Utah Open Source Planet

Today there have been a lot of articles in the news about the reaction, or lack thereof, from President Obama’s Administration regarding the protests and prelude to revolution in Iran.  Instead of whole-hearted praise and warm greetings to those protesting what appeared to be a rigged election, it has been a measured, cautious approach.  Some call this outrageous, others call it being too weak.  I, on the other hand, see it as exactly what the US should be doing, and here is why:

In 1989, when protesters in Berlin began to bring down the Berlin Wall, the world was elated.  Everyone wanted a piece of the wall (and I think you can still find some pieces on eBay, though I’m not sure if they are authentic), and everyone was talking about the success of the US policy against Russia.  The media was praising this, and looking to the President, then President George Bush (Sr.) for words of support and praise.  Instead, President Bush was reserved, much like President Obama is currently.  He was criticized for his apparent lack of concern or support for what almost every President since John F. Kennedy had called for:  the fall of the Berlin Wall.

But President Bush had a reason to be reserved:  Having worked for the CIA, he knew of a common technique used by the KGB where rumors of CIA and US support would come to those who revolt against Soviet rule.  The protests would then be made with the hope and understanding that the CIA would back the revolt, and the KGB would then sweep in and quickly wipe out all dissidents.  President Bush didn’t want the same technique used in Germany, and so merely said he was watching things closely and didn’t say anything regarding the fall of the Wall. 

As a result, the fall of East Germany under the rule of the Soviets was completely a German matter, and was not controlled or instigated by the US.  As such, the reunification has since been a German decision, and no one can claim that Germany is by any means under the control of the US Government.  Also, other countries were able to break free from the Soviet State, and become independent without US intervention, and therefore their governments became truly theirs, representative of the people. 

So now let’s look at Iran.  There is a lot going on there that is promising to those looking for freedom and a true democracy in that country, free from the influences of the US or any other nation.  These demonstrations are truly Iranian in nature, and President Obama is determined to keep it that way.  It’s worthy of President Bush, and I imagine he probably had counseled with the former President on this very issue.  There are no other sitting Presidents who have had this type of experience, and no other President that could have boasted such a successful outcome. 

So, to the people of the Media, before you criticize the President for taking such a cautious and reserved stance, keep in mind what is at stake here.  The minute the US is seen supporting any type of demonstration, the current regime can dismiss it as foreign intervention, and kill people without conscience.  But if it remains purely an Iranian event, the Iranians can decide for themselves if a regime change is necessary to bring true democracy to the country, or even if they really want a true democracy. 

Image via Wikipedia

As we all know, the US government is now GM's largest shareholder. As someone who has served on the boards of several companies, this gives me great pause. It's unlikely that GM is going to choose me to be on it's board, but if they did, I'm not sure I'd understand what I was meant to do.

When you serve on the board of a for-profit company, your fiduciary duty is clear: increase shareholder value. Boards work for the shareholders and shareholders invest in companies to make money. Sure, the law imposes other duties on boards towards employees and customers, and most boards have legal counsel to help them sort those out; but the overall driving motivations are pretty simple.

Now take GM. (Please.) When your largest shareholder is the government, it's not clear what their expectations of directors should be. Clearly they're not interested in increasing their investment or they would have put their money in a different company. Of course, I'm being a little flip--taxpayers would like their money back.

Still, that isn't why the US government put the money in. Should directors focus on saving jobs? Increasing fuel economy and going green? Saving the supply chain? The areas for potential conflicts of interest are huge.

The reason the government provided what amounts to DIP funding the GM is that no one else would. Smart people obviously thought the risks were too great. But not for the US taxpayer. Sure, saving GM would be nice, but only if we really save GM. I think the chances of GM being a major player on the world stage in the future to be slim. Perhaps we've provided a soft landing for someone. Like most government programs the ROI is going to be very hard to find.

I think we'd have been better off in the long term if we'd taken the $50 billion and put it in a fund of funds for investing in new companies. We could put limits on it so that it promotes certain technologies and certain geographies. In the end we'd have jobs and a better way forward. As it is, the most we're going to get a longer, slower decline of the rust belt.

Tags: politics investing governance

My son is just finishing up first grade, so now is a particularly apropos time to reflect on how it went. Of course this year was his first year eating lunch at school. Long before last September we decided we would be sending him with a sack lunch and it's articles like this that make me glad we did.

We sat down and did the math before we started. For the $1.80 the school wants we can make a sandwich, buy a juice box and some snacks and still have a good $1.00 left over. So monetarily it makes sense. After reading the menus, nutritionally it makes sense too. We do let him eat hot lunch once a month, just for the experience of it (and sometimes when we run out of bread or wake up late). Without fail he chooses pizza day, and who can blame him? Pizza is delicious. We make pizza at home and he eats far more than his small demeanor would imply.

So while pizza is a fine food and is certainly OK to eat occasionally, what do we really expect from our kids? I have great faith in mine and they're smart, sure, but this is the same kid who stuck a BB in his ear requiring a trip to the doctor to remove it. They just don't have all the decision making skills of an adult and we shouldn't expect or require them to. It's our job to provide them with the right choices and show them why they're the right choices so they can make their own good ones in the future.

Getting junk food out of the school is an easy, no-brainer first step. Getting the USDA out, well that's a good next step.

read more

It looks like the latest credit reform bill is going to become law. I've read through the law and it really sounds fair to me. What always surprises me is when people make comments similar to those contained in this BBC News article, "the industry has warned that the measure could backfire, leading banks to issue fewer credit cards thus making it harder to get credit". I'm failing to see the problem. Many people do have too much credit.

Now I'm not against credit. It's certainly a useful financial tool, without which I likely would not own my own home. But it needs to be done wisely, and that's a challenge when credit companies get to write all the rules such as when you can go bankrupt. This bill will equalize the system and hopefully stem some of the nonsense going on.

read more

I’ve written many times about the evils of central banking, including our own central bank, the “Federal Reserve”.

Congressman Ron Paul has written a bill, HR 1207 - The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, that would go a long way to remedying some of our problems by (essentially) subjecting the Federal Reserve System to audits. As it stands we can’t even see how much of our inflationary bailout money (and credit) is going to whom, but this bill would fix that.

