This post is in progess at present; so if your city is not listed yet with video and you want to help comment below and provide the links please!

Special thanks to all who have helped so far and to all who made these rallies such a success.  Please keep educating friends and neighbors and sharing our message with facts and figures and a lot of love!

Houston, Texas

November 22, 2009

Paula Stang at the Houston End The Fed Rally gives a brief but poignant history of the federal reserve system.  She is doing her thesis on topic and I am sure she will educate many in the process!

OKC, Oklahoma

November 22, 2009

RJ Harris at the OKC End the Fed Rally takes a look at the creation of the federal reserve system and the proper Constitutional restraints  – no massive federal bureaucracy ever intended!

__________________

Nathan Dahm at the OKC End the Fed Rally

__________________

Ryan Underwood at the OKC End the Fed Rally

__________________

Porter Davis at the OKC End the Fed Rally (part 1 of 2)

__________________

Tulsa – Sign Wave (photos soon)

In the U.S. Senate today, the health committee voted 13-10 along party lines to advance a horrific “tax and socialize” health care bill. Not only would this bill give the U.S. government unprecedented control over a socialized health care system, but it would also be one of the largest tax increases in American history.
It has been said that Democrats can’t wait to get their hands into your pockets in order to take your money, but it usually turns out that whatever money they are able to grab from the American people, the reality is that they end up wanting to spend even more than that.

In fact, a preliminary analysis from the Congressional Budget Office reveals that the version of the “tax and socialize” health care bill being pushed in the House of Representatives would cause federal deficits to go through the roof.

The CBO report estimates that the 10 year increase in federal deficits from the health care bill would be just over 1 trillion dollars:

“On a preliminary basis … the proposal’s provisions affecting health insurance coverage would result in a net increase in federal deficits of $1,042 billion for fiscal years 2010 through 2019.”
Not only would it send federal deficits soaring, but the “tax and socialize” plan being pushed by Democrats also has these wonderful features:

*It would REQUIRE all Americans to buy health insurance. Americans who refuse to buy health insurance will be hit with heavy fines of more than $1,000. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that these draconian fines will raise around 36 billion dollars over 10 years.

*It would create a government-run insurance program to compete with private health insurance.

*It would implement a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals.

Republican Representative Roy Blunt from Missouri summed it up when he said this about the bill: “What we really have here is a bill that, without any question, will kill jobs, will limit access to health care, will raise taxes and will lead to a government takeover of health care.”

When many Americans hear the words “health care reform” they seem to think that they will be getting free health care.

But that is not the case at all.

Instead, it is going to mean that they are forced to buy health insurance, it is going to mean that the U.S. government will control their health decisions and it is even going to mean that the U.S. government is going to decide who lives and who dies.

Health care run by the government also means mandatory vaccinations. The CDC is now saying that the U.S. may need 600 million doses of swine flu vaccine in order to vaccinate every man, woman and child in the United States this fall.

In the future, if your national health record shows that you have not taken the mandatory vaccines, then you will not be able to get any more health care until you do.

But there are even more frightening health care changes that the Congress passed earlier this year.
The truth is that the Democrats inserted provisions into one of the economic “stimulus” bills that gave the federal government COMPLETE control over your health care under a nationalized health care plan.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, otherwise known as “the economic stimulus bill” contained almost all of the key elements of Tom Daschle’s ideal nationalized health care system that he outlined in his 2008 book, Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.

In his book, Daschle wrote that doctors will have to “learn to operate less like solo practitioners” and be willing to accept mandatory government controls and guidelines. And guess what?

That is precisely what that bill now forces doctors to do.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 created a brand new bureaucracy called the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. This new government organization will monitor all medical treatments to make sure that your doctor is prescribing the exact drugs and medical treatments that the U.S. government believes are “appropriate” and “cost effective”. So much for medical freedom, eh?

The bill also radically changed the way that the health care system treats the elderly. Currently, Medicare pays for medical treatments for the elderly that are considered to be safe and effective. But that has all changed. Now, a cost effectiveness standard set by a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research will apply. So now if the U.S. government officials decide that it isn’t cost effective for your mother to get cancer treatment she will be out of luck. In her recent editorial, Betsy McCaughey described Daschle’s attitude towards the elderly in his book:

He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
She also goes on to describe how this new “council” would actually make choices to deny health care to elderly patients if they don’t have enough “productive” years left:

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

Do you understand what that means? It means that now the United States government decides who lives and who dies. But most Americans seem tickled pink that they are about to get the “free health care” that Obama supposedly promised them. Instead, they are going to find out that they are going to be forced to pay for mandatory health care, that their health care decisions are now totally controlled by the federal government and that many of them have just been hit with crushing tax increases in order to pay for it all.

Be Advised: This is a hypothetical post. Obviously, there are bigger (literally bigger. Have you seen Trey? He’s huge.) fish to fry and we should keep our eyes on the race at hand. Doesn’t mean I can’t have a little fun!!!

