a National Production Authority. One ends by precluding the other. In the long run Americans will have either economic freedom or socialism in toto. Textbooks like these will certainly not help them retain what measure of freedom they have left.

Absent-Minded Professors

Through all the record of history is strewn the wreckage of nations ruined by inflationism. Yet these Keynesians stubbornly pursue their will-o’-the-wisp of managed money and the magic of a multiplier. When, under a government-induced inflation of the money and credit supply, unemployment shrinks or completely disappears, the phenomenon does not corroborate the “triumph” of their theories. It is due, simply, to the fact that the rise in wage rates has lagged sufficiently behind the rise in prices to cause a drop in real wage rates, precisely as the classical economists have long insisted. The Keynesians forget this obvious fact. Theirs is the economics of oblivion.

$40 $15

After listening to these ten hours of audio, you will know more real economics than most econ majors.

One can explain the widespread popularity of socialist ideas, despite their inconsistencies, among the uninformed masses. But the authors of these textbooks claim competence in economics. Presumably they are as familiar with Böhm-Bawerk, Jevons, Walras, Wicksell and Mises as they are with Marx and Keynes. One would not think so, to read their books.

What is even more inexplicable is their insisting they do not want socialism when their hero, Keynes, served notice more than thirty years ago:

[T]he sharp distinction, approved by custom and convention during the past two centuries, between the property and rights of a State and the property and rights of its nationals is an artificial one, which is being rapidly put out of date … and is inappropriate to modern socialistic conceptions of the relations between the State and its citizens.[2]

and sixteen years later added,

It will be, moreover, a great advantage to the order of events which I am advocating, that the euthanasia of the rentier, of the functionless investor, will be nothing sudden, merely a gradual but prolonged continuance of what we have seen recently in Great Britain and will need no revolution.[3]

Apparently Gresham’s Law is functioning — as Albert Nock felt it would — upon the minds of Professors Samuelson, Tarshis, Bowman and Bach.

George Koether (1907–2006) was a journalist, speechwriter, businessman, lecturer, economist, a friend to Ludwig and Margit von Mises, and a longtime ambassador for Misesian economics. See this post on the Mises blog written at the time of his death. See his article archives. Comment on the blog.

This review originally appeared as “Economics of Oblivion” in The Freeman, April 7, 1952.

Titles reviewed: Economics: An Introductory Analysis, by Paul A. Samuelson. New York: McGraw-Hill • The Elements of Economics: An Introduction to the Theory of Price and Employment, by Lorie Tarshis. Under the editorship of Edgar S. Furniss. Boston: Houghton Mifflin • Economic Analysis and Public Policy, by Mary Jean Bowman and George Leland Bach. New York: Prentice-Hall.

You can subscribe to future articles by George Koether via this RSS feed.

Notes

[1] Cf. Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (London, 1949), p. 378.

[2] Cf. Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace (New York, 1920), p. 71.

[3] Cf. Keynes, op. cit., p. 376.

You can receive the Mises Dailies in your inbox. Go here to subscribe or unsubscribe.

via: Infowars.com-North American Union Needs Aggressive Action, August 10, 2009

www.infowars.com/obama-north-america-union-needs-aggressive-action/

Your Tax Dollars At Work-August 04, 2009

Blackwater Founder Implicated With Murder
via The Nation-August 04, 2009

www.thenation.com/doc/20090817/scahill

Keep in mind, your tax dollars provided the following “Services”

Xe is the new corporate name of Blackwater. Check out the video.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/07/blackwater-provided-child-prostitutes/

Single-Payer Groceries, Anyone? via LewRockwell.com August 07, 2009

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Recently by Thomas DiLorenzo: Socialized Healthcare vs. the Laws of Economics

The American Socialist Party (ASP), whose members entertainingly call themselves “Democrats,” is determined to use its control of the executive and legislative branches of government to destroy the private health insurance and healthcare industries in favor of “single-payer” healthcare. Of course, when government is the single payer that means government-run monopoly. Average people instinctively understand that monopoly is never in their best interest, but to politicians who will administer and benefit from the monopoly the thinking is apparently “it’s good to be the monopolist,” as Mel Brooks might say.

Moreover, there is no reason to believe that they will stop there. If a government-run monopoly is good for healthcare, they will eventually argue, why not food, cars, and other essentials of modern life? They are socialists, after all.

