"Wherefore We must interrupt a silence which it would be criminal to prolong, that We may point out...as they really are, men who are badly disguised." Pope St. Pius X, September 8, 1907, Pascendi Dominici Gregis

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

The Definition of Denial

We've got three wars, double digit unemployment, and fiscal chaos. Quite frankly, we're about as besieged as the Corleones after Michael killed Sollozzo and McCluskey, except it was actually Fredo who killed them, because we don't even have anyone remotely as intelligent as Michael waiting in the wings. This time, the Don actually is dead, and Tom Hagen is MIA. Sonny takes the lead, and isn't thinking anything through. What kind of outcome do you expect?

No wonder Bill Gross is short US Treasuries.

As one group of bad guys in town see their grasp on power slip, you can always step on their fingers.

Friday, April 15, 2011

Energy Solutions in a Free, Sane Country

As the Singaporean press reports, Switzerland is considering ending its nuclear energy program.

DC's Latest Effort To Grow the Economy

The latest effort by the Obama administration to grow the U.S. economy involves delivering "a death blow to [a] thriving industry" and charging budding entrepreneurs "with bank fraud and money laundering."

When Detroit makes a bunch of cars nobody wants and fails because of it, it's a "threat" to American jobs and the companies must be bailed out. But when Americans actually want a product, happily pay for it, and a booming industry creating new jobs is at stake, "prosecutors...[seek] to immediately shut down the [companies] and to eventually send the executives to jail."

It's A Trap!

Since the advent of fiat, fractional reserve banking, our nation has gone down the one-way path of perpetual inflation. This makes it difficult to save, as the value of savings is eaten away either by inflation, or by the capital gains taxes paid on investments, made merely to avoid inflation, that increased in value only because the dollar decreased in value.

In such an environment, Americans interested in making large purchases will turn to borrowing, instead of saving, in order to buy such things as cars and houses. One seeming advantage to this strategy is that inflation favors borrowers in that the dollars a borrower must pay back are worth less than when they were borrowed, and in a growing economy they are therefore easier to come by.

But as Admiral Ackbar points out in the video above, "IT'S A TRAP!"

The catch is that our inflationary system inevitably leads to, and is part of, the business cycle. As everything feels good when borrowers take out their loans, the economy appears to be growing and there is mild inflation, it appears as a good decision, given the previously mentioned constraints that purchasers face. However, what few people realize, thanks to their ignorance of the Austrian theory of the business cycle, is that all booms inevitably lead to busts. And when the bust comes, you loose your job, you miss that payment, you loose your house, but inflation continues at an even quicker pace, as we are witnessing right now. There is no such as a free lunch. It is a trap. We must abolish the Fed!

As Lupe Fiasco points out, "Crooked banks around the world would gladly give a loan today so if you ever miss payment they can take your home away!"

You think the government's broke?

Thanks to fiat fractional reserve banking, approximately 90% of the money you have in the bank, if you are lucky enough to have any savings, may not even exist. And even if it did, they've have to print it up, so it wouldn't be worth anything.

Join the Silver Liberation Army today!

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Actual Unemployment Rate: 54.6%

Of course, this does not take into consideration working moms (i.e., homemakers), which is a job if ever there was one, but USA Today reports:

"Only 45.4% of Americans had jobs in 2010, the lowest rate since 1983 and down from a peak of 49.3% in 2000."
"The bulk of those not working has shifted from children to adults. In 2000, the nation had roughly the same number of children and non-working adults. Since then, the population of non-working adults has grown 27 million while the nation added just 3 million children under 18."
"Last year, just 66.8% of men had jobs, the lowest on record. Until the 1960s, more than 80% of men worked."
"'No matter how wealthy you are, you have a problem if half the population is not working and depending on those who are. Wherever you look, we've overpromised.'"

The only states with a majority working population: North Dakota and Wyoming.

We should immediately abolish public schools, the completion of the programs of which are, at best, often irrelevant or in most cases actually detrimental to long term success as a mature adult and a productive member of society. Also, we should repeal child-labor and minimum wage laws, so that children are given the opportunity to earn their keep, in cases where this is appropriate, and actually become prepared to take on real jobs that require significant experience later in life.