It’s the year 2018, and as we’re all shocked that we got passed the hurdle that was the Mayan Calender, here we are anyway. We fly around in our cars and levitate with our Jet Packs and Al Gore has going clinically insane because he can’t understand why half the earth hasn’t caught fire yet. But, it’s been politics as usual in Washington. Deficits have been rising, wars are being ramped up and the economy still is in dyer need of help. The last two Presidents have done nothing to help the situations and the candidates we’ve brilliantly lined up for the upcoming 2020 elections look like, if possible, even worse options than what we’ve had. However, the good people of Kentucky have a different idea.

Rand Paul was elected to the US Senate way back in 2010. He seems more honest and more genuine than any politician anyone has ever met–because he is. His father Ron Paul, as Presidential Candidate, came off as a little different and wasn’t exactly a candidate people could warm to. Don’t get me wrong– when you actually sat down in listened to what he was saying, he made real sense. The problem was, most people didn’t make it that far.

Yet Ron’s offspring, Rand, is different. He’s an excellent speaker and captures audiences with his calm demeanor and way of explaining his ideas. He has an unique ability to reel in a base of libertarian minded independents and conservative republicans alike, which makes his especially dangerous. I expect, with the problems in the economy have only gotten worse during Rand’s tenure in the Senate despite his strong efforts to fix it, that the country will be in a state of panic. Candidates that represent the “status quo” will no longer be acceptable and citizens are going to look for a real, non-politician to stand up and say “What can I do to help fix this country?” It just so happens that’s exactly the platform Rand Paul is running on.

Rand is an attractive candidate and one with a real ability to win. His non-partisan approach makes his base very wide, but his real world solutions makes it deep. He’s able to dip into Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians alike and captivate them with his exceptional ability on the stump. He’s also willing to work harder than anyone to do what it takes to win. He doesn’t play attack politics, but knows when to call his opponents out. He has more experience (6 years in the Senate) than President Obama did when elected and is still a very youthful, energetic guy. He’s a nightmare for other candidates.

When you really sit down and think about it, it makes sense. When you listen to this dark-horse Senate candidate from Kentucky, does he not make more sense and provide more ideas than former Presidential Candidates, czars, Secretaries of whatever and even President Obama? I honestly think when 2018 rolls around, and liberal, out-of-control spending still hasn’t fixed this country (for the second time in a century), America will look to a true conservative not wanting to play politics, but get things done.

Am I crazy, or does the eight ball not seem to be pointing to a serious run–and I don’t mean a campaign with almost no chance of winning, like his fathers. I mean I think he can compete. And if President Obama’s magic czar doesn’t fix the economy and the Republicans don’t do it either, there going to turn to maybe the only level headed, conservative in the Senate–Rand Paul.

Developed with Help From NSA

Privacy expert voices ‘backdoor’ concerns, security researchers dismiss idea

Gregg Keizer

Computerworld - The National Security Agency (NSA) worked with Microsoft on the development of Windows 7, an agency official acknowledged yesterday during testimony before Congress.

“Working in partnership with Microsoft and elements of the Department of Defense, NSA leveraged our unique expertise and operational knowledge of system threats and vulnerabilities to enhance Microsoft’s operating system security guide without constraining the user to perform their everyday tasks, whether those tasks are being performed in the public or private sector,” Richard Schaeffer, the NSA’s information assurance director, told the Senate’s Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security yesterday as part of a prepared statement.

“All this was done in coordination with the product release, not months or years later during the product lifecycle,” Schaeffer added. “This will improve the adoption of security advice, as it can be implemented during installation and then later managed through the emerging SCAP standards.”

Security Content Automation Protocol, or SCAP, is a set of standards for automating chores such as managing vulnerabilities and measuring security compliance. The National Institute of Standards and Technologies (NIST) oversees the SCAP standards.

This is not the first time that the NSA has partnered with Microsoft during Windows development. In 2007, the agency confirmed that it had a hand in Windows Vista as part of an initiative to ensure that the operating system was secure from attack and would work with other government software. Before that, the NSA provided guidance on how best to secure Windows XP and Windows 2000.

According to Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronics Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the NSA’s involvement with operating system development goes back even farther. “This battle goes back to at least the crypto wars of the early ’90s,” said Rotenberg, who remembered testifying about the agency’s role in private sector computer security standards in 1989.

But when the NSA puts hands on Windows, that raises a red flag for Rotenberg, who heads the Washington, D.C.-based public interest research center. “When NSA offers to help the private sector on computer security, the obvious concern is that it will also build in backdoors that enables tracking users and intercepting user communications,” Rotenberg said in an e-mail. “And private sector firms are reluctant to oppose these ’suggestions’ since the US government is also their biggest customer and opposition to the NSA could mean to loss of sales.”

Rotenberg’s worries stem from the NSA’s reputation as the intelligence agency best known for its eavesdropping of electronic messaging, including cell phone calls and e-mail.