Since I always try to keep a step ahead of the bad guys, it will be useful to think through how say, a single-payer grocery industry would work. Such an exercise will also teach us some lessons about what can be expected of a “single-payer,” government-run healthcare monopoly.

Here’s my take on how central planning for the new American single-payer grocery industry monopoly would work: First, all groceries will be paid for by the taxpayers, who are sometimes confused with “government” by the media. Anyone at any time – even illegal aliens – can walk into a grocery store and walk out with whatever groceries and other items they “need.” A national government I.D. will be needed so that the state can “track” our grocery purchases with it. It will be as easy to obtain for illegal aliens as it is for citizens, since illegal aliens are such an important voting block in support of the American Socialist Party. The government grocery stores will keep track of all food purchases so that they can better administer the state’s new anti-obesity/mandatory exercise campaign. The stated purpose of this “campaign” will be to cut healthcare costs by forcing us all into healthier lifestyles (as defined by the state). With government in charge of health and lifestyle planning, that old saying will be altered to say “a ton of prevention for an ounce of cure.”

Since the laws of economics have not been repealed, one problem is that since groceries are free, many people will tend to consume far more than is necessary. Cats and dogs will dine on filet mignon, salmon, and sushi, for example, which might drive the pet food industry out of existence. Good riddance, some would say. In economics lingo, there will be an explosion of consumer demand, which will cause a subsequent explosion in costs in most of the food industries (these are called “increasing cost industries” by economists, since average costs of production tend to increase as they expand). Thus, “free” food will become expensive beyond belief. This phenomenon is what economists call “the moral hazard problem” of government subsidies.

In response to the government-created explosion of food costs, the government will wage nationwide propaganda campaigns to raise taxes, complete with televised pictures of starving babies, similar to the “feed the children” television commercials that raise charitable donations for starving children in the Third World. All opposition to the tax increases will be denounced by Nancy Pelosi and her comrades as “Hitler-like,” and worse.

The booboisie will eventually recognize that the food cost explosion (and the healthcare cost explosion that will inevitably come with single-payer healthcare) cannot be paid for indefinitely by the Fed chairman’s announcements of the printing and/or borrowing of another trillion dollars this week, a trillion more next week, etc. They will demand that “something be done” about the out-of-control costs of food as their tax burden escalates, and the politicians will comply.

Politicians typically have only one response to the cost explosions that their own policies cause: price controls, usually euphemistically called “global budgeting,” “price caps,” or some other deceitful phrase. The new price controls on food will stimulate consumer demand even further, while stifling food production and supply, since they will take much of the profit out of farming, which for the time being will still be in private hands. Food shortages are the inevitable result, which of course will call for even more government intervention in the form of a new government food-rationing board, similar to what occurred during World War II when there were price controls on food and many other items. The more affluent will be able to bribe their way into adequate food purchases, while the poor will simply be out of luck, as they always are whenever government rations anything. The affluent always have more political influence than the poor.

I would expect the new government grocery stores to be unionized, as the American Socialist Party will change the labor laws to make it mandatory, just as the government did with airport employees after 9/11. This will give tremendous clout to the public grocery union since a strike can literally shut down food distribution. It will essentially transfer much of the power to tax to the public employee grocery union. Consequently, grocery industry workers will be among the highest paid people in America. This will be an additional cause of a further cost explosion, which will ignite more tax-increasing campaigns and the demonization of the taxpaying public whenever it resists the additional plunder.

With no genuine profit-and-loss statements in our new single-payer grocery industry there will be no way in the world to know whether or not agricultural resources are being used efficiently, that is, whether say, a million dollars in grain is turned into food products that are worth more than a million dollars. When that occurs, there is a profit in the private sector, but the private sector will be only a memory. Consequently, there will be perpetual economic chaos in the food industry. We are talking about socialism here, after all.

Since civil service regulations make it all but impossible to fire public employees, we can expect the highly paid food industry bureaucrats to be as inefficient, lazy, and unproductive as any government bureaucrats anywhere. They will have no incentive to acquire skills that enable them to be more efficient at serving their customers. Instead, the “skills” they will acquire will be political networking, scheming, and conniving skills. Politics will be the route to higher pay and perks, not customer service.

Not to mention management, who will all be political appointees whose jobs will be protected by their politician/benefactors. Bad management, spoiled food, high costs, filthy grocery stores, shortages, and all other costly problems will all be addressed with one strategy: more tax increases and more government demonization of tax resisters.