Anyway, the bill is getting serious momentum and now has 165 co-sponsors. If your Congressmen (not Senators) are still not on that list, please contact them and ask them to co-sponsor the bill. Here in Utah, both Jason Chaffetz and Rob Bishop have signed on as co-sponsors, so only Jim Matheson remains.

In case you haven’t heard, this month is National Autism Awareness Month, and as such our elected officials on Capitol Hill have been diligent in expressing their desire to support those families who deal with Autism on a daily basis.  Autism was even given some face time during the 2008 Presidential elections.  President Obama even set aside a portion of his recommended budget for extended Autism research.  You would think it would be a high priority.  But it seems to have lost it’s shine in Congress.  

Perhaps it’s because there are more pressing issues to deal with.  I will concede that while Autism can bankrupt a family with current support and educational methods, having all families bankrupt would be a worse scenario.

Perhaps it is because Autism was a champion cry of on political party during the 2008 election, which ended up being the losing party.  I can’t honestly accept that as a reason as those bills currently in Committee are spit evenly between both parties.  Partisan politics may be a problem in other areas of legislation, but not where Autism is concerned.

Perhaps it is because the Autism community itself is divided.  Ah, there in lies the insidious truth.  Currently there are several schools of thought regarding the causes and treatment of Autism, with a lot of people coming up with some pretty wild ideas that have seen some anecdotal positive responses with little research to support the theories.  Because of this division in the community it is difficult to find a unified voice to get anything accomplished.  As such, we are easily conquered as a community by other more organized groups and concerns.  

So what can we as a community do in order to unify?  Stop fighting amongst ourselves as our children grow up within a condition that can be worked through with basic services that are cost effective, reliable, and empowering for the family.  Instead we need to work with our legislators to come up with cost effective methods of providing the tools necessary to help our children.  

I’ve posted before what I think would be ideal:  Resources provided by existing organizations supporting Autism students that are readily available for parents to utilize.  Parents will then be able to better support their children at home with the right tools and knowing what to do.  But it would need to be broken down in this method: 

1. Provide an evaluation for the student, to determine what modules will be best to assist the student. 
2. Provide modules that are flexible and independent of each other, which parents can use.  This includes instructions on how to teach, what to look for in success, and how to judge/evaluate success.
3. Provide a central communication hub, either through phone, letters, email, or online forums, that will allow parents to share experiences in a confidential manner with those professionals, and get additional assistance or recommendations when needed.  
4. Continue the process at regular intervals, to be best evaluated by the professionals.  

This method would be cost effective because the parents or caregivers of the children become the actual one on one instructors that autistic children need while still being in contact with a professional that can evaluate and maintain several parental groups in a given session.  They still work, no one loses their jobs, and more autistic children are getting the help they need.  It can also be close to real time with the use of various communication tools and social networking environments that currently exist.  

Currently there are eight bills in the House and Senate that are related to Autism, some are more comprehensive than others, some more cost effective than others.  None that I have read so far seem to touch on the actual method of educating autistic children.  Instead it seems that the programs are designed to give the resources to the community, and let the community continue in their current method of pocket-support.  Hmm..  Perhaps it’s time to contact the Secretary of Education and propose this plan to him, just to see where it would go.  

Anyway, for a list of Autism Legislation currently in Congress and links to their status on GovTrack.us, they are below.  Let’s hope they get out of committee soon, so that Congress can claim they did something during Autism Awareness Month rather than sit on their backsides.

I’ll be taking part in my second-ever protest today. My first was a recent “End the Fed” rally at the SLC branch of the Federal Reserve Bank. Today I’m attending a couple of the Utah Tea Parties.

Frankly, I’m outraged by the tax and spend policies that BOTH major parties have been adhering to lately. Actually, most Republicans prefer the “borrow and spend” method, which is even more insidious: passing our debt to future generations and incentivizing inflation as a “cheap” means of paying that debt.

I think Jefferson said it best:

We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds… [we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers… And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for [another ]… till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery… And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.

Although Daniel Webster was more succinct:

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

If you agree with either of those statements, you should join us!

Here’s the most complete set of Utah locations I have found so far:

City: Salt Lake City ~ 1st Event
When: April 15, 12:00 pm - 3:00 pm
Where: Federal Building Plaza, 125 South State Street
Program
Activist and Author Candace Salima
Attorney General Mark Shurtleff
Congressman Jason Chaffetz (3rd District)
Congressman Rob Bishop (1st District)
For more information, contact Adam Gardiner at agardiner14@gmail.com (801-814-8963).

City: Logan
When: April 15, 4:00pm - 6:00 pm
Where: 241 North Main Street (south of Logan Library/City Hall)
For more information, contact Susan Southwick at susanksouthwick@gmail.com.

City: Salt Lake City ~ 2nd Event
When: April 15, 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm
Where: US Post Office Salt Lake City, 1795 W 2100 S
For more information, contact David at saltlaketeaparty@gmail.com (801-377-8224).

City: Provo
When: April 15, 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm
Where: Old Utah County Courthouse at the corner of University and Center
For more information, contact David at saltlaketeaparty@gmail.com (801-377-8224).

City: St. George
When: April 15, 5:00pm - 7:00pm
Where: Vernon Worthen Park, 300 S 400 E
For more information, contact Rinda Hunter at rinda.hunter@washco.utah.gov.

City: Vernal
When: April 15, 5:00 pm
Where: 150 East Main Street
For more information, contact Susan Southwick at susanksouthwick@gmail.com.

City: Richfield
When: April 15, 5:30pm - 7:30pm
Where: City Park, near 300 North and Main Street

I hope to see you there!

By the way, I’ll be spending most of my time protesting inflation: the hidden tax.  I’ll do a post illuminating the disasterous effects of inflation later.