Such actions will, in the short term, lower youth unemployment rates and actions legitimately considered criminal (e.g., theft). In the long term, it will also reduce the emerging trend of adults making up the bulk of the unemployed, as young children brought up in a culture where work is not valued, as in today's public schools and mainstream liberal arts programs, are not likely to learn to value work later on, especially when massive welfare incentives exist to support the unemployed lifestyle.

Also, Social Security, originally setup in the form of a forced savings scheme has degenerated into a mere welfare program, as the trustees (i.e., politicians) have spent all of the saved money and now merely transfer directly from those currently working monies to support the 'retired.' Social Security should be immediately abolished in recognition that it is merely a direct tax on the currently productive, whose own social security benefits, if received at all, will have to be financed through the Federal Reserve's counterfeiting operations.

Those dependent on Social Security made a bargain with the devil and (big surprise!) lost. They should be immediately abandoned and forced to return to the workplace, to serve as an indication to future generations that it is not wise to trust the government to save for your 'retirement.' Actual Anarchy would consider support by the government only to those who truly cannot work in their old age and without caring children as a legitimate reform measure, if we could reasonably expect such a half-way system to be administered fairly, with reasonable verification of the indigent status of the aforementioned elderly. Unfortunately, recent experiences indicate that is not a reasonable expectation.

It can be argued that the whole phenomenon of 'retirement' is a mere propaganda scheme anyway, used to buy off 'retired' voters, as most truly productive people worked their entire lives prior to the advent of the welfare state. In fact some studies indicate that retirement can lead to mental inactivity and is thus bad for the brain leading to degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's. In addition to its injustice, Social Security is not even a sustainable voter buy-off scheme, as we are seeing that it disincentivizes the work necessary to keep a productive society going by disincentivizing current labor both by those who now instead of working receive benefits and the taxes applied to those who cannot currently retire and are working. It also leads to a lowered birth rate, as raising children is indeed an expensive affair, done often in the pre-welfare state era to guarantee financial security during extreme old age and frailty. Those who can rely on Social Security payments in lieu of support from their children are likely to have fewer children, and we see a corresponding decrease in the fertility of all Western nations with such retirement schemes, Japan being the worst example. Thus does the modern notion of 'retirement' lead to societal collapse and economic stagnation.

We are not getting richer. We are getting poorer. A real economy is not a number like GDP, as the Federal Reserve can always create enough new money to force an increase in that number. Real growth comes from cultural factors and the incentives society chooses to enforce. Currently, the only government incentives that exist are towards unbridled consumption. Uninhibited, this will lead to the utter destruction of humanity. It is only the remnant of natural law that the state has not yet been able to override, and arguably never will, that allows even the semblance of a productive economy to remain. Also, we are heavily subsidized by the use petroleum, which may or may not be a renewable resource. If not, we will have squandered a great deal of Earth's capital not on preparing for a future without oil, but on allowing our fellow men to be uncultured, lazy slobs and disincentivizing their will to life.

Leave It To Cooper

As an avid fan of Congressman Paul, I always love to watch his interviews to hear what he has to say. But often what is far more interesting is the reactions of the journalist interviewing him.

In this case, it looks like Anderson Cooper is finally making use of his common sense for the first time. Watch the almost puzzled look on his face. You can almost see that he understands for the first time that everything he's been reporting on - the debate, the deals cut, the spin afterward - regarding the budget is just a show put on in order to facilitate the status quo, while attempting to make the American public think significant changes are being made. He is not clearly hostile to Congressman Paul, as the bulk of typical establishment journalists would be. Instead he is considering what the Congressman has to say. He's doing his job for the first time, being earnestly curious and look at how difficult it seems for him. Oh, it is just too funny.

I can just picture him asking in a scene from a black-and-white 1950s sitcom as a young, naive, but again earnestly curious pre-adolescent:  

"Oh, gosh, Congressman, does any of this actually make any sense?"

"So, so, so...so what should we do, pops?"

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Words Finally Said

I've been a fan of Lupe Fiasco since this video, but this may be the most impressive bit of pop culture so far this century:

I really think the war on terror is a bunch of bullshit
Just a poor excuse for you to use up all your bullets
How much money does it take to really make a full clip?
9/11 building 7 did they really pull it?
Uhh, And a bunch of other cover ups
Your child's future was the first to go with budget cuts
If you think that hurts then, wait here comes the uppercut
The school was garbage in the first place, thats on the up and up
Keep you at the bottom but tease you with the uppercrust
You get it then they move it so you never keeping up enough
If you turn on TV all you see’s a bunch of “what the f-cks”
Dude is dating so and so blabbering bout such and such
And that aint Jersey Shore, homie thats the news
And these the same people that supposed to be telling us the truth
Limbaugh is a racist, Glenn Beck is a racist
Gaza strip was getting bombed, Obama didn’t say shit
Thats why I aint vote for him, next one either
I’m a part of the problem, my problem is I’m peaceful
And I believe in the people.