Andrew Storms, the director of security operations at nCircle Security, didn’t put much credence in the idea that Microsoft would allow the NSA to build a hidden entrance to Windows 7. “Would it be surprising to most people that there was a backdoor? No, not with the political agenda of prior administrations,” said Storms. “My gut, though, tells me that Microsoft, as a business, would not want to do that, at least not in a secretive way.”

Roger Thompson, chief research officer at AVG Technologies, agreed. “I can’t imagine NSA and Microsoft would do anything deliberate because the repercussions would be enormous if they got caught,” he said in an interview via instant messaging.

“Having said that, I think we should understand that there is every likelihood that certain foreign governments are constantly looking for vulnerabilities that they can use for targeted attacks,” Thompson continued. “So if they’re poking at us, I think it’s reasonable to assume that we’re doing something similar. But I seriously doubt an official NSA-Microsoft alliance.”

The NSA’s Schaeffer added that his agency is also working on engaging other major software makers, including Apple, Sun and Red Hat, on security standards for their products.

“More and more, we find that protecting national security systems demands teaming with public and private institutions to raise the information assurance level of products and services more broadly,” Schaeffer said.

Microsoft was not immediately available for comment on the NSA’s participation in Windows 7’s development.

The House Financial Services Committee has approved, by a vote of 43-26, a controversial bill sponsored by Congressman Ron Paul.  Usually, I find Ron Paul somewhat comical, and I sometimes sympathize with his libertarian tendencies.  In this instance, however, I’m worried that Ron Paul’s antics are going to do serious damage.

The importance of central bank independence cannot be overstated.  Study after study has shown that a central bank’s ability to make interest rate decisions free from political pressure is one of the most important variables in long-term performance.  (Indeed, my economics thesis at Bates discussed that subject.)  Despite all that clear evidence, Ron Paul and friends want to subject the Fed’s interest rate decisions to Congressional scrutiny.

Look, I’m all for limited government, and I understand the Ron Paul disciples’ instinct to oppose an institution as seemingly powerful as the Federal Reserve.  Even so, we need an institution to direct monetary policy, whether we like it or not.  Do we really want Congress (current approval rating: 27%) to direct that policy?  Do we really want veterinarians calling the shots over trained professionals?  As Barry Ritholtz explained:

While I have been critical of the Federal Reserve (especially the Greenspan years), my beef with them has been their judgment and decision-making process. Congress, on the other hand, is a whole different matter. Its not their judgment, but rather, the fact they are owned not by the American people, but by lobbyists, and corporate interests. They have become structurally deformed.

How weird is it for me, who spent so many pages blaming the Fed for a lot of the recent crisis, to find myself in a position of defending them from outside political pressure? The choice we face is the recent Fed regime of secrecy, nonfeasance, irresponsibility, and easy money — versus something possibly likely to be a whole lot worse.

To be found in “contempt of Congress” would require an improvement in opinion of them.

If the Fed has been a major source of problems, Congress is much worse. They were the great enablers of the crisis, readily corruptible, bought and paid for by the banking industry. I find Congress to be the worse of two evils — lacking in objectivity, incapable of producing legitimate regulatory review.

If the Fed is Wall Street’s bitch, then Congress is the Street’s whore.

Some would argue [PDF] that an audit is not too much to ask.  To a certain extent, they’re right, and that’s why the Fed is currently subject to audit in most spheres.  But the mere perception of political influence in monetary policy, even if never exercised, is enough to distort the market and seriously @#%T^ up the money supply.  The market knows that politicians with an eye toward the short-term may be willing to use an audit (or the threat of an audit) as just another bargaining chip to gain political goodies.  (It is my understanding that audit threats are already a tool currently used to rein in other agencies.)  The market will, therefore, punish the dollar, regardless of whether or not Congress uses the audit as an in to further control.  Don’t believe me?  It’s already happening.

Paul has advanced his position by constructing an “us vs. the evil bankers” narrative that his followers have eaten up.  Frankly, I don’t understand the logic.  Because they hold debt, bankers don’t want to see an inflated currency — inflation makes the money they get back from borrowers worth a lot less than it was worth when lent.  So even if it were true that bankers “ran the Fed” (which is a dubious premise, to be sure), they would still produce beneficial monetary policy.   

Shame on you, Ron Paul, for not doing your economics homework.  Shame on you.

-Michael

IMF Warns of Revolution if Another Round of Bailouts are Handed Out

Washington’s Blog
November 24, 2009

Federal Reserve Assuring Great Depression
Another Weimar, Argentina or Zimbabwe hyperinflation collapse is coming. . . unless we End the Fed!

Federal Reserve Copies Weimar Hyperinflation

Maybe the single most defining feature of recent election (and the recent political climate in general) has been the absolute vitriol shown to incumbents. It is being compared to the attitude in 1994 and 2006. One obvious comment on this. The time between those two included: 12 years, 6 elections, and 3 presidential elections. Between 2006 and 2010 there will have been: 4 years, 2 elections, and 1 presidential election.