Stephen Dubner, the famed economist behind Freakonomics (an excellent book, btw), posed the question, is it time to rename 'Digital Piracy'?" The answer is an unequivocal "yes". Despite what Shakespeare said, sometimes a name can mean everything. I refuse to accept the word "piracy" as anything other than high-seas pillaging. I suppose one positive outcome of the recent surge in Somali piracy is that people are realizing that copyright infringement hardly warrants such a strong word, especially when we have a perfectly adequate one. Let's not let the geniouses at the RIAA, who've had a wonderfully successful program of suing their customers, dictate our terminology on the matter.

read more

Yesterday, April 2nd, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) introduced the Autism Treatment Acceleration Act of 2009, which has been since submitted to Committee.  The wording of the bill is not yet available, so I’m not sure what the bill is aimed to do, other than the short name for it, which is:

A bill to provide for enhanced treatment, support, services, and research for individuals with autism spectrum disorders and their families.

I can only hope that it is similar to House Resolution 1707 submitted by Representative Granger (R-TX) to the house, which provides help for families who live with autism, and those with autism.  

But this is a really good time to talk about what autism legislation should look like.  Autism is not a disease, but rather a condition in which those with autism learn differently.  They have a different method of processing stimuli, and as such need specific teaching methods to help them learn vital life skills.  Some have a more pronounced condition than others, and as such may or may not be able to learn those basic skill sets even with specific training.  The bottom line is:  no two autistic children are the same.  

So what should legislation look like?  Well, there are two ways to go about Autism treatment.

1.  Take the children away from the family and raise them by a team of specially trained teachers, therapists, and doctors that have the “magic powers” to do the job parents are not able to accomplish.  This was the mentality in the 50’s to the 70’s, and led to a lot of very dysfunctional families and autistic children.  It was also accompanied by electric shock therapy, physical restraints, and various other techniques that were popular during the Spanish Inquisition.  
2. Teach the parents what to do, and have them perform the therapy in a loving, safe environment.  For those that don’t have the option of spending all day with their child, provide the same training to the child’s caregiver.  

I’m sure by the tone of each point that you know of which I am in favor, but let me tell you why:

Autism is growing as a diagnosis, and that means there are more children out there that will need help.  Many parents who have one child with autism most likely will have another child with autism, so we are looking at whole families that need help.

Autism therapies and schools are very, very expensive.  Health Insurance companies feel that they shouldn’t have to pay for autism as a diagnosis, because it is somehow not a health condition.  It is very prohibitive for families to pay for this treatment in most cases, because the cost of treatment can exceed a single parent’s annual income.  That is even more true in this time of economic trouble.  

At the same token, because of the growing number of autism diagnoses, it becomes prohibitively expensive on Government of any size to provide full coverage where insurance companies will not.  The cost of staff alone for individual education for each child with autism becomes excessive.  Yet these citizens of our country need help, and they need that help as soon as they can.  How can it work and still be fiscally responsible? 

Personally, I think the answer is obvious:  Train the parents and care-givers, and provide them with the tools to help their children.  There are a number of benefits to this:

1. Parents of autistic children generally have a vested interest in their success.
2. Parents and care-givers can continue the techniques and training 24-7, or at least during all waking hours.  ^_^
3. A mobilized, well-trained workforce with a personal vested interest is like a well-oiled machine:  it will just keep going with little maintenance.  
4. The cost of a single, small training facility for parents and care-givers is far smaller than building several autistic children’s developmental centers, and require less staffing in general.  
5. Support and help can come from the community built around the classes and supplemental online portals.  This also makes it convenient to deploy learning materials.  
6. Parents will have the ability and freedom to quickly adapt the training methods to fit their child’s specific needs, without having to change methods for another autistic child in class.  
7. Parents are smart individuals, and giving them real concrete methods to help their children is better than setting them loose on the internet or be at the whims of any idiot celebrity that has more money than brains.  Knowing what to do and how to do it will relieve the fear and anxiety that parents of autistic children experience.  

Now, there will be some possible problems, such as dead-beat parents that don’t want to help their children.  But we already have a system in place to deal with such parents, and help those children.  Another nice thing about this program is that parents and care-givers will not be “milking” the system, as the only real benefit they have is getting to take a class for free that teaches them teaching methods.  They don’t get voucher money that could be used for other purposes, they don’t get free stuff that they would turn around and sell later, just knowledge that would empower them as individuals and families.  

Of course, there may be some other holes in the system that I could be missing.  Feel free to mention any to me, because if we do get legislation that helps in this method, I want to be sure that it is done right!  

Anyway, I’m looking forward to reading what Senator Durbin has proposed.  Hopefully it will be something that is fiscally responsible for all concerned while providing real, tangible benefit for families with autistic children.

On Wednesday Representative Kay Granger of Texas introduced the HR 1707:  Helping HANDS for Autism Act of 2009.  Essentially, the bill is designed to provide funding for community outreach programs that will assist parents, caregivers, and adults with Autism find the help and support they need in their community.  The program is quite extensive, and is quite exciting.  Organizations are not limited to the number of grants to which they can apply, though the grants are limited by specific appropriations funding.  

The thing that really excites me about this bill, however, is the mentoring aspect for parents and caregivers.  I have long been a believer in the involvement of parents in the education of autistic children.  They generally can help their child do more advanced things, because their child naturally trusts their parents than, say, a clinical psychologist.  The real way to help families with Autism is to provide them with the tools they need, instead of shipping the children off to schools where teachers need to take the place of parents.  Schools are great, but without the reinforcing parental involvement, they can only do so much.  

There are a lot of other things that this bill supports, and I would highly recommend all those parents, teachers, and caregivers who work with autistic children and adults to read through, and send your recommendations to your US Representatives.  Let them know that this is really important, it needs to be done right.  

I’m going to pester my representative to get involved as best he can, as well as my Senators.  If anyone out there has read the bill and have suggestions, feel free to post them!  I’ll send them on to my Representative, if you will send it on to yours.  Let’s make sure this Autism Bill doesn’t have the teeth cut out of it, and really helps those on the Spectrum.  

And finally, I would like to thank Representative Kay Granger and those who have offered to co-sponsor the bill for their courage in addressing Autism.  Just chucking money at the problem doesn’t fix it, but having a real plan will definitely be a necessity.  This bill has the feeling of a real plan for those on the Spectrum from their initial, early diagnosis throughout their adult life.

