Sunday, September 13, 2009

Ron Paul Has the Council on Foreign Relations Worried


Near the start of this year Ron Paul (R-Texas) introduced H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Financial Services. As of this writing, H.R. 1207 has 282 cosponsors.

A Senate equivalent, S.604, the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009, has been introduced by Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). It has 23 cosponsors. Both bills have received a tremendous groundswell of grass-roots support. Much of the support is coming from ordinary people who have become aware of the fact that the Federal Reserve has created trillions of dollars literally out of nothing during the past calendar year in its effort to micromanage its way out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

If such a measure were passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Obama, the resulting bill would allow the Government Accounting Office to conduct audits of Federal Reserve System monetary policy. The bill proposes to scrutinize the Fed’s dealings not just on domestic monetary policy but on dealings with foreign central banks and foreign governments.

The power elite is worried. Evidence for this can be found in a short article "The Fed's Political Problem" appearing on the website of Foreign Affairs, flagship journal for the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The article's author, Alan S. Blinder, is a senior-level economics professor at Princeton University who also directs Princeton’s Center for Economic Policy Studies. From 1994 to 1996 he served as vice chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Blinder first argues a thesis he proposed back in 1997, that some areas of government are properly political and others are properly technocratic. He places monetary policy in the latter, where it can operate independently of political oversight. The drawback of Ron Paul’s bill is that it would transfer Fed oversight to the political realm and end its independence.

Blinder describes Dr. Paul as “an extreme libertarian and longtime foe of the Fed. He has, incredibly, persuaded almost two-thirds of the House of Representatives to co-sponsor a bill that would jeopardize the Fed’s independence.” According to Blinder, the Fed “gets plenty of critical evaluations” of its policies and decisions. He maintains that Dr. Paul’s bill “could easily develop into something quite dangerous.” He imagines this scenario:

Sometime in 2010, the Fed, wanting to avoid inflation, will likely begin to abandon the hyper-expansionary monetary policy it adopted during the recent crisis as a way to stave off a depression. As it does so, interest rates will start rising even as unemployment remains high. Predictably, Congress, being more closely attuned to public opinion, will be unhappy with this situation. Until now, the Fed’s independence has ensured that it can afford to ignore public opinion and take such necessary but unpopular economic measures. That is precisely why we want an independent monetary policy. But if the Paul bill passes, angry members of Congress could ask for a GAO audit. And, if the report is critical, they could use it to browbeat members of the Federal Open Market Committee, the Fed’s interest-rate-setting body, for killing the country’s economic recovery.

This misses the key argument Ron Paul has been making, which follows those of members of theAustrian school of economics (e.g., Ludwig von Mises). What Blinder euphemistically calls hyper-expansionary monetary policy actually is inflationary, if we understand inflation to be not merely rising prices but an increase in the amount of fiat currency in circulation. Mainstream economics has long preferred the public to see inflation almost exclusively in terms of visibly rising prices. If prices aren't rising, economists can maintain that inflation is low even though the money creation spigot is going full blast — as it has been since the economic crisis began a year ago.

If we understand inflation as an increase in the money supply, however, we see immediately that the Fed, far from being a controller of inflation, is actually an engine of inflation. Rising prices in this case are just one possible effect of monetary inflation. The Fed is responsible for the long-term decline in purchasing power of our dollars, which have been backed literally by nothing except legal tender laws and the willingness of the public to accept them since 1971, the year President Richard Nixon severed the last ties between the dollar and gold. Fed monetary policy is the reason a hamburger costs you several dollars when your grandfather could buy one for thirty-five cents. The dollar has lost slightly over 96 percent of its value since the Federal Reserve System was created in 1913. The national debt has soared during the period since 1971 from a few hundred million to its present $11.8 trillion. Millions will be added to the debt during the brief time it takes to read this article!

The dollar’s value will drop considerably more should it lose its status as the world’s reserve currency. The Chinese are getting very nervous about the money-creation spigot in Washington, D.C.Perhaps these are the kinds of developments that elites such as Blinder don’t want the public to know about. Clearly the elites are uncomfortable with the amount of attention the Fed has received — the public being aware of the trillions having been created literally out of thin air during the past year. “What will this do to the long-term purchasing power of my money?” is a perfectly valid question many ordinary Americans are asking.

What are the prospects for H.R. 1207 and S. 604? Even if these bills pass and a compromise bill reaches President Barack Obama’s desk, it is difficult to imagine him even considering signing it. The effort to bring more of the Fed’s activities into the light of day may receive a new ally in the Senate late next year, however, as Ron Paul’s son Rand Paul has announced his candidacy for one of Kentucky’s two slots and raised $815,000 as of this writing. Like father, like son: Rand Paul is also highly critical of the lack of transparency that characterizes crucial decisions made by the Federal Reserve and has vowed, if elected to the Senate, to work to “shed light on this secretive organization." He reminds us of the trillions the Fed has created out of thin air and adds, “The American people have a right to know to whom this money was given. For all its talk of transparency the current administration has done nothing to tear the shroud off the Fed.”










**********
Source:http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/congress/1842
**********

Monday, July 6, 2009

Barack Obama..What the hell are you doing?

this will require no typing on my part as it is a video for your viewing pleasure.




Remove Pelosi- anti-American **IMPORTANT**

source: link

It appears that back on june 29th, Nancy Pelosi tried to sneek some nasty legislation under the nose of the american people. the opening paragraph of a CNSNews.com article says in the opening paragraph;

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) will not give the public a week to review the final text of a health-care reform bill before it is voted on later this year.
The very next paragraph, Senate majority leader Harry Reid also;
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) has also declined to commit to giving the public a week to read and consider the final health-care bill.