Now you can say it aint our fault if we never heard it
But if we know better then we probably deserve it
Jihad is not a holy war, wheres that in the worship?
Murdering is not Islam!
And you are not observant
And you are not a muslim
Israel don’t take my side cause look how far you’ve pushed them
Walk with me into the ghetto, this where all the Kush went
Complain about the liquor store but what you drinking liquor for?
Complain about the gloom but when’d you pick a broom up?
Just listening to Pac aint gone make it stop
A rebel in your thoughts, aint gon make it halt
If you don’t become an actor you’ll never be a factor
Pills with million side effects
Take em when the pains felt
Wash them down with Diet soda!
Killin off your brain cells
Crooked banks around the World
Would gladly give a loan today
So if you ever miss payment
They can take your home away!

I think that all the silence is worse than all the violence
Fear is such a weak emotion that's why I despise it
We scared of almost everything, afraid to even tell the truth
So scared of what you think of me, I’m scared of even telling you
Sometimes I’m like the only person I feel safe to tell it to
I’m locked inside a cell in me, I know that there’s a jail in you
Consider this your bailing out, so take a breath, inhale a few
My screams is finally getting free, my thoughts is finally yelling through

Buy A Physical Ounce of Silver Today!

And join the Silver Liberation Army.

Monday, April 11, 2011

Why Free Humanity!

Inspiration: http://www.infowars.com/alex-jones-experimental-audio/

We must abolish the state because it is the tool of those who are weak who think they are strong. Anyone truly capable has no fear. No fear of their fellow men, who may or may not be stronger. No fear of the risks and fluctuations of life. They trust God, who said

“Consider how the wild flowers grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you—you of little faith!"

They fear not. They are enterprising and act without needing supplication. They form businesses and other enterprises which stand on their own.

Only the jealous and unjustly prideful must call on a 'court' as in olden days or the 'voice of the people' as in our democratic times to justify their actions. They are weak. They are unsure. They can only survive by feeding on the great multitude which their superior, enterprising brothers have created.

The state is the embodiment of everything that is weak and supplicating. Supplicating not in the sense of a vast recognition of the true power of God and nature and the vast force at the whim of which man cannot but submit himself, who calls out to God to forgive and be merciful and not yet destroy his creation, but uplift it further.

No, I mean supplication in the sense of the negligent. The desire to have the sanction of those who provide what has not been earned. We are social creatures, feeling responsibility to our peers, so we can only indulge in selfish negligence if we collectively accord each other this right. This is the doctrine of democratic equality, of acceptance of all forms of living no matter how depraved, of the forced recognition of value where there is none: in employees hired only to meet a quota, in a relationship established only to serve perverted lust, in the support of the life of those who refuse to support themselves or value their own life.

As is ultimately the case, it is not so much your actions by which you are judged, as man is subject to the limits of his subjective ignorance and the effects thereof on his judgment, but your intent, the spirit with which you approach life.

The culture of life is embracing of reality, while the culture of the state is death, which constantly denies the good around it. It is self-destructive and self-defeating. And yet it persists. It can only persist because the good have sanctioned it. All those with ears to hear, let them hear that we must no longer support the state. We must support free humanity!

Why Idealism is Necessary

Viktor Frankl quickly explains why the modern therapeutic state's attempt to take man as a given, as a material reality that is deficient or deformed leads to destruction, and why idealism is necessary for man to live actually.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

The Secret to Switzerland's Success: Pre-Maoist China?

This gentleman argues quite convincingly that at least part of the cultural basis for Switzerland's long standing economic freedom, success and stability is actually the Taoist concept of wu-wei imported to Switzerland via Chinese dishes.

The Highest Expression of Western Culture

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him."

Friday, April 8, 2011

Nietzsche is Dead

As the free time before I start my new job draws to a close, my window of opportunity to read the works of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche grows smaller. Having made it clear that I have not read his works and only heard what others have said about them, I will make some comments on what I have surmised about at least one aspect of Nietzschean thought.