China calls for new reserve currency. This could get scary.

Edit: I got confused on the dates of my sources, which then used relative dates to refer to the event. It was in fact on Wednesday, 18 Mar 2009, that the Fed's actions took place.

Last ThursdayWednesday, as Glenn Beck calls it, was history. Not good history, no this is bad. Remember Zimbabwe? Ever heard the phrase "Not worth a continental"? Well welcome to the future, hyperinflation.

What happened ThursdayWednesday? $1 trillion dollars, new dollars, were printed, IN ONE DAY! The Federal Reserve "bought" a bunch of IOU notes from the US Treasury, and for it paid $1 trillion, in money it just printed out of thin air. "What?? " you say? Yes, the Fed bought debt the US Government didn't have, using money the Fed didn't have, all so that we can be poorer for it.

On ThursdayWednesday gold shot up over 6% in one hour. Likewise silver shot up over 8% in one hour. This is not because the value of gold and silver went up. The value of the dollar went down, dramatically. If you thought your 401K evaporated with the banking crisis, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Get out of the dollar, and then like me you can welcome the inevitable collapse, and finally a return to sanity!

Last night President Obama appeared on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno.  This was an historic event, as he became the first sitting president to appear on the late night show.  His intention was to continue his campaigning for economic stimulus.  One thing I can say about President Obama, he can campaign well.  He is most comfortable in campaign mode, and seems to prefer that to sitting in the White House all day.  

But as part of the “ice breaker” session of jokes and kidding around, President Obama compared his bowling to that of the Special Olympics, in a sarcastic manner.  So much so, that President Obama called the President of the Special Olympics before the show aired to apologize for his remark.  He knew what had happened, but too late.  

First, I would like to say that I’m glad he apologized in a timely manner.  It shows that our President isn’t too big to admit that he made a mistake.  But the damage had been done.  Those who are least able to defend themselves, those who still look up to the office of the President of the United States as the supreme example of all that is America, heard that remark.  If they didn’t hear it that night, they would probably have heard it since as it gets aired on news networks.  

Those with special needs know they are different.  They are told they are different in countless ways and by people around them.  Bullies who pick on children and adults with special needs while ordinary people look the other way tell them all they need to know.  People who make snide comments about being “retarded” when they do something stupid…  How do you think that would make a person with special needs that do things like that feel?  

I grew up with people who constantly attacked my older brother because he was special needs.  The comments, the mocking laughter, and the bullying.  It was terrible, and I tried to call them on the carpet for it.  Teachers would punish my brother for defending himself, but wouldn’t lift a finger to help him.  It was maddening.  I learned just how painful and hurtful our society was then and there.  

And now our President, the one that is supposed to be the defender of ALL AMERICANS, not just the people who voted for him, has made those same hurtful comments.  All with the intention of getting a laugh.  Perhaps this will be a good opportunity for our President to start a dialogue about the Special Olympics, and those with special needs.  Perhaps he can help redeem himself by becoming a true advocate.  Perhaps one day he will have someone in his family that has special needs, and will truly understand the perspective that we have.  Perhaps.  

But until then:  Mr. President, I’m very disappointed in you.

Congress is considering a new bill which would modify the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with requirements for labeling of food in restaurants. I know that there are some requirements now, but I've only ever seen nutrition information at fast food places so I believe the laws only affect them. As I read this bill, it would apply to any business which makes and sells food at least 90 days of the year and which operates at least 20 locations under the same name. That eliminates one of my beefs with proposals like this, that they will unfairly burden small purveyors who can't as easily afford the nutritional testing or calculations required.

I'm still opposed to it however. If this bill became law, it would do nothing to stem the tide of obesity in this country. Nutrition information hasn't stopped Americans from eating far too often at fast food restaurants. Nor has it stopped people from buying pre-packaged meals at the supermarket. It won't do anything in sit-down restaurants either. It's a premise that's well worth some research, but is far from proven effective enough to be cast into law. My gut tells me that it isn't going to discourage anybody from ordering the "unhealthy" items, and as we know from Brian Wansink, "healthy" foods tend to be over eaten because we feel less guilt.

No, the real solution doesn't involve a food priesthood, as Michael Pollan calls it. We don't need nutritionists to tell us what to eat. Stressing about fat calories and daily allowances just causes stress, which won't help anything. Deep down we all know more or less what we ought to be eating, but we've lost it somewhere in our industrialized food economy. Just eat real food and don't eat too much of it. It's really just that simple.

read more

Ok, this has been a long time coming.  People have heard me say something along these lines on irc, IM, in person, etc.  But now I’m putting it up on the tubes.

Whereas:

• An elected official is chosen to fill a specific role
• While elected, they are an employee of the people they represent
• Campaigning for an elected position is a demanding job in itself
• By accepting an elected position, you will give an oath to your constituents to fulfill that job

It shall be illegal for an official, currently serving in an elected position, to campaign for an alternate elected position.  To legally campaign for any elected position, you may not be a public official in any standing except for the same position you are campaigning for (re-election).

I’ll admin that’s a pretty lousy attempt at “legalese”, for something that could pass as a bill.

So what’s this mean?  One of my long-standing grudges, especially when relating to the office of the President of the USA, is to see people who are supposedly representing their state, or district instead spending all their efforts in campaigning for a new job.  How many of us would be treated so well as our senators if we spent the bulk of our time at work trying to get a *different* job?  No we would be fired for the theft we were doing.  Just look over the last several elections, especially among Senators, and see just how much of their “day job” they skipped out on in order to try and garner votes from other parts of the country for something they wanted so badly.

Anybody have some ways I could brush this up? Anybody want to help get this in rolling in Utah, at least we could keep it in our state, and limit our own representation.  And just maybe others in different states could enact their own too.

I also would like some help in seeing how to keep people from trying to skirt the issue with dummy arguments, just as one senator this last election skirting the law by stating approximately, “Well, I wasn’t the offical party candidate at that point”.  I just want it so that you do the job you were elected to do.  You want to go after something else? Fine, step down, so you can devote your attention there, but hand the reigns to somebody else to take care of your previous job!