Since government-run monopolies are, well, monopolies, any competition between the government grocery stores will be strictly controlled or prohibited. The most likely means of doing this will be to assign each person to a certain neighborhood grocery store, just as the government schools assign everyone to a certain government monopoly school, and as the British nationalized healthcare bureaucracy assigns everyone to a specific hospital. That way, our new government-run grocery monopoly will have a truly captured audience of “customers.”

Black markets for food will eventually crop up (no pun intended), but they would have to be harshly penalized by fines and even imprisonment for the more egregious offenses, war-on-drugs style. Single payer means single payer, the government will ominously preach. Black market gardening will draw resources away from the government-run grocery monopoly, which will be especially harmful to “the children,” the state will inform us. This is the argument that is always made by the state in response to the creation of private schools, increased homeschooling, or even school voucher proposals, and it will be repeated if there is any competition for the new government grocery monopoly.

Some years ago I discussed this scenario in a class of undergraduate students and asked them if all of these characteristics reminded them of any particular industry in America. (It’s how public schools are organized). One student who had grown up in the Republic of China (Taiwan) immediately shouted, “Communism!” Having grown up in the shadow of Chinese communism he was very familiar with the subject, and he was right, of course. I’m sure he would have the same opinion of “single-payer healthcare.”

August 7, 2009

Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe and How Capitalism Saved America. His latest book is Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today.

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Doesn’t Pass the Smell Test-Whos Kids Are They Anyway?

FEMA Announces Creation Of Children’s Working Group

Release Date: August 4, 2009
Release Number: HQ-09-094

WASHINGTON, D.C. — While testifying before the Senate Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery today, the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Administrator Craig Fugate announced the creation of a “Children’s Working Group.”

The working group will allow FEMA and its partners to explore and implement planning and response strategies specific to children throughout the agency and ensure that during a disaster the unique needs of children are not only considered, but fully integrated into how FEMA administers this support to states and the public.

“It is time for special needs populations, whether children or any other segment of our communities who have traditionally been underserved, to be more fully and consistently integrated into preparedness and planning efforts at every level of government,” Administer Fugate said.  “Children are a part of every community.  We must understand and address their needs from the outset, recognizing that they are not simply small adults. That means not putting the considerations specific to children in a separate box, but incorporating them into our planning on the front end.”

The Children’s Working Group will be composed of FEMA employees across multiple directorates and offices to ensure coordination and action, and will report directly to the Office of the Administrator.  The working group will be chaired by Tracy Wareing, counselor to Secretary Napolitano for FEMA.

Areas of focus of the Children’s Working Group will include:

• Child-specific guidance as to evacuation, sheltering, and relocation;
• Tracking and reunification of families;
• Coordinated case management supports;
• Enhanced preparedness for child care centers and schools as well as for children in child welfare and juvenile justice systems;
• Enhanced national planning, including incorporation of children into national planning scenarios and exercises;
• Incorporation of children’s needs into grant guidance;
• Improved recovery coordination across the federal family and with state and local partners in support of children’s education, health and housing;
• Consideration as to how the federal family can help ensure child care centers are able rebuild and restore services more quickly following a disaster, and;
• Increased public awareness efforts to educate families and protect children during disasters.

FEMA’s mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards.

Last Modified: Tuesday, 04-Aug-2009 11:35:36

Must Watch! Military Joining the American Resistance to Protect the Constitution!

www.revolutionnow.us/emvideo/thickbox/23/425/350/field_video/youtube/zGHlvnqPdH0

Video: Columbus Tea Party-via the Tenth Amendment Center-August 01, 2009

www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/02/andrew-napolitano-in-ohio-part-1/

www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/02/andrew-napolitano-in-ohio-part-2/

Air Force Vet Breaks Silence on What Hit Pentagon on 9-11-via republicbroadcasting.org-August 02, 2009

republicbroadcasting.org/?p=3551

Nat Hentoff: Hate crime bill goes against Constitution-via Pasadena Star News July 30, 2009

www.pasadenastarnews.com/ci_12951200?source=rss_viewed

Town Halls Gone Wild! via politico.com August 02, 2009

The People are starting to be noticed; it’s about time!

After clicking on the link, click on the video that’s on the left sidebar.

Thanks for visiting.
www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25646.html

Hamilton County (TN) Residents Against Annexation, August 01, 2009

The proponents of bigger government are at it again.

If you believe smaller government is responsible government, check out the link below.

Annexation is nothing more than the city/county practicing eminent  domain on a large scale by using fear tactics to entice the unwitting to abide with the greedy proponents of an ever-expanding government.