Nietzsche is well known for his admonition that "God is dead." Fair enough, but how does he justify this statement? From what I can gather - and do correct me if I am wrong - Nietzsche argues that Christian morals and values are equivalent to slave morals or values. That is to say, they are the types of values, supposedly such as humility, mercy, charity and forgiveness, that would appeal to slaves or other under-classlings in their relations vis-a-vis their superiors. In other words, slaves would create these morals and values and try to foist them upon their apparent masters because if successful, they would materially gain. The smart thing for those who are intellectually or otherwise superior to do would be to pursue their self-interest ruthlessly and through continued domination of the underlings. Nietzsche argues that insofar as the world comes to this realization, "God is dead."

While this argument has a certain plausibility, I think one can only justify it rather superficially. To begin with, it is not clear that in all cases those who hold apparent positions of authority are the smarter, better, stronger entities. Indeed, in innumerable cases, the opposite has proven to be true. Spartacus, William Tell, the American revolutionaries, and Jesus Christ himself can all be called upon as a few of a multitude of examples, wherein the person of the "lower" status proves themselves ultimately more intelligent and of a higher nature than those who apparently exercised power over them.

Ironically, it may be those of a truly lower status or intelligence, undeserving of their current position of power, who would most rely on the superficial Nietzschean argument. They could argue their current possession of an office or status of power is prima facie evidence of their superiority. But because it is not ultimately true that they are the person of the higher intellect, they must maintain their position through violence as their betters pursue rational means by which to unseat them.

And we can take this one step further by looking at the very nature of the values Nietzsche would have us adopt in place of the Christian values. History has shown that the most stable and greatest wealth and power relationships are established not by outright domination but by cooperation.

Cooperation, however, is very difficult to establish, relative to strife and division, because the short-term benefits of noncooperation can often be very high, even if it leads to long-term ruin. While the long term benefits of cooperation are far higher than the short term benefits of noncooperation, long term cooperation often requires significant sacrifices in the short term. (Oh no, it's "slave morality!")

It is as if we are presented with the prisoner's dilemma; Nietzsche argued that we should both rat each other out, while Jesus Christ argued that we ought to both keep quiet. Strictly speaking, who's advice would you rather follow?

As far as I can tell, the preponderance of evidence suggests that Nietzsche, not God, is dead.

Impeach Obama Now!

E-mail these articles of impeachment with a request to your Congressman to impeach Obama now!