Anybody who actually knows anything willing to help me write this correctly?

Check Baldwin was the Constitution Party’s 2008 presidential nominee. I voted for him because he is so dead right on so many issues. Here’s one of them:

President And Congress Grovel Before The Fed
By Chuck Baldwin
February 10, 2009

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090210.html

According to Bloomberg News (Monday, February 9, 2009), “The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government’s commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation’s home mortgages.

“The Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have lent or spent almost $3 trillion over the past two years and pledged up to $5.7 trillion more. The Senate is to vote this week on an economic-stimulus measure of at least $780 billion. It would need to be reconciled with an $819 billion plan the House approved last month.

“Only the stimulus bill to be approved this week, the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program passed four months ago and $168 billion in tax cuts and rebates enacted in 2008 have been voted on by lawmakers. The remaining $8 trillion is in lending programs and guarantees, almost all under the Fed and FDIC. RECIPIENTS’ NAMES HAVE NOT BEEN DISCLOSED. [Emphasis added]

“‘We’ve seen money go out the back door of this government unlike any time in the history of our country,’ Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, said on the Senate floor Feb. 3. ‘Nobody knows what went out of the Federal Reserve Board, to whom and for what purpose. How much from the FDIC? How much from TARP? When? Why?’”

Senator Dorgan is exactly right. No one oversees the Fed. The Fed is held accountable to absolutely nobody. But Senator Dorgan (as with everyone else in Congress) has no one to blame but himself. Ever since the Marxist, E. Mandell House, convinced President Woodrow Wilson to create the Federal Reserve in 1913, the Congress of the United States has had virtually nothing to do with the way our fiscal policies are managed. The Fed (which is not even a government agency, but rather a private corporation consisting of mostly foreign bankers) dictates America’s financial policies.

The reality of just how our civil magistrates have come to grovel before the Fed was revealed in a column written recently by Cal Thomas. Mind you, Cal was not trying to castigate President Bush in his column. Just the opposite: his column was full of praise and adulation for the former President. In recounting his last interview with President George W. Bush, however, Cal unwittingly revealed the almost limitless power that the Fed wields over even the President of the United States.

Here is what Cal wrote: “Bush defends himself against a charge by a member of the Republican National Committee that he has behaved like a ’socialist’ because of his massive bailout spending. He [Bush] says he still believes in less government spending, but when Henry Paulson, secretary of the U.S. Treasury, and Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, tell him that if he doesn’t act, the result will be worse that the Great Depression, ‘you can sit there and say to yourself, “well, I’m going to stick to principle and hope for the best, or I’m going to take the actions necessary to prevent the worst.”‘”

In other words, when the Fed says, “Jump!” the President asks, “How high?” And, with the exception of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas (and maybe one or two others), the same is true for members of the House and Senate.

In other words, ladies and gentlemen, America is being run by a private banking cartel, the majority of whom are not even citizens of these United States.

Ever since the Fed was created in 1913, America has been subjected to recession after recession, not to mention one Great Depression. Some are even predicting that the United States is now actually entering a second Great Depression. Please understand this: the Federal Reserve has manipulated every bit of this financial crisis for the express purpose of enriching the international bankers on the backs (and bankruptcies) of the American taxpayers. And what does our illustrious Congress do? They continue to give billions and even trillions of taxpayer dollars to the very same group of gangsters who created and perpetuate this financial fraud. And, as with Congress, Presidents from both major parties likewise promote and defend this chicanery.

Yet, the U.S. Constitution, in Article. I. Section. 8. Paragraph. 5., clearly gives Congress the authority “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.”

This constitutional requirement makes two obvious demands: 1) only the elected Congress, not some private foreign (or even domestic) banking interest, has the power to make monetary policy, 2) U.S. currency must be hard currency, i.e. gold and silver. Paper money–known as the Federal Reserve Notes–is not even legal tender under the U.S. Constitution.

In truth, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is itself unconstitutional. In simple terms, the Act did not amend or expunge Article. I. Section. 8. Paragraph. 5. of the Constitution; it merely ignored it. (And Congresses and Presidents have been ignoring the Constitution ever since.)

In fact, Article. I. Section. 10. Paragraph 1. of the U.S. Constitution specifically states, “No State shall . . . coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”

Can anyone not see that the Federal Reserve is an illegitimate system? I will even go so far as to say that the Federal Reserve should be regarded as a corrupt, criminal system! If I were President, not only would I do everything in my power to oppose any and all financial bailouts to these international banksters, I would instruct the Justice Department to pursue criminal charges of fraud, corruption, manipulation, and outright thievery against the Fed. Instead of padding their fat assets in a million-dollar penthouse, they should be serving most of the rest of their lives in the Big House.

In the meantime, Congressman Ron Paul has again introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to terminate the Federal Reserve. It is H.R. 833: To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks. The Bill was introduced on February 3 and, to date, has no cosponsors. That’s right. No cosponsors.

Until the American people demand that their elected members of Congress live up to their duties and responsibilities under the Constitution, they will continue to have their pockets picked clean by these corrupt banksters in New York City (and London) and their contemptible facilitators in Washington, D.C. Passing Dr. Paul’s bill would be a great place to start.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

(c) Chuck Baldwin

If you don’t understand the history and the motives of the Federal Reserve System, you need to get informed. I believe that your very freedom depends on it.

Congress passed a new law requiring the Department of Homeland Security to create a new terrorist watch list. This one is actually a list of people who are not terrorists, but have been mistakenly labeled as such. That would be thanks to the famous no-fly list that the TSA maintains which is riddled with inaccuracies but doesn't provide for any practical way to get yourself off of it, until now. So in a sense, this is a step forward. It addresses problems that the TSA has been burdening Americans with. Unfortunately, it's only a partial solution. The whole idea of a list of people so dangerous that they can't fly, but innocent enough that we can't arrest them is ludicrous. The fact that the list is poorly maintained and horribly inaccurate is just icing on the cake. The only sensible thing to do would be to dump it and spend our money (estimated at $100 million per year) on something much more effective.