The term…“Services” should be scrutinized thoroughly. You don’t always get what you pay for. Take the largest employer within the physical boundaries of Hamilton County into consideration… The Hamilton County Department of Education. If that’s not enough to prove that METRO GOVERNMENT is over-bloated and out of control of “We the People”, what is?

Thanks for visiting.

www.hcraa.org/

Video:Documented New World Order

http://www.guba.com/watch/3000111574

AE911Truth Update via http://ae911truth.org-July 31, 2009

www.ae911truth.org

citizens May Need Three Shots This Fall??? July 30, 2009

The World Hell Organization flexes its syringe-wielding-tentacles (locally) once again.

Authoritarians are so arrogant, they think the sheep will let the government inject them with a government-contrived substance that will make thousands sick, and possibly hundreds or thousands succumb to the side effects of the inoculations.

Some folks are really gullible. Oh, and by the way; the federal government will provide the vaccine and equipment. Well, that means we are paying for that too.

THANKS BUT NO THANKS!!!

I’ll be responsible for my own health.

Check out this link from the chattanoogan.com

www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_155820.asp

1400 is More Than 200 via- http://www.et-liberty.com July 30, 2009

http://someoneneedstosayit.blogspot.com/2009/07/ap-vastly-understates-obama-protest.html

Technically, 1400 is more than 200. What is the truth?

In Liberty,

PK Lowrey

Please read “The Future is Calling”

● Part 1: The Chasm

● Part 2: Secret Organization and Hidden Agendas

● Part 3: Days of Infamy

● Part 4: The War on Terrorism

__._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages East Tennessee Liberty: http://www.et-liberty.com
Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty: http://www.campaignforliberty.com

The Meaningless Constitution by Don Cooper July 30, 2009

Courtesy of LewRockwell.com Home | Blog | Subscribe | Podcasts | Donate

The Meaningless Constitution by Don Cooper by Don Cooper Recently by Don Cooper: A Fistful of Dollar Article 8, Section I, Clause I of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Taxing and Spending Clause: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” It’s this clause that our government most commonly abuses in defense of their special interest legislation and subsequent taxing and spending.Supreme court associate justice Joseph Story (1812–1845) argued that the “Welfare Clause” gave congress the power to tax and spend as an independent power of the legislature; that is, the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. [T]he [General Welfare] clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution. … But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations. … [T]he powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.” Interpreting the constitution in this fashion makes no common sense. If this one clause in the constitution gives the legislature discretionary power to tax the people and spend it on whatever programs they deem to provide for the general welfare then the constitution serves no purpose since any administration can and will define anything they want – most likely special interest legislation – to be providing for the welfare of the people and who is going to stop them and that is precisely the purpose of the constitution: to keep the government in check. In other words, in a document meant to constrain the power of the federal government our founding fathers gave them unbridled power. Given the nature of men, the long dubious history of government corruption, fraud and waste, I find it difficult to believe that anyone thinks our legislature should be or posses the faculties to be our moral compass. Or that they truly act in the interest of the general welfare of the people rather than themselves. Furthermore, any taxing of the people and spending by the government – even defense spending – by nature necessarily decreases the welfare of those taxed. Consider the congress decides that providing healthcare for Americans is providing for their general welfare. But the government has to pay for this healthcare somehow so they either raise our taxes, borrow money from foreign countries or have the Federal Reserve print more money to pay for it. All equally effective forms of taxation. Let’s assume the government taxes Peter an extra $500/year in order to pay for healthcare for Paul. But of course that $500 won’t be $500 by the time it goes through the government’s inefficient beauracy so they also have to tax Robert, David, Jim and many others just to provide healthcare for Paul. Now Paul is better off because he now has healthcare. But all the people that were taxed to pay for it are worse off. They didn’t want to give that $500 to the government. They wanted to use it for clothes or food or investment or any number of other things. Even if they receive the national healthcare as well they are still worse off since they had no choice in the matter. What if they don’t want government healthcare? They still have to pay the taxes. What if they don’t get hurt or sick to the point that they need to use the national healthcare? They still have to pay for it. And since $1 always comes out in any government program less than $1 there are many more people who are worse off resulting in a net negative change to social welfare. Governments are always wrong in their estimations of the cost of their programs. In the 60’s Medicaid part A was estimated to cost $9 billion by 1990. As of 1990 Medicaid Part A had cost $67 billion in real dollars. Social welfare was certainly decreased. Every dollar the government takes out of someone’s pocket is a dollar that person no longer has to spend for himself. Even if he is a recipient of the program his welfare is still less since he was forced to participate in a program he had no say in and had to give up other things he wanted to do. Even if someone wants the government healthcare their welfare will decrease due to the quality of the care. The governments’ inherent inefficiencies, corruption and waste will provide subpar healthcare. Everybody remembers the scandal at Walter Reid Army Hospital. That is government run healthcare. Just visit your local VA or Army hospital. Talk to people about Medicare and Medicaid and other social healthcare programs that already exist and see what they say. The quality will also continue to go down as the costs go up since there are no market signals to correct the inefficiencies. The inefficiencies will be dealt with by spending more money to correct the problem decreasing social welfare even further. Economically, financially, logistically and socially it is impossible for the federal government to provide for the general welfare regardless of what they do. That’s why if a clause in the constitution is not clear and concise then it should be discounted and not interpreted to be anything more than what it is. Clauses like general welfare clauses are an example as compared to clauses such as: “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;” If the purpose of the document is to limit the power of the federal government then the constitution should be interpreted without making any assumptions regarding meaning. For example, if the federal government wants to create a new department to regulate water then there had better be a clause in the constitution explicitly giving the government the legal authority to regulate water. If there isn’t then they do not have the authority and only via an amendment to the constitution can they gain it. Amendments are difficult to make and that is precisely what the authors of the constitution wanted: to make it difficult for the government to increase its power. Again, the amendment process is meaningless if the clause “general welfare” means anything they want. No need to amend the constitution we’ll just say it’s providing for the general welfare. Any clause that could be interpreted to mean many things therefore means nothing. July 30, 2009 Don Cooper [send him mail] is a Florida native, Navy veteran and economist living and working in the Midwest. Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given. Don Cooper Archives