That significantly shorter time period may mean that the electorate is less willing to re-embrace the out of power party. So what will that lead to?  Mort Kondracke points out that the situation is ripe for a third party run. Although I hadn’t thought of it before, he is absolutely right.

Although the chances of a third party permanently establishing themselves are extremely small (the last one to do it was a little known group of anti-slavery advocates known as the Republicans in 1860) America actually has a pretty rich history of influential third parties.  Populists, Progressives, Dixiecrats, American Independents, and Independents/Perotistas have all changed elections and left a mark on the political landscape without winning the presidency.

I’m not sure what this party would look like exactly (maybe that’s worth tackling another time) but I get the sense that it won’t be one of the more established 3rd parties (Green, Libertarian) if one arises.

IOUSA (I Owe You USA / Le Debo a USA), es un documental que trata sobre la revisión de la situación financiera estadounidense que, desde la fundación del país en 1776, ha acumulado una deuda que en la actualidad supera los 12 trillones de dólares (US$ 12.000.000.000.000).

Desde su fundación, en 1776, la deuda nacional de Estados Unidos no ha dejado de crecer. Con la Administración Reagan la situación se agudizó y, por primera vez en la historia estadounidense, la deuda nacional alcanzó cotas alarmantes en tiempos de paz. Cuando en 1988, Bush padre proclamó «no new taxes», la situación tampoco mejoró. Los intentos de Estados Unidos por controlar la deuda han sido en vano, y esta sigue siendo superior a los 12 trillones de dólares. Este documental permite comprender mejor los problemas estructurales de la actual crisis financiera e incluye entrevistas a Alan Greenspan, Ron Paul, Paul H. O’Neill, Robert Rubin y Paul Volcker.

Con un frìo pero certero mensaje, IOUSA intenta poner a juicio del ciudadano comun, el impresionante endeudamiento de la megapotencia.

Actualmente EEUU está acumulando deuda a un ritmo exponencial, a razón de US$ 50.700 por segundo y continúa acelerando.

Lamentablemente IOUSA se estrenó en Agosto de 2008 y no incluye las crisis financieras que vinieron luego, como tampoco contabiliza los déficits generados por el dinero de los salvatajes.

Muchas gracias paparazzi2013 por subirlo a vimeo, hacía tiempo que estaba buscando este documental con subtítulos.

Last week I wrote about how Tim Geithner was rolled by the big New York Banks into buying out their AIG Credit Default Swaps at Par. And then on Friday came the Paul-Grayson bill to Audit the Fed. But in all the reporting I have read on the AIG Bailout, not a single reporter has mentioned the elephant in the room. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is owned by the big New York Banks. As the Fed’s website explains, “The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized much like private corporations.” Every bank in New York owns a proportional amount of stock in the New York Fed, which pays them a guaranteed 6% coupon. So therefore, Tim Geithner was essentially employed by the banks that he then bailed out by taking over AIG.

The average citizen has no idea that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is a private corporation owned by JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. They think it’s some kind of government agency. Is there any wonder why people are so distrustful of Wall Street? Where is the duty of the press to inform citizens? Here is Andrew Sorkin, the New York Times’ “deal reporter” criticizing the Paul Amendment on Fed Transparency.

Representative Ron Paul of Texas won committee approval of a far-reaching amendment that would give Congress vast new authority over the Federal Reserve. The Fed has long enjoyed Lone Ranger autonomy, but that will quickly end if the final bill passes.

Now granted, Sorkin makes his living chronicling the BSD’s known as the “Masters of The Universe”, so his loyalties are clearly with the bankers, but where does he get the idea that Jamie Dimon (Board Member of the New York Fed and CEO of JP Morgan Chase) telling Tim Geithner to buy out the hugely devalued AIG Credit Default Swaps at 100 cents on the dollar (when they were probably worth 20 cents in the open market) is some act of “Lone Ranger autonomy”?

I always thought the Lone Ranger was on the side of the little guy needing justice?

As I researching for my English paper on the Progressive Movement, I came across Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 State of the Union address. I was deeply appalled that any president, especially one that is often portrayed as one of the greatest ever, would propose something that’s so against the America’s foundation. Below I will copy the address and highlight his new “rights:”

“It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.”

These are so blatantly radical, unconstitutional, and socialist. It gets a whole lot worse. According to an article on www.forbes.com, Cass Sunstein (Head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) is a strong supporter of these rights. Sunstein wrote a book, published in 2004 titled, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever. If you believe in the constitution, the founding of this nation, and capitalism than you should be nervous that he has such a high position. These “rights” would astronomically grow the size of government and result in excessive taxation to fund all the programs.