Don't even get me started on the liquids ban.

read more

Robert Lefevre observed that “Government is a disease that masquerades as its own cure.“

Obama’s “Economic Stimulus” package, like Bush’s and Bernanke’s banking bailouts, typify this statement. No sooner is the economic knife twisted in on our belly than our haggardly assailant disappears into the night. Immediately our saviour appears, riding on his white horse and swearing revenge. But how did he get here so fast?

Obama’s Economic Stimulus Package

Let’s just look at the Obama’s so called “economic stimulus” package logically.

Was our current economic situation really caused by a lack of green energy? Did we really just not have enough STD prevention education? Was it all this really because we didn’t have enough high speed internet in rural areas? Was it because our current highway system is inadequate? Did we just not have enough food stamps?

If none of these problems were part of the underlying problem, how does fixing them constitute a solution? Yet that’s literally what we’re being billed. Government simply changes out the labels in its pork processing plant, and all-of-a-sudden we can’t get enough. In government, just re-brand whatever your selling as “Economic Relief”, “Stimulus Package”, or “Cure to Whatever Happens to Ail You Today”, and it’s bound to sail right through.

Sure, there’s much more to Obama’s “Economic Stimulus” plan than funding STD prevention education, but it’s all crap because it all ignores the recessions’ underlying causes. Even the tax cuts are crap because, just like the Bush tax cuts, there is no associated cut in spending. In fact, to say that we’re getting quite the opposite of spending cuts is a remarkable understatement.

Cutting taxes without cutting spending requires either inflation or debt. The former (like taxation) steals from current citizens, while the latter steals from future citizens. Both payment vehicles are immoral. Should income taxes be decreased or even eliminated? Absolutely. But the only lasting way that government can stop stealing the wealth of its citizenry is to stop spending it!

Our Current Recession: the Cause and the Cure

If we really want to fix our economic problems, we need to fix them at the cause. But remarkably few people understand the cause –and that’s what makes us so vulnerable to government deception.

To understand the cause and the cure of our current recession, shouldn’t we look to the people with proven track records –you know, the people that actually foresaw the current crisis before it happened? Remarkably, the solutions offered by people like Peter Schiff and Ron Paul –people who were dead right about the economy even before the bubble burst– are still being relatively ignored. The alternative approach: what our economy really needs is more people teaching kids how to use condoms. Good grief!

If you want to understand the cause of recession, as well as its cure, Ron Paul says it pretty succinctly:

Cures for Our Economic Disease

I have recently had several opportunities on various news programs to discuss the economy and what is wrong with the so-called economic stimulus package. I have said over and over what we shouldn’t be doing, and now I’d like to explain what we should be doing.

But to improve the situation, you must first have a solid grasp of how we got here. Government policies and central planning created the housing bubble, now going bust. About a decade ago the government made expanded homeownership and affordable housing a public goal. Through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the secondary mortgage market the government incentivized creative, low down-payment, more widely available mortgage products, and discouraged the market-proven lending standards of the past. The Federal Reserve kept interest rates artificially low, which added more fuel to this fire. Many related sectors temporarily flourished because of this, and many people got into homes they otherwise could not have afforded. The increased demand for housing sent prices soaring until in many markets housing became even more unaffordable, necessitating even more creative mortgages, and impossibly leveraging homeowners. Many risky investment vehicles such as mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, credit default swaps grew out of this unsustainable situation. As the foreclosures began, the house of cards started to tumble. Too many people have confused the symptoms and the pain of the bust with the problematic policies that caused the bubble, which is really what needs to be treated.

First of all, just as the best cure for a hangover is not to drink so much, the best cure for a recession is a recession. It is time to sober up and return to free market sanity, risk and reward, supply and demand, without political intervention. Politicians are good at catering to the needs of special interests, but very bad at determining what needs to take place in the market. Government should stick to punishing fraud and enforcing contracts. When they use the tax code, bureaucratic departments and their manipulative rules and regulations to dictate social and economic behavior, we end up with distortions and malinvestments. Bailing out banks, continuing failed Fed policies and strapping the taxpayer with toxic debt will worsen the pain, and punish the innocent.

If Congress really wanted to do something helpful, it would cut taxes. Ideally, we would repeal the income tax altogether and get the IRS off the economy’s back, which would be a huge boon. We should also cut spending. Cut every unconstitutional department and program, every wasteful governmental encroachment on the people’s liberty and money, starting with our massive overseas empire. The cost of our empire is bringing us to our knees, just as the Soviets’ empire did to them. Congress should also abolish the Federal Reserve and take back its responsibilities to ensure sound money, safe from the manipulations of powerful banking interests.

These things would constitute real change, real economic stimulus. The plans being bandied about Washington are just more of the same. As long as no one seriously considers the cure, we are unfortunately destined to prolong the disease.

There it is, refreshingly simple.

Now that we’ve identified our assailants as big government and central banking, maybe we can go after them! Or wait, here come a couple brave knights who seems more than willing to do that for us. Hold on a second… Don’t we know you?

I really like Glenn Beck when it comes to the economy:

This uncontrolled spending (and it’s underlying debasement of the currency) may well destroy us.

Inflation, as a means of overthrowing the free market:

Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens … Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of over-turning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose. - John Maynard Keynes (via quoty)

Inflation, as a means of overthrowing our nation and our liberties:

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. - Thomas Jefferson (via quoty)

Sadly the “change” mantra was nothing more than a seductive lie, because when it comes to the policies of spending and inflation, Comrades Obama and Bush (not mention McCain) are exactly the same.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. :(

Back in 2003, I lamented the fact that there was no interactive map to finding your legislator in Utah. Indeed, the process involved a lot of steps that introduced considerable friction.

Now, thanks to the power of mash-ups and open data, Scott Riding has created an interactive map of Utah legislative districts and the legislators representing them. I typed in my address and was presented with pictures and contact information of my legislators along with a pin in the map showing my house so I could verify everything was right. Thanks Scott!

Tags: utah politics egovernment geoweb

I got this email from Parents for Choice in Education last night.