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page

What Are They Up To Now? July 25, 2009

Nanny government doesn’t want you and your local or state government to be self-governing.

You need to understand that the lies, fear tactics and contrived scenarios presented by our non-representative government at the federal level are there to acclimate you into total compliance of a system that is hell-bent on a totalitarian-tyrannical governance and the death of our Constitutional Republic.

Freedom is the enemy of big government. Check out FEMA’s news release below.

www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=49140

Why Rep. Wamp and Mayor Haslam can NOT be Governor of TN! [or who I’m (NOT) supporting for TN Governor] by Matt Collins July 13, 2009

The following is contributed by Matt Collins. His credentials follow the article below.

Definitely a must read for folks who strive for accountability in government!

You’re kidding me. Our elected officials are supposed to actually keep their oath to uphold the Constitution? The supreme law of the land?

Yup, that’s it. It’s so simple; but these folks are hard to find due to “Special Interest Influence” and arm-twisting from the “Dark Side”.

—————————————————–

<<I HAVE POSTED THE FOLLOWING AT: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=21733 FEEL FREE TO COPY AND REDISTRIBUTE – citizens of TN should know about their candidates>>

DISCLAIMER:
Nothing I communicate is to be considered an official statement representative of any organization I belong to or am an officer of, including the Campaign for Liberty, Republican Liberty Caucus, WTN, Liberty on the Rocks, America’s Future Foundation, The Tennessee Liberty Alliance, Rand Paul for Senate, or the Davidson County (Nashville) Republican Party. My opinions are my own.

Why Rep. Wamp and Mayor Haslam can NOT be

Governor of TN!
[or who I’m (NOT) supporting for TN Governor]

The Davidson County (Nashville) Republican Party held our annual summer picnic Saturday (7/11); all of the Republican gubernatorial candidates were present. After speaking with each candidate individually I am still unsure who I am going to support, however there are definitely two of the candidates who have not only disqualified themselves, but should never hold and elected office again!

I‘ll start with Bill Haslam the Mayor of Knoxville.

In case you are unaware Mayor Haslam joined NYC Mayor Bloomberg’s anti-gun coalition in an effort to curb crime in Knoxville. However Mayor Haslam then says that upon joining the coalition the leadership took a different direction and he withdrew from the organization. Fair enough and at the DCRP picnic Saturday 2nd Vice Chair Dan Davis and myself asked him about this issue. I wanted to hear the straight scoop directly from him in order to give him a chance to explain his actions before I decided.

Mayor Haslam discussed the story as I explained and he said his intention in the entire situation was simply to “stop the wrong people from having guns”.