from http://www.infowars.com/bruce-fein-articles-of-impeachment/

1. Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution provides: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
2. According to James Madison’s Records of the Convention, 2:550; Madison, 8 Sept., Mr. George Mason objected to an initial proposal to confine impeachable offenses to treason or bribery:
Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined–As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments.
3. Delegates to the Federal Convention voted overwhelmingly to include “high crimes and misdemeanors” in Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution specifically to ensure that “attempts to subvert the Constitution” would fall within the universe of impeachable offences. Id.
4. Alexander Hamilton, a delegate to the Federal Convention, characterized impeachable offenses in Federalist 65 as, “offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the violation or abuse of some public trust. They are of a nature which with peculiar propriety may be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done to society itself.”
5. In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted three articles of impeachment against then President Richard M. Nixon for actions “subversive of constitutional government.”
6. Father of the Constitution, James Madison, observed that, “Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other…. War is the true nurse of executive aggrandizement.”
7. James Madison also instructed that “no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
8. The exclusive congressional power to commence war under Article I, section VIII, clause XI of the Constitution is the pillar of the Republic and the greatest constitutional guarantor of individual liberty, transparency, and government frugality.
9. Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI of the United States Constitution provides: “The Congress shall have the power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”
10. Article II, Section II, Clause I of the United States Constitution provides: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”
11. The authors of the United States Constitution manifestly intended Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI to fasten exclusive responsibility and authority on the Congress to decide whether to undertake offensive military action.
12. The authors of the United States Constitution believed that individual liberty and the Republic would be endangered by fighting too many wars, not too few.
13. The authors of the United States Constitution understood that to aggrandize power and to leave a historical legacy, the executive in all countries chronically inflates danger manifold to justify warfare.
14. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, in Federalist 4 noted:
[A]bsolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.
15. Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 69 that the president’s Commander-in-Chief authority
…would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature.
16. In a written exchange with Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym Helvidius, James Madison wrote:
In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.
17. James Madison also wrote as Helvidius to Alexander Hamilton:
Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws.
18. On June 29, 1787, at the Federal Convention, James Madison explained that an executive crowned with war powers invites tyranny and the reduction of citizens to vassalage:
In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
19. In a letter dated April 4, 1798, James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson:
The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature. But the Doctrines lately advanced strike at the root of all these provisions, and will deposit the peace of the Country in that Department which the Constitution distrusts as most ready without cause to renounce it. For if the opinion of the President not the facts & proofs themselves are to sway the judgment of Congress, in declaring war, and if the President in the recess of Congress create a foreign mission, appoint the minister, & negociate a War Treaty, without the possibility of a check even from the Senate, untill the measures present alternatives overruling the freedom of its judgment; if again a Treaty when made obliges the Legislature to declare war contrary to its judgment, and in pursuance of the same doctrine, a law declaring war, imposes a like moral obligation, to grant the requisite supplies until it be formally repealed with the consent of the President & Senate, it is evident that the people are cheated out of the best ingredients in their Government, the safeguards of peace which is the greatest of their blessings.
20. During the Pennsylvania Convention to ratify the Constitution, James Wilson, a future Justice of the United States Supreme Court, observed:
This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large: this declaration must he made with the concurrence of the House of Representatives: from this circumstance we may draw a certain conclusion that nothing but our national interest can draw us into a war.
21. In 1793, President George Washington, who presided over the Federal Convention, wrote to South Carolina Governor William Moultrie in regards to a prospective counter-offensive against the American Indian Creek Nation: “The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress, therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.”
22. President Thomas Jefferson, who served as Secretary of State under President Washington, in a statement before Congress regarding Tripoli and the Barbary Pirates, deemed himself “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.” He amplified: “I communicate [to the Congress] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight.”
23. In a message to Congress in December, 1805 regarding potential military action to resolve a border dispute with Spain, President Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that “Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force.” He requested Congressional authorization for offensive military action, even short of war, elaborating:
Formal war is not necessary—it is not probable it will follow; but the protection of our citizens, the spirit and honor of our country, require that force should be interposed to a certain degree. It will probably contribute to advance the object of peace.
But the course to be pursued will require the command of means which it belongs to Congress exclusively to yield or deny. To them I communicate every fact material for their information, and the documents necessary to enable them to judge for themselves. To their wisdom, then, I look for the course I am to pursue; and will pursue, with sincere zeal, that which they shall approve.
24. In his War Message to Congress on June 1, 1812, President James Madison reaffirmed that the shift in language from make to declare in Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI of the United States Constitution authorized at the Constitutional convention did not empower the Executive to involve the United States military in any action aside from defense against an overt attack. Although President Madison was convinced that Great Britain had undertaken acts of war against the United States, he nevertheless maintained that he could not respond with military force without congressional authorization. He proclaimed:
We behold, in fine, on the side of Great Britain, a state of war against the United States, and on the side of the United States a state of peace toward Great Britain.