It seems clear that’s exactly what progressives want, the growth of government, the death of capitalism and the rise of socialism. “Obama calls himself a progressive, as does Hillary Clinton” (http://www.newsweek.com/id/189122). Al Gore also considers himself a progressive, you know the guy who’s not a scientist and cares so deeply about the environment/global cooling, err I mean warming, and thinks he knows global warming inside and out.  Now, either these liberals, progressives, which ever you prefer to call them are either unaware at the extremely radicalism of their titles or they intend completely to uproot America and “Fundamentally transform” America.

SIDE NOTE: A couple scientists got their emails hacked and proves that global warming figures have been distorted. Shocking huh? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html

I’ve been hearing a lot of Obama-bashing lately. I’ve also been seeing a lot of Sarah Palin in the news. I am a registered Independent (I), which means my loyalty lies not with the Democrats (see: Liberals), or the Republicans (see: Conservatives.) I am free to vote in any primary election I see fit, and I consider myself a political centrist. I am neither “left” nor “right.” I believe in fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. My political motto is simple: Less Taxes, Smaller Government, More Freedom. I believe the United States Constitution should be literally interpreted, and I believe that any changes to this document should come in the form of amendments, not executive or judicial interpretation (which, coincidentally, is how the “Founding Fathers” designed it.)

With all that being said, allow me to share with you what I feel to be the three (3) most important qualities in a President. I will also compare these qualities to those of Obama and Palin and see who would be more fit to run (or ruin) this nation.

I. Education.

Barack Obama: Attended Occidental College in Los Angeles, CA for two years before transferring to Columbia University and receiving a B.A. in Political Science and a minor in International Relations. He then graduated Magna Cum Laude (the top 1% of his class) with a J.D. (law degree) from Harvard. (Daaaaaaaaamn homie!)

Sarah Palin: Attended Hawaii Pacific University(?) for one semester. Then attended North Idaho University(?) for two semesters. However, she did win the “Miss Wasilla” (pop. 5,469) beauty pageant at this time. She then attended the University of Idaho for two semesters, transferred to Matanuska-Susitna College(?) in Wasilla, AK for one semester, before transferring back to the University of Idaho and earning a Bachelor’s degree in Communications with an emphasis in Journalism.

EDGE: Obama. While Palin was busy taking her “hard” courses (note: Are there any difficult courses in Communications? From what I understand there’s not) at various community colleges before transferring to the University of Idaho to earn her patchwork degree, Obama was nonchalantly becoming the first ever black man to become the President of the Harvard Law Review. Although I do contend it would be interesting to see what someone with a Community College education would do with the power of the Presidency, I feel a bit more at ease knowing that a man with a vast and extensive knowledge of American Law, the U.S. Constitution and a Harvard fucking education is running this nation.

II. Experience.

Obama: Member of the Illinois State Senate 13th District (Chicago), January 8, 1997 – November 4, 2004. United States Senator from Illinois, January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008.

Palin: Member of the Wasilla City Council, 1992-1996. Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, 1996-2002. Chairperson of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2003-2004. Governor of Alaska, December 4, 2006 – July 26, 2009.

EDGE: Obama. Until abruptly resigning from the office of Governor of Alaska in July of 2009 without explanation, Sarah Palin had been involved in politics at some level for the better part of 17 years. Unfortunately, her experience was tantamount to that of Leslie Knope, the Deputy Director of the Pawnee City Department of Parks and Recreation on NBC’s hit comedy Parks and Recreation. Meanwhile, Obama was serving as community activist, state legislator and U.S. Senator in America’s third-largest city. Let’s compare:

Palin's Constituency

Obama's Constituency

Hmm.

Now don’t get me wrong, it’s an incredible feat to be elected Governor of a State (just ask my Governor – Arnold Swartzennager.) However, Alaska is home to just 686,293 citizens, whereas Chicago alone is home to 2,853,114 citizens. Plus Illinois is America’s fifth (5th) largest State with a population of 12,901,563.  So, while as Mayor of Wasilla, Mrs. Palin had the duty of taking care of the concerns of 5,000 people, Mr. Obama had his hands full in Chicago dealing with millions of citizens and the rampant corruption that comes along with Illinois and its government. I think I’ll go with the Senator from the big state. There’s just this uneasy feeling I get about trusting the Governor of an obscure quasi-Russian/Canadian territory that isn’t even a part of the continental United States.

III. Pragmatism, Prudence and Foresight:

Allow me to first define what I mean by “Pragmatism”:

1. A movement consisting of varying but associated theories, originally developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James and distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences.
2. A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.

And “Prudence”:

1. Wise in handling practical matters; exercising good judgment or common sense.
2. Careful in regard to one’s own interests; provident.
3. Careful about one’s conduct; circumspect.

And of course by “Foresight”, I simply mean I enjoy a President who doesn’t suffer from myopia. I’ll go ahead and define “Myopia” for you as well:

1. A visual defect in which distant objects appear blurred because their images are focused in front of the retina rather than on it; nearsightedness. Also called short sight. (For the purpose of this essay, definition 1 is intended to be used metaphorically.)
2. Lack of discernment or long-range perspective in thinking or planning.