I asked him “what kind of people are you referring to that you say shouldn’t have guns?”
And he responded with “felons, criminals, and those without a permit”.

Then I asked “so you believe we need a permit or permission to exercise a right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment?”
Mayor Haslam said “well, for handguns yes“

That told me everything I needed to know; I thanked him for his time then I ended the conversation and Dan and I walked away.

What Mayor Haslam does not understand is that ONE DOES NOT NEED A PERMIT TO EXERCISE A RIGHT!!!
We have a right to bear arms that both the US and TN Constitutions guarantee shall not be infringed. Do we need a permit for free speech? Do we need a permit to print a newspaper? Do we need a permit to have a trial by jury? Do we need a permit to birth children? NO, of course not. Why? Because these activities are fundamental individual RIGHTS which cannot be taken away without due process (obviously those convicted of violent crimes should be denied their right to posses firearms). We do not need permission from the government to exercise our rights. If we have to ask permission, then it isn’t a right, it’s a privilege! Rights and privileges are opposites.

The idea that our right to self-defense, our right to bear arms, and that our right to buy/sell/own personal property is first contingent upon a governmental grant of approval is insulting to the very ideals of freedom on which the American Republic was founded. I suggest Mayor Haslam read the US and TN Constitutions because ignorance of both that magnitude and of that authoritarian mindset is dangerous to individual rights and to a free society. He is obviously unfit to govern if he cannot understand the simple and basic difference between rights and privileges.

(Upon edit apparently I am not the only one who takes issue with Mayor Haslam in this regard)

Continuing on to the other gubernatorial candidate, Zach Wamp, the US Congressman from Tennessee’s 3rd District.

Representative Wamp voted for the October ’09 bailout. Representative Wamp calls himself a conservative but one has to ask what is conservative about spending billions of nonexistent dollars, increasing the size/scope of the federal government, and voting against the US Constitution? As an aside it is worth noting that the bailout Representative Wamp voted for also included an audit of carbon emissions which laid the foundation for the coming cap-and-trade / carbon tax; next time you see him be sure to thank him for that.

All US Congressmen upon being seated are administered an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States”. Nowhere in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution (the part that lists Congressional power) is the federal government given the authority to bail out banks, businesses, or mortgages. By voting for and supporting the bailout Congressman Wamp clearly violated his oath to support and defend the US Constitution. On those grounds alone he should be removed from office immediately, and personally I would like to see him, along with most of the rest of the members of Congress, either in jail or forced to perform restitution to those of us who are footing the bill for his unconstitutional action.

When one is entrusted with and given the awesome power to make laws governing the life and property of others, the abuse (or negligence) of that power is not only criminal, but amoral; Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary labels an individual “who betrays another’s trust or who is false to an obligation or duty” as a traitor. Does that denotative description fit Representative Wamp’s blatant violation of his oath?

Several DCRP officers and myself approached him near the conclusion of the Picnic because we wanted to discuss HR1207 (Audit the Federal Reserve Act). Representative Wamp extended his hand to me to shake it and I absolutely refused; I am not interested in being friendly towards those who violate the Constitution. To be fair he said that he was very supportive of HR1207 and that “we ought to do more than just audit the Fed….it’s the cause of a lot of our problems”. While I agree with the Congressman on that specific issue I honestly wanted to vocalize that the other cause of our problems were big-government Republicans acting like big-government Democrats such as himself. However in the spirit of, at minimum, being cordial, I held my tongue. But prior to walking away I did thank him for and told him I appreciated his support on HR1207. I still did not shake his hand.

Regardless of his support for a call of transparency in Auditing the Fed, the fact of the matter is that he broke the trust of the People of the United States by clearly violating his oath to uphold the US Constitution. One or multiple positive actions do not negate the fundamental premise of breaking the highest law in the land, usurping more power to the federal government, and going against one’s sworn oath. Even though Representative Wamp has called his vote for the bailout “a mistake” how can the voters continue to trust him after such a grossly grievous err in judgment especially considering the significance of the consequences resulting from his action?
At this point we have a candidate who has violated his oath, and another who is of the authoritarian mindset that the People need permission from the government before exercising their individual and guaranteed rights. I have 3 more candidates in the TN gubernatorial race to investigate before I decide who to support, hopefully at least 1 of the 3 will not disappoint me because the thought of voting for “none of the above” in the upcoming primary is extremely depressing– I refuse to vote for anyone who is going to increase government, or decrease liberty.