Whether the United States shall continue passive under these progressive usurpations and these accumulating wrongs, or, opposing force to force in defense of their national rights, shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty Disposer of Events, avoiding all connections which might entangle it in the contest or views of other powers, and preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable re-establishment of peace and friendship, is a solemn question which the Constitution wisely confides to the legislative department of the Government. In recommending it to their early deliberations I am happy in the assurance that the decision will be worthy the enlightened and patriotic councils of a virtuous, a free, and a powerful nation.
25. In his Records of the Convention, 2:318; Madison, 17 Aug., James Madison wrote that the power “To declare war” had been vested in the Congress in lieu of the power “To make war” to leave to the Executive “the power to repel sudden attacks.”
26. Mr. Elbridge Gerry “never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war,” but still moved with Mr. Madison “to insert declare—in place of make” in Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI. Id.
27. Mr. George Mason was against “giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace.” Yet Mr. Mason “preferred declare to make.” Id.
28. Mr. Roger Sherman “thought [the proposal] stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war.” Id.
29. Delegates to the Federal Convention overwhelmingly approved the motion to insert “declare—in place of make,” to deny the Executive power to initiate military action, but to permit the Executive to repel sudden attacks unilaterally. Id.
30. Then Congressman Abraham Lincoln sermonized:
Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure…. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, “I see no probability of the British invading us” but he will say to you “be silent; I see it, if you don’t.”
The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.
31. Crowning the President with unilateral authority to commence war under the banner of anticipatory self-defense, prevention of civilian slaughters, gender discrimination, subjugation of ethnic or religious minorities, or otherwise would empower the President to initiate war without limit, threatening the very existence of the Republic. Although a benevolent Chief Executive might resist abuse of an unlimited war power, the principle, if ever accepted by Congress, would lie around like a loaded weapon ready for use by any successor craving absolute power.
32. Thomas Paine justly and rightly declared in Common Sense that “in America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”
33. Article 43 Paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that all resolutions or agreements of the United Nations Security Counsel “shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.”
34. Article 43 Paragraph 3 of Charter of the United Nations was included specifically to allay concerns that prevented the United States of America from ratifying the League of Nations Treaty in 1919.
35. That treaty risked crowning the President with the counter-constitutional authority to initiate warfare. On November 19, 1919, in Section II of his Reservations with Regard to Ratification of the Versailles Treaty, to preserve the balance of power established by the United States Constitution from executive usurpation, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge resolved as follows:
The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations — whether members of the League or not — under the provisions of Article 10, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress, which, under the Constitution, has the sole power to declare war or authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide.
The rejection of Lodge’s reservations by President Woodrow Wilson and his Senate allies insured defeat of the treaty.
36. Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 clarifies Presidential authority to undertake military action as follows:
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
37. In United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192 (1806), Supreme Court Justice William Paterson, a delegate to the Federal Convention from New Jersey, wrote on behalf of a federal circuit court:
There is a manifest distinction between our going to war with a nation at peace, and a war being made against us by an actual invasion, or a formal declaration. In the former case it is the exclusive province of Congress to change a state of peace into a state of war.
38. In Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890), the Supreme Court of the United States held:
The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.
39. In his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 642-643 (1952), which rebuked President Harry Truman’s claim of unilateral war powers in the Korean War, Justice Robert Jackson elaborated:
Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of a war is entrusted only to Congress. Of course, a state of war may in fact exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation’s armed forces to some foreign venture.
40. All treaties are subservient to the exclusive congressional power to commence war. In Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18 (1957), the United States Supreme Court held:
There is nothing in [the Constitution’s text] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.
41. Unconstitutional usurpations by one branch of government of powers entrusted to a coequal branch are not rendered constitutional by repetition. The United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional hundreds of laws enacted by Congress over the course of five decades that included a legislative veto of executive actions in INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919 (1982).
42. In their dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia recognized the “Founders’ general distrust of military power lodged with the President, including the authority to commence war:
No fewer than 10 issues of the Federalist were devoted in whole or part to allaying fears of oppression from the proposed Constitution’s authorization of standing armies in peacetime. Many safeguards in the Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress’s authority “[t]o raise and support Armies” was hedged with the proviso that “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” U.S. Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton explained, the President’s military authority would be “much inferior” to that of the British King… (Citing Federalist 69, Supra.)
43. On December 20, 2007, then Senator Hillary Clinton proclaimed: “The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action — including any kind of strategic bombing — against Iran without congressional authorization.”
44. Then Senator Joseph Biden stated in a speech at the Iowa City Public Library in 2007 regarding potential military action in Iran that unilateral action by the President would be an impeachable offense under the Constitution:
It is precisely because the consequences of war – intended or otherwise – can be so profound and complicated that our Founding Fathers vested in Congress, not the President, the power to initiate war, except to repel an imminent attack on the United States or its citizens.
They reasoned that requiring the President to come to Congress first would slow things down… allow for more careful decision making before sending Americans to fight and die… and ensure broader public support.