Let me begin by explaining why I believe these three qualities are so important: When a President fails to learn from the mistakes of others (Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon – Vietnam), he is doomed to repeat these mistakes (George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld – Iraq.) Another fine example are our nation’s bankers who, apparently not very well versed in the history of the U.S. stock market, essentially substituted the inadequately-financed stocks of the 1920’s with the inadequately-financed real estate of the aughts. Same principles, same great wealth accumulation, same devastating crash.

Prudence is important in a President because, in order to run the world’s largest Capitalist economy, you had better know what the fuck you are doing. Without going too far in depth economically, I’ll just say that it’s important to lend aid to citizens who have a legitimate need for said aid (if the financial impact of this aid outweighs the converse impact of inaction), but the funding should come from a reasonable (and ideally perpetual) source. Blah… you can just ignore this paragraph.

Obligatory Photograph of Rome

Foresight is important for the same reasons. I live by the philosophy that every generation’s children should be better off than the generation that preceded it. Simple, right? Same goes for American citizens in general.

Oh yeah, these traits of intelligence are also very important to me, because they lay the delicate balance between what is considered progressive, or “liberal”, and what is the traditional status quo, or “conservative.” These two philosophies must work hand-in-hand in order for a society to prosper. (See: Rome, Ancient Greece, Modern Day Western Europe.) When traditional values are held onto for too long, you get the Middle-East (see: post-1979 Iran, Hussein’s Iraq and the Talibani Afghanistan.) Conversely, when a society attempts to accelerate progressive movements at a pace that is not in tow with the thoughts, ideals, resources or support of its citizens, you see great failure and revolt (See: the USSR, Nazi Germany, Modern-Day Cuba.)

Anyway, let’s continue:

Obama: Since he is the acting POTUS, it’s pretty easy to grade his performance thus far. I give him a “C” for effort. One thing people need to understand is that whoever won the 2008 Presidential election (be it Palin by way of McCain, or Barack Obama, they would likely serve but one term.) Why? Well, because the FUBAR they inherited from the Executive Branch Davidians (see: Dick Cheney, et al) was so severe that it would likely crush the soul, spirit and resolve of not only the person elected, but that of the entire county as well. Thanks, Dubya! So far, Obama’s stimulus has not been something I particularly admire (neither were any of Bush’s fiscal policies, either.) One thing I do enjoy is the closing of Guantanamo (say what you will about these prisoners, but a semantic game should not be played here. Either try them in the Hague as war criminals, or on U.S. soil as terrorists. Just stop violating the Geneva Convention [or rather, exploiting its loopholes], and fucking do something!) Also, his views on how to close the American chapter in Iraq is questionably in my estimation. Doing away with the PATRIOT Act was excellent, and as far as his Health Care proposal is concerned – it needs major work.

Obama: "At Least I'm Not Bush"

Palin: What do we know about Palin? Not much. She’s a small town girl with a small-town mind and a small-town education. She lacks the basic fundamental understanding of global politics and domestic social programs and their taxation to be an effective leader at anything higher than, well, the Alaskan level. Additionally, she has bizarre religious views (Pentacostal, anyone?), apparently opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest (what does that tell you?) and famously has no fucking idea where one of America’s most volatile “allies” is on a map. Palin is very outspoken and this makes her popular with individuals suffering from Asperger’s Syndrome and Alcholism (the two most likely crowds outside of Tourettes to speak their mind.) Political entertainers such as Bill O’Reilly and Rush “Oxycontin” Limbaugh seem to support her fervently. Palin recently released a book that was heavily criticized for its inaccuracies, with the AP stating, “Ignoring substantial parts of her record if not the facts, she depicts herself as a frugal traveler on the taxpayer’s dime, a reformer without ties to powerful interests and a politician roguishly indifferent to high ambition.” Additionally, she has taken several insane stances she resigning from office, including supporting creationism in the classroom (she believes that dinosaurs and humans once interacted) as well as inventing the term “Death Panel”to criticize Obama’s proposed healthcare plan (a term that has been slammed as grossly erroneous and completely fictional and without merit.)

Sarah Palin: An Insane Reptillian Alien Disguised in the Body of a Beautiful Woman

EDGE: Draw.

That’s right. Despite the fact that Sarah Palin is a small-town hick from the meth capitol of Alaska with little-to-no education and an incredibly loose grasp on how American politics, society, taxation and the electoral system work, Obama has proven to be so incredibly liberal and reckless with the American taxpayer’s dime that I really cannot support anything he’s done. Now, does this mean I would prefer Sarah Palin as an alternative ? Absolutely fucking not. Under no circumstances whatsoever. I would move to Canada if she were ever elected (although I cannot see the American people doing something so unprecedented and appalling, though they did once elect Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter consecutively, so who knows.)