In conclusion it is prudent to ask if we attain smaller, more limited-government, more liberty, more personal freedoms, and less taxes by continuing to vote for elected officials that have broken our trust and ignore the Constitution? Should we reward politicians who take our money, our property, and our freedoms by elevating them to higher office? Should we continue to vote for more of the same? Upon a review of history, I think not. If the Republican Party, and ultimately the country, is going to restrain its government, we must vote for those who adhere to principles, not compromise them.

Matt Collins
“principle before politics”
Vice Chair Davidson County Republican Party
Vice Chair Republican Liberty Caucus of TN
Coordinator Davidson County Campaign for Liberty
Talk Radio Producer 99.7 WTN Nashville
Member America’s Future Foundation
Member Liberty on the Rocks

DISCLAIMER:
Nothing I communicate is to be considered an official statement representative of any organization I belong to or am an officer of, including the Campaign for Liberty, Republican Liberty Caucus, WTN, Liberty on the Rocks, America’s Future Foundation, The Tennessee Liberty Alliance, Rand Paul for Senate, or the Davidson County (Nashville) Republican Party. My opinions are my own.

Medvedev Debuts “World Currency” at G8 Summit

Article and video via link below

www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Story-World_Currency_Coin_Shown_At_G8

Judge Revokes Former DEA Agent’s Bond Even After Being Made Aware of Prosecutorial Misconduct Allegations-July 12, 2009

www.narconews.com/en.html

The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It! via Socio-Economics History Blog July 13, 2009

“Healthcare” is no more than a “Buzz Word” for insurance, pharmaceutical companies and government to use for corralling citizens into a trap that future generations will be paying the price for. And they don’t want you healthy; they want you dependent on the government approved system that insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists pay for.

Personal responsibility is much cheaper and far-less intrusive.

Check out the link below.

socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/the-truth-about-the-drug-companies-how-they-deceive-us-and-what-to-do-about-it/

Hauntings Of The Jack Kennedy Scenario Revisited

The Federal Reserve , a cadre of private bankers (which is no more federal than Federal Express) were under threat by John Kennedy’s determination to get our monetary system back in control of the people. Thus, Kennedy was terminated on November 22, 1963 by the powers that is.

The song remains the same. America’s citizens, taxpayers and property owners are getting wise to the command & control practices of the “Fed”. The Fed cannot tolerate being under the scrutiny of any constitution, law, congress, senate or the people. But that’s about to change.

The insanity of the Federal Reserve’s practices are only justified by our representative government’s necessity to fund all of the un-Constitutional projects that it cannot afford. Even if the projects are constitutional, “We The People” shouldn’t be liable for expenditures that our government can’t afford.

When government “Dreams” take precedence to fiscal and Constitutional responsibility, socialism takes over and the Fed doesn’t care what our government is borrowing money for, as long as future generations pay up.

Check out the link below

www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSN0945907120090709

Headed to National Socialism by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. July 10, 2009

Excerpt:

“It was common on the left to intimate that George W. Bush was like Hitler, a remark that would drive the National Review crowd through the roof but which I didn’t find entirely outrageous. Bush’s main method of governance was to stir up fear of foreign enemies and instigate a kind of nationalist hysteria about the need for waging war and giving up liberty through security.”

Read Article Here

Cheney Linked To Concealment Of Covert CIA Op’s?

Boy, there’s a shocker. Good thing I was sitting down when I learned of that one. Addington was pretty-much the master document scribe during that scenario. Before implementing the intentional destruction of your republic, you want to ensure that all of the VIP’s asses are covered. That’s where Addington came into play. By the way, he couldn’t be reached for comment according to the NY Times article below.

www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/politics/12intel.html?hp

Why Submit To Intrusive Government? “Check Out: Startpage.com – The world’s most private search engine.” July 11, 2009

If you value your personal privacy and freedom, you need to check out:
www.startpage.com // www.ixquick.com

————————————————————-

Co-author of “SPYCHIPS: How Major Corporations and Government
Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID”

Katherine Albrecht, Ed.D.