Transparency in Education Forum, Jan. 14th

On Wednesday January 14th, the Sutherland Institute is hosting a forum called Transparency in Education, featuring John Fund of the Wall Street Journal.  The forum will include a sneak peak at Utah’s new transparency website.

We encourage you to attend the forum, both because of the importance of transparency and because John Fund is a great speaker (He’s spoken at PCE events in the past).

From our perspective, financial transparency in education is crucial to empowering citizens and increasing accountability, especially in an education system with limited choice. Increasing transparency is one of the main reasons we created the website www.UtahEducationFacts.com.

As we mentioned in our latest email bulletin, transparency will be a key issue in the 2009 legislative session.  Last year, the Legislature passed a law requiring government agencies at the state level to post financial data online for public scrutiny.  Senator Niederhauser of Sandy is sponsoring a bill for 2009 that will extend the transparency requirements to local government, including school districts and charter schools.

The event costs $25 per person and is on Wednesday, January 14th from 2 to 4 pm in downtown Salt Lake City.  To reserve a seat, call (801) 355-1272 or visit www.sutherlandinstitute.org.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
For more info about the event, see this flyer.

To learn more about financial transparency in education, go here.

Please consider becoming a member of Parents for Choice in Education if you haven’t yet. It’s free, and it’s a darn good way to stay abreast of movements in education reform (which I think we need now more than ever).

By the way, I’m putting events like this on a colaborative Utah Liberty Events Calendar. You should subscribe if you’re into that kind of stuff (and let me know if you’d like to contribute).

Now we’re talking:

EXCLUSIVE: RNC draft rips Bush’s bailouts
Ralph Z. Hallow (Contact)

Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing “socialism,” underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush’s administration.

Those pushing the resolution, which will come before the Republican National Committee at its January meeting, say elected leaders need to be reminded of core principles. They said the RNC must take the dramatic step of wading into policy debates, which traditionally have been left to lawmakers.

“We can’t be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms,” said Solomon Yue, an Oregon member and co-sponsor of a resolution that criticizes the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Republican National Committee Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. wrote the resolution and asked the rest of the 168 voting members to sign it.

I hope this resolution passes. It would be a clear sign (to me) that the Republican party is worth saving.

I don’t do this very often; but this article by Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party’s presidential nominee, is so good that I decided to re-post it in its entirety:

Selective Constitutionalism
by Chuck Baldwin
December 9, 2008

Many conservatives are up in arms regarding the charge that President-elect Barack Obama may not have been born in the United States and is, therefore, not qualified under the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United States.

Article. II. Section. 1. of the U.S. Constitution states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .” Some accuse Mr. Obama of not being born in the State of Hawaii as claimed, but in Kenya, Africa. Several people have filed various lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama’s U.S. citizenship.

Historically, “natural born Citizen” has always been understood to mean someone born in the United States of America. If Barack Obama was not born in the United States, he is absolutely unqualified to be President. Hawaii’s secretary of state says Obama was indeed born in that state. However, to date, Obama’s actual birth certificate has not been publicly released, which only serves to add fuel to the accusations that he was not born in Hawaii.

Many conservatives seem to be obsessed with this controversy, calling it a “constitutional crisis.” The fact is, however, we have been in a “constitutional crisis” for years! The problem is, most conservatives only get worked up over a potential abridgement of constitutional government when it serves their partisan political purposes. In other words, when a Democrat appears guilty of constitutional conflict, conservatives “go ballistic,” but when Republicans are equally culpable of constitutional conflict, they yawn with utter indifference.

For example, the one man who has the notoriety and political clout to actually bring about some meaningful investigation and resolution to the Obama citizenship brouhaha is none other than Senator John McCain. After all, he was Obama’s principal opponent in the race for the White House. Plus, as the standard-bearer for the only other major political party, he has the attention of the national media, as well as the national legislative and judicial branches of government. So, why is John McCain not at all interested in the Obama citizenship issue?

Perhaps one reason that John McCain is so uninterested in where Barack Obama was born is because he, John McCain, was not born in the United States. He was born in the country of Panama. So, let me ask readers a question: Does anyone believe if John McCain had been elected President instead of Barack Obama that any notable conservative would have been distressed about a “constitutional crisis”? Get real!

Yes, I know McCain was born to a naval officer serving in Panama at the time. That fact changes nothing. John McCain was still born in a foreign country, and under a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, is not qualified to be President of the United States. Even our current State Department policy (7 FAM 1100) reads: “Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”

Does anyone not remember the controversy surrounding the potential Presidential campaign of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger? Born in Austria, Schwarzenegger is a naturalized citizen of the United States and is now Governor of California. However, since Schwarzenegger is a naturalized citizen, but not a natural born citizen, he is considered unqualified to run for President.

But, again, most conservatives care little about the Constitution’s requirement that a President be a “natural born Citizen.” Like liberals, most conservatives are afflicted with a very debilitating disease that I call Selective Constitutionalism. They only want to apply constitutional government when it helps Republicans or hurts Democrats. Most of them really could not care less about adherence to the Constitution. If they did, they would have been up in arms for the last eight years as President George W. Bush repeatedly ignored–and even trampled–the U.S. Constitution.

Where were these “constitutional” conservatives when George W. Bush was assuming dictatorial-style powers and contravening Fourth Amendment prohibitions against warrantless searches and seizures? Where were they when Bush was ordering our emails, letters, and phone calls to be intercepted by federal police agencies without court oversight? Where were they when Bush was obliterating the Fifth and Eighth Amendments? Where were they when Bush overturned Posse Comitatus by Executive Order? Where were they when Bush dismantled the constitutional right of Habeas Corpus? Where were they when Bush lied to the American people about the invasion of Iraq and took the United States to war without a Declaration of War from Congress? Where were conservatives when Bush turned nine U.S. military installations over to the United Arab Emirates? Where were they when Bush ordered his Department of Transportation to open up America’s airlines to foreign ownership? Where were they when President Bush nullified (using “signing statements”) over 1,100 statutes he did not like? Where were they as President Bush and his fellow Republicans reauthorized one of the most egregiously unconstitutional pieces of legislation in modern memory: the USA Patriot Act? Where were they when Bush signed the blatantly unconstitutional McCain/Feingold Act? I could go on and on.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party has been just as culpable in violating constitutional government as the Democrat Party has–maybe more so! If the Republican and Democrat parties had any allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, neither John McCain nor Barack Obama would have been chosen as their respective Presidential nominees.