You may be wondering who I would tap as an alternative to these two. Well, Ron Paul of course.

Democracy FTW!

In an unprecedented defeat for the Federal Reserve, an amendment to audit the multi-trillion dollar institution was approved by the House Finance Committee with an overwhelming and bipartisan 43-26 vote on Thursday afternoon despite harried last-minute lobbying from top Fed officials and the surprise opposition of Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who had previously been a supporter.

The measure, cosponsored by Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), authorizes the Government Accountability Office to conduct a wide-ranging audit of the Fed’s opaque deals with foreign central banks and major U.S. financial institutions. The Fed has never had a real audit in its history and little is known of what it does with the trillions of dollars at its disposal.

Read the rest.

{HT: Lew Rockwell}

By Ron Paul,

I was pleased last week when we won a vote in the Financial Services Committee to include language from the Audit the Fed bill HR1207 in the upcoming financial regulatory reform bill.  As it stands now, if HR 3996 passes, because of this action, the Federal Reserve’s entire balance sheet will be opened up to a GAO audit.  We will at last have a chance to find out what happened to the trillions of dollars the Fed has been giving out.

Finally, the blanket restrictions on GAO audits of the Fed that have existed since 1978 will be removed.  All items on the Fed’s balance sheet will be auditable, including all credit facilities, all securities purchase programs, and all agreements with foreign central banks.  To calm fears that we might be trying to substitute congressional action for Fed mischief in tinkering with monetary policy, we agreed to a 180 day lag time before details of the Fed’s market actions are released and included language to state explicitly that nothing in the amendment should be construed as interference in or dictation of monetary policy by Congress or the GAO.  This left no reasonable objections standing and the amendment passed with a vote of 43 to 26.

This was a major triumph for transparency and accountability in government.  With unprecedented turmoil in the financial markets, the people are demanding to know and understand the extent of the Federal Reserve’s involvement in the creation of out-of-control business cycles, who they are helping, and how.  We need information.  The excuses for not giving out this information are flimsy at best, and the passage of this amendment is a major step to finally getting at the truth.

Of course I could not have done this without the help and support of many other members who have been strong allies in this fight.  Having over 300 cosponsors was obviously helpful.

However, as great as this victory is, we have to remember that this amendment is attached to a bill that would give sweeping new powers to the Federal Reserve. The Fed has taken its mandate to maintain stable prices and full employment and used its immense power to help elite friends at the great expense of everyone else.  The answer is not to increase their powers and ability to interfere in the economy, but that is what the legislation will do.  It is a disaster waiting to happen, and unfortunately it looks as if it will pass.

At least with the Audit the Fed amendment attached to the bill, the Fed will not be able to do its destructive work in secret. The people will know exactly who the beneficiaries are of this immoral system of money management.

Audit the Fed Attached as an Amendment originally appeard in Ron Paul’s Texas Straight Talk on 23/11/2009.

Phastidio sembra non aver gradito la proposta di Ron Paul “audit the FED”, mediante la quale il nostro sta cercando di ridurre l’influenza politica sulla FED, responsabile di buona parte delle tragedie della nostra epoca. In sostanza Paul vorrebbe impedire l’idillio tra politici e banchieri facendo sì che la banca centrale americana risponda dei suoi atti di fronte al GAO, un organo super partes che dovrebbe vigilare sulla effettiva fattibilità delle manovre adottate dalla banca centrale. La perplessità di Mario Seminerio sorge di fronte al fatto che il GAO potrebbe, come tutti gli organi super partes (FED inclusa), cedere in tutti i casi a pressioni politiche, un po’ come la questione dei giudici comunisti in Italia, della corte costituzionale, dei sindacati, ecc… Se questo si verificasse l’esito sarebbe di certo devastante, in quanto la politicizzazione delle politiche monetarie americane aumenterebbe invece di diminuire, portando dunque anche ad indire audizioni mirate a peggiorare le cose.

In tutti i casi credo che il ragionamento di Paul sia legato a fenomeni di politica americana che nei panni di outsider è difficile decifrare. Sono infatti portato a pensare che eventuali pressioni politiche sul GAO possano essere percepite e denunciate in maniera molto più chiara delle pressioni politiche esercitate sulla FED e messe di fronte agli elettori più facilmente (credo Paul parli di trasparenza per questo).

Sta di fatto che l’unico provvedimento realmente libertario in materia sarebbe l’abolizione della FED e la concorrenza delle valute in chiave hayekiana (e anche snowcrashiana), ma credo che prima di vedere attuata una simile riforma sarebbe più probabile vedere Santa Claus presidente degli USA (o anche Ron Paul, tanto la probabilità è la stessa).

-J1nz0

I’ve been digging up some facts for the past couple of months and arrive with a couple of possibilities that could set the global economy back into the deepest red yet again!