===================================
Dr. Katherine Albrecht
U.S. Marketing and Media Relations
Startpage (by Ixquick)

US toll free: 877-434-3100
International: +1 973-273-2125
kma@ixquick.com
===================================
USE STARTPAGE, THE PRIVACY-PROTECTING SEARCH ENGINE
www.startpage.com //  www.ixquick.com
===================================

Additional info (FYI)

===================================
Dr. Katherine Albrecht
Syndicated Radio Host, “The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Show”
Genesis Communications Network, M-F 4-6 PM EST
Show Website:  http://www.katherinealbrecht.com
Listen Live:   http://www.gcnlive.com/ (Click “Listen Live,”then
“Channel 2”)
Podcast & Replay: http://www.gcnlive.com/programs/katherineAlbrecht/
Archives of past shows available at www.katherinealbrecht.com

Founder and Director, CASPIAN Consumer Privacy

Co-author of “SPYCHIPS: How Major Corporations and Government
Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID”
The award-winning bestseller and definitive critique of RFID
http://www.spychips.com/book/booksales.html

WEBSITES:
Human/Animal Chipping: http://www.AntiChips.com
RFID in Products: http://www.SpyChips.com
Shopper Cards: http://www.NoCards.org
Bio online at: http://www.katherinealbrecht.com

===================================
USE STARTPAGE, THE PRIVACY-PROTECTING SEARCH ENGINE
www.startpage.com //  www.ixquick.com
The only search engine third-party certified not to record your IP
address

H1N1 Article via The Gazette July 09, 2009

www.gazette.com/news/isolated-58238-members-force.html

Real U.S. Unemployment Rate At 20 Percent-July 06, 2009

Do you believe the government-reported unemployment stats?

http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/topstocks/archive/2009/07/06/true-unemployment-rate-already-at-20.aspx

Restore The Republic » Blog Archive » There is One Type of Total Gun Ban We Need, Jefferson Would Agree, and It’ll Bring Back 1776

Returning to 1776 is really in the article. Please read it before blowing a head gasket. I am a proponent of the entire Bill of Rights. The article is excellent food for thought (and action).

via Restore The Republic » Blog Archive » There is One Type of Total Gun Ban We Need, Jefferson Would Agree, and It’ll Bring Back 1776.

Video: The Criminal Rothschilds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..r_embedded

Video: General of US Intel says no plane hit Pentagon

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0iry3fiHU4&feature=player_embedded

Greg’s Newsletter, Keeping the American Middle Class Informed-August 18, 2009

(Poster’s Note: To read some of Greg’s previous newsletters, go to the sidebar and click on “Greg’s Newsletter, Keeping the American Middle Class Informed-Archive”)

Check out Greg’s website  http://goodwinfortennessee.com

———————————————

August 18, 2009

Ok, the right questions are still not being asked on health care. Let me ask you some questions prior to your understanding of why I say this.

1.     Do you agree and understand that lobbyists influence the decisions made by our government?

2.     Do you understand that the anti trust laws have been relaxed over the years, by both parties, in regards to monopolies and market control activities by corporations?

3.     When the statements of government control health care is “essential” or must be part of the health care issue or whatever statement they want to use for governmental controlled health care, it is an integral part of this proposed health care plan.

Now the real question should be asked:

1. Who, in the lobbyist world, is pushing this proposed governmental control of the health care system?

If you think it is the administration that cares for all of us, don’t, you got to find out who is economically benefiting from it.

Let us not forget the banking industry where we were told if the first TARP wasn’t passed the entire economy would fail. What did they do? Not buying toxic assets as they stated but gave it to the banks which in turned bought other banks at bargain basement prices furthering their domination of the banking industry. Followed by the Federal Reserve buying up the toxic assets with printed money.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a4PWQBl9WmBU

Now knowing the banking industry had this much power, how about the insurance industry, sitting in the middle of Wall Street and the rest of the economic power brokers? We know over the years they have been buying each other up and accumulating more control of the insurance industry. This in turn gives them more economic power and control of their lobbying activities for their benefit. Look at what our government did for AIG who got caught up in the Credit Default Swaps (another name for insurance but couldn’t call it that because it would have lead to governmental regulations), they gave them $180 Billion.

I know the government bureaucracies will have to administer the program but who will give them the guidance, rules, and regulations to support this behemoth? It will be the Congress and guess who gives them lobbying money for their life long careers, you are right if you answered the ones that will be economically benefiting from it. So this completes a circle that has been used aggressively in recent years to promote the most economically powerful programs for smaller groups of the economic elite, which will economically benefit from their influence.

Very little is done in Washington to benefit the people without benefiting some other economically powerful group. That is how things are done in Washington.

Candidate for US Congress, 3^rd District of Tennessee 2010,

Greg Goodwin

http://goodwinfortennessee.com/

8/18/09

———————————————