I'm calling on EVERY american to call your elected representative and ask them to take the steps to remove Nancy Pelosi From the office of speaker of the house immediately! It has now been shown that Pelosi has alledgely lied about knowing about the waterboarding that took place and now she's undermining the confidence of the people by allowing her and Harry Reid to act as total statist autocrats!

I urge you to look up your Congressional Respresentative at the website; link here and let them know just how pissed you are about the lack of concern fo ryour rights as a constituent in their locales.

What is America today?

I served in our armed forces for 10 years(ten). I served in some in really poor nations and some not so poor.I've been out of the military for 13 years now and I'm enjoying a day off from my labours. I just spent the 4th of July weekend working for our soldiers who are wounded, their families and the staff of Walter Reed. I admire these brave, young souls who have begotten injuries suffered mostly from IED's, roadside bombs. I LOVE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM! they should be loved. they fulfilled their promise, a promise to go where their leaders, appointed over them, tell them to go. They have HONOR, COURAGE and INTEGRITY. Which brings me to my topic today; where's the integrity,honor and courage of our Congressional leadership?

We the voters, appoint them to go where we want them to go( Washington DC) and fulfill THEIR obligations to the american people. We voted them into office to fight for us and our freedoms! These same politicians have no problem sending our young sons and daughters to IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN to fight for their freedoms and democracy in those countries but, "Do they even WANT freedom and Democracy anyway?" These criminals have sent your sons ans daughters to war under the premise of freedom and democracy but, more realisitically for profiteering! I think the REAL reason why Obama hasn't brought any charges on these politicians who allowed for illegal waterboarding is because both Democrats and Republicans have blood on their hands. To top this all off, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the house claims she never knew. Why not? first, she's third in succession for being president if both the President and VP are unable to perform the job. Next, she had an obligation to investigate the inital allegations when they came up several years ago. She and her Pussy Democrat colleagues were afraid to go up against the big bad nasty bear, Bush and Cheney! But aside from that, why not simply for the principles of breaking the law and ruining the honor of the office of the president? The world hates us and Obama seems to be trying to repair that reputation around the world.

I really find it hard to find any honor in this country today because of our political leaders who seem clueless as to what their job is really about. I look at things this way, if our congressional leaders spent as much energy as they do sending money to our wars, ripping off the american people, giving money to their wall street criminal friends as they do, how wonderful this nation would be if they redirected their energies to truly helping our nation!

But there's a line in the sand today, between the rich and the poor. As George bush said during a formal dinner years ago, "America, a land of haves and have mores." Simply put, America has been taught by our leaders and corporations that greed is the NEW american dream.

Friday, July 3, 2009

July 3, 2009

Seems like the president was full of poop. read on. Article taken from the Washington Examiner

Please click here to see an article about how well Obama's stimulus package is doing and hear rumors about a second stimulus package. I have no clue but, I'm over stimuluated..



Friday, June 19, 2009

The US; a state that doesn't learn from it's past

I was born in 1968, a year where the economy was not unlike it is today. In 1968 for example, inflation caused many people hardships. Wives complained about a $1.99/lb sirloin steak and even the people had a hard time finding a .50¢ hamburger. Even though today’s consumer prices aren’t what they were back in 1968, the same principles apply to the economy whatever the year. I’m reading a 1968 Time magazine article whereby it states, to keep the economy on a healthy keel, consumer prices should be kept to a 2% increase or less each year. So what happened in 1968? In 1968, prices during an 18 month period that went into that year jumped to 4.3%. Some other fascinating things to note in that article:

Transportation rose 4.2%
Food 4.5%
Apparel 6.6%
Medical care 7.2%

That year our nations GDP was 8.7%, which totaled $860 billion that year which was a lot yes, but almost half of that was due to price increases! The US was experiencing inflation and the effects of the devaluation of the dollar. While this was going on, people and businessmen borrowed, spent and invested quickly trying to turn their cash assets into good and services which did nothing more than to stoke the rising inflation in hopes of beating the loss in value of the US dollar. Back then as is the case today, the economic hardship affected the poor the most. The poor lack the financial resources necessary to invest in solid investments like real estate or paper investments, perhaps T-notes and more. Here’s a parallel of 2009 and 1965: “In 1965, Lyndon Johnson decided that the nation could simultaneously support the Viet Nam buildup and the Great Society. Critics insisted that such policies would push up prices unless taxes were raised. Johnson refused to propose higher taxes. Such a move would almost certainly have prompted Congress to cut back some of his favorite spending programs. Later, faced with soaring federal deficits, Johnson changed his mind and urged a tax increase. But Congress dallied for 18 months—and thus lost an opportunity to halt inflation before it took deep root.” So- what we see here is Johnson thought he could still have his war AND fund all his pet projects all the while without raising taxes." I see today that, President Obama is in the same boat. He’s currently trying to fund IRAQ and Afghanistan while trying to spend without raising taxes. As much as I HATE the thought of raising taxes, they are probably going to have to happen. This to me presents another problem: Since the middle and poor classes have been taxed out their pants as of late, how can we raise taxes? We should ensure that businesses and corporations pay their fair share of taxes. IF everyone from the individual to the biggest corporations paid their fair share, I think we would have a good financial grounding. So, even though the year was 1968, We are back in the same boat, with a different presidential administration but same economic ballgame.

-Christopher Jackson