Apart from interest rates, rising interest rates, confidence falling, record defaults of loans and collapses of markets.

There some that could trigger a depression:

Obama gets ill, there were some rumors of health complications such as breathing difficulties since he is still smoking in secret.

A new war emerges as either Israel wages war against Iran or Pakistan becomes a new battleground against terrorism as these Islamic militants starts targeting important location around the nation, it might a civil war within Pakistan. Any events like this nature can happen in political dangerous areas, maybe a war within the region may not occur.

A new terror attack in the United States due to the continuing conflict in Afghanistan and near by Pakistan.

The dumping of the Greenback where many central banks like the Bank of India, The bank of Japan and the Chinese central bank with huge holdings of US notes in their reserve will try to get rid of it, by replacing with other currencies or gold reserves from the IMF.

Major natural disasters that could hit advanced economies in the events such as floodings, Tsunamis and earthquakes.

The Audit of the Federal Reserve as Congressman Ron Paul still pressing ahead with his plans to expose the Fed’s wrong doings.

Major Financial or enterprise failures, as revenue falls companies will heading for Bankruptcy.

Well the point is anything can happen in any moment of time, so just be prepared for whats going to happens in rest the world. Stock markets will be in free fall, investors panicking and people are taking desperate measures to safeguard their losses or recouped losses.

Like I said, I’m not a fortunate teller here. What I’m saying is “when you see the threads, you will see the future”.

I hope everyone can be prepare for it whatever happens in the future.

Cheers

For the first time in history, the Federal Reserve Bank may be facing an audit. On Thursday, the House Finance Committee passed a bill (HR 1207) that authorizes the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a wide-ranging audit of the Fed’s secretive deals with foreign central banks and major U.S. financial institutions.

HR 1207, sponsored by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), currently has 313 co-sponsors in the House from both sides of the aisle, which is a veto-proof majority. A companion bill in the Senate (S 604) has 30 co-sponsors.Whenever the government needs to have money printed, or spend our tax dollars, it issues treasury bonds to the Federal Reserve, which in turn prints the Federal Reserve notes to back those up. The catch, however, is that money is issued with interest charged to the federal government (a.k.a. the taxpayers). According to CNN, the interest alone on U.S. debt is projected to grow to $4.8 trillion in the next decade. According to Ron Paul, since the Federal Reserve was given control over U.S. currency in 1913, the purchasing power of the dollar has fallen by over 95%.

The FED is Evil the Rothchilds,,, the Rockefellers, Soros. WE know Now … The Giant has Awoken… see OUR power

Tom Tancredo (L), Tim Graney (R) Photography by Eddie Gallegos

Tim Graney announced his candidacy for Congress on October 19^th.

Who is Tim Graney?  Most importantly to the disenchanted citizens of the United States, what does Tim Graney stand for? 

Understanding past experience and recent public efforts say a lot about the individual.  Tim Graney was an active member of the Katy Tea Party.  He wasn’t just a board member.  Tim chose to be active in many additional community events to raise awareness.  As time progressed, the more he came to realize there was much more to be done for America in this role.  In October, he answered the call to action with a commitment to serve the people of Texas and this country.  A very big step for any American, and particularly at this point in history, to commit yourself 120% to the “refounding” of America!

His platforms of what he would like to accomplish are distinct and his opening campaign speech illustrated his knowledge of the topics.  Tim Graney’s campaign kick-off speech fully illustrated his vision:  “In my first term in office, I will focus on three key areas of legislation to propel this country forward – Energy, Business Growth and American Values. The first two are paramount to the economic and long term security of our nation and the third will help return us to our roots that founded and built the greatest nation on earth”.  The message is clean, concise, and says what he is about.  This writer is not suggesting Mr. Graney has all the answers.  What I do suggest is that fresh ideas from a businessman, will go a long way to restoring our Constitutional Republic.

His opponent is Ron Paul (Libertarian), who has been in office for 12 years.  Mr. Paul is a man of principle who has served his constituents in a consistent manner.  This author would suggest we need Ron Paul in a different role at this point in the history of our country.   He has written two prolific books over the past few years, that reveal an indepth  knowledge of how to improve standards on a more national basis.  In my humble opinion, Ron Paul is needed to help guide and promote constitutional conservatives across the land so the people can truly regain control of the government.  To do this, he needs to give up the seat in Congress.  This would enable him to be more involved in the taking back of the country.  We need a man of principle who can rise to the occasion and assist a group of like-minded people to get elected across the nation into the government.  Tim Graney is qualified and capable of leading this district while Mr. Paul helps America regain control of the government.  

America needs good people to go into office that will help to protect the constitutional republic.  They need representatives who will abide strictly by the constitution and stop saddling the citizens with an overburden of taxes.  Personal responsibility needs to be reinforced in the country.  There is also a huge need for leaders who can help facilitate this transaction across the United States.  To defeat an organized “machine”, one will need to fight with an organized “machine”.