While we are on the subject, if anyone cared about constitutional government, Hillary Clinton (or any other U.S. Senator or House Member) would obviously be determined as ineligible to be given any appointment in the Obama administration under Article. I. Section. 6. of the U.S. Constitution. Why? Because the Constitution prohibits House or Senate members taking Presidential posts if the salary of the job they would take was raised while they were in Congress.

However, several past Presidents have skirted this constitutional prohibition (including Presidents Taft, Nixon, and Carter) by lowering the salary of the job back to what it was so the nominee could accept the job without receiving the pay increase that was approved while the appointee was in Congress. In fact, this sleight of hand actually has a political name. It is called “the Saxbe fix,” after Nixon’s appointment of Senator William Saxbe to be attorney general.

Do we have a “constitutional crisis”? You bet we do; but it is not limited to Barack Obama or the Democrat Party. The real constitutional crisis is the manner in which the American people have, for years, allowed civil magistrates from both major parties to routinely violate their oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. God help us!

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20081209.html

If you liked this article, please consider signing up for Chuck Baldwin’s newsletter.

A few months ago, I wrote that Governor Huntsman’s “monitoring” of gas prices was just political BS, and that purposely encouraging a misunderstanding of basic economics for political gain was a bad idea.

Well, it turns out I was wrong: just the threat of State oversight made Utah gas vendors stop being greedy, and now Utah enjoys some of the cheapest gas in the nation!

(OK, you’re onto me: that was BS too. But Utah really does have some remarkable gas prices right now.)

Anyway, my friend and former neighbor Kerk (who is also an Econonmics professor at BYU) has an excellent post that could serve very well as a follow up to my aforementioned rant:

Current Gas Prices (December 2008)

Look at the above map from GasBuddy.com. The price of gasoline in northern Utah these days is about as low as any place in the US. If you live in Utah you know the press here goes into fits of apoplexy whenever gas prices in Utah are higher than the rest of the country. Last Spring all we heard about was how the greedy gas station owners were profiteering and charging unfair prices to Utah drivers. In 2006, KSL radio host, Doug Wright, tried to organize a one-day boycott of gas stations because Utah gas prices were the 4th most expensive in the nation. Now that prices are down no one is talking about who is being unfair to who. Using the same arguments, one could argue that motorists are now colluding to drive down the price of gas and harming gas station owners. Of course this is silly, but it makes as much sense and is just as logical. Inevitably, in the future some time the price of gas in Utah will rise above the national average and our local press will go nuts again. Remember this picture when that happens.

Brilliant!

I think we’d all be better served with an understanding of basic economics. That way we can let our news media go back to talking about family-pet hit-and-runs, celebrity lookalikes, local American Idol runners up, and the like. That’s right, Doug Wright: we should be boycotting you.

Seriously though. Whenever you hear some news anchor or some politician spouting out things that are blatantly stupid, you should ask yourself: “Are they stupid, or do they just think I’m stupid.” Then ask yourself which is better. Do you want news by dumb people, or news for dumb people?

Interestingly, I heard it reported that because of relatively lower wholesale gasoline prices, station owners are actually making more money right now with low retail prices than they were making with high retail prices. Go figure.

Yes, we are being (relatively) gouged on super cheap fuel.

Outrage, anyone?

This country -- the product of reason -- could not survive on the morality of sacrifice. It was not built by men who sought self-immolation or by men who sought handouts... It could not live by the mystic doctrine that damned this earth as evil and those who succeeded on earth as depraved. From its start, this country was a threat to the ancient rule of mystics. In the brilliant rocket-explosion of its youth, this country displayed to an incredulous world what greatness was possible to man, what happiness was possible on earth. It was one or the other: America or mystics. The mystics knew it; you didn't. You let them infect you with the worship of need -- and this country became a giant in body with a mooching midget in place of its soul, while its living soul was driven underground to labor and feed you in silence, unnamed. unhonored, negated, its soul and hero: the industrialist...

-- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"

It’s End-the-Fed day today. I thought I’d commemorate it by posting a video featuring Peter Schiff (Ron Paul’s campaign finance advisor), who accurately predicted the sub-prime meltdown and the ensuing recession.

Some great quotes (emphasis added):

Our markets are going lower. This is not just a financial crisis; this is an economic collapse. Our entire phony economy is collapsing around us. There’s nothing the government can do to stop it; they should get out of the way and let it happen.

—-

Look, you have to understand: for the past several years everybody thought we had a real economy. We didn’t. We had a bubble. All we did was borrow trillions of dollars from the rest of the world, and we blew all the money on consumption. We can’t pay the bills. The asset bubbles that were inflated by reckless monetary policy are deflating around us, and we’re going to have to rebuild a viable economy; and it’s not going to be easy. A lot of companies are going to go bankrupt during the process. A lot of people are going to lose their jobs, but this has to happen: we have to go back to a sane economy where we save our money and actually make stuff.

—-

I’d be … getting out of the dollar because it’s a bottomless pit. When this dollar stops rallying, it’s going to fall like a stone. That is the next major economic crisis we are a setting up, a major major run on the dollar, and that’s going to have tremendous repercussions for our economy and our markets.

—-

We manufactured our way into becoming the wealthiest economy country in the world, and now we’ve consumed our way into bankruptcy.

—-

It’s time Americans take a long, hard look at the flawed monetary policy that’s behind all of this funny business; and that means understanding the history, operations, and goals of the Federal Reserve. If we don’t figure this out and get back to system of sound money, we may well “wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered“.

It’s frustrating that the only major party presidential candidate that was talking about these issues in any substantial way was written off from the very beginning. But you wanted empty platitudes? Well, you got ‘em.