The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right.
That’s why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to war with Iran without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment.
I do not say this lightly or to be provocative. I am dead serious. I have chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. I still teach constitutional law. I’ve consulted with some of our leading constitutional scholars. The Constitution is clear. And so am I.
I’m saying this now to put the administration on notice and hopefully to deter the President from taking unilateral action in the last year of his administration.
If war is warranted with a nation of 70 million people, it warrants coming to Congress and the American people first.
45. In a speech on the Senate Floor in 1998, then Senator Joseph Biden maintained: “…the only logical conclusion is that the framers [of the United States Constitution] intended to grant to Congress the power to initiate all hostilities, even limited wars.”
46. On December 20, 2007, then Senator Barack Obama informed the Boston Globe, based upon his extensive knowledge of the United States Constitution: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
47. President Barack Obama’s military attacks against Libya constitute acts of war.
48. Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-4) had the following exchange with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates during a March 31, 2011 House Armed Services Committee Hearing on the legality of the present military operation in Libya:
Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, if tomorrow a foreign nation intentionally, for whatever reason, launched a Tomahawk missile into New York City, would that be considered an act of war against the United States?
Secretary Gates: Probably so.
Congressman Forbes: Then I would assume the same laws would apply if we launched a Tomahawk missile at another nation—is that also true?
Secretary Gates: You’re getting into constitutional law here and I am no expert on it.
Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, you’re the Secretary of Defense. You ought to be an expert on what’s an act of war or not. If it’s an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile on New York City would it not also be an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile by us at another nation?
Secretary Gates: Presumably.
49. Since the passage of United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 on March 19, 2011, the United States has detonated over 200 tomahawk land attack cruise missiles and 455 precision-guided bombs on Libyan soil.
50. Libya posed no actual or imminent threat to the United States when President Obama unleashed Operation Odyssey Dawn.
51. On March 27, 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that Libya never posed an “actual or imminent threat to the United States.” He further stated that Libya has never constituted a “vital interest” to the United States.
52. United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 directs an indefinite United States military quagmire in Libya, authorizing “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians, which clearly contemplates removal by force of the murderous regime of Col. Muammar Qadhafi.
53. In a Letter From the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate sent March 21, 2011, President Barack Obama informed Members of Congress that “U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime’s air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi’s armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.”
54. In his March 21, 2011 letter, President Barack Obama further informed Members of Congress that he opted to take unilateral military action “…in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster.”
55. President Barack Obama has usurped congressional authority to decide on war or peace with Libya, and has declared he will persist in additional usurpations of the congressional power to commence war whenever he decrees it would advance his idea of the national interest. On March 28, 2011, he declared to Congress and the American people: “I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests” (emphasis added).
56. President Obama’s humanitarian justification for war in Libya establishes a threshold that would justify his initiation of warfare in scores of nations around the globe, including Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Myanmar, China, Belarus, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and Russia.
57. In Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote on behalf of a majority of the United States Supreme Court:
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.
58. President Barack Obama has signed an order, euphemistically named a “Presidential Finding,” authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, further entangling the United States in the Libyan conflict, despite earlier promises of restraint. Truth is invariably the first casualty of war.
59. In response to questions by Members of Congress during a classified briefing on March 30, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated that the President needs no Congressional authorization for his attack on the Libyan nation, and will ignore any Congressional attempt by resolution or otherwise to constrain or halt United States participation in the Libyan war.
60. On March 30, 2011, by persistent silence or otherwise, Secretary Clinton rebuffed congressional inquiries into President Obama’s view of the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. She failed to cite a single judicial decision in support of President Obama’s recent actions, relying instead on the undisclosed legal opinions of White House attorneys.
61. President Barack Obama, in flagrant violation of his constitutional oath to execute his office as President of the United States and preserve and protect the United States Constitution, has usurped the exclusive authority of Congress to authorize the initiation of war, in that on March 19, 2011 President Obama initiated an offensive military attack against the Republic of Libya without congressional authorization. In so doing, President Obama has arrested the rule of law, and saluted a vandalizing of the Constitution that will occasion ruination of the Republic, the crippling of individual liberty, and a Leviathan government unless the President is impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office by the Senate.
In all of this, President Barack Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Thursday, April 7, 2011

"This Country is Going to Hell."

I mentioned elsewhere that while I felt Donald Trump was one of the few public leaders with the fortitude and integrity necessary to make the changes needed to save this country, I was unsure if he was open enough to consider the changes that actually need to be made.

There may be no issue at this moment where legitimate question asking and issue raising is greeted with more ire and catcalls of "conspiracy theory" by the mainstream media than the Barry Soetoro birth certificate debacle. So it is with great surprise and relief that I saw Donald Trump stand up to a typical white-washing journalist. He demonstrates that not only does he have the strength I knew he did, but he is willing to use it in unpopular, but necessary ways.

Arab Revolutions Instigated by US to Stop Move from Dollar?

A few have speculated that the recent revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt that are currently sweeping the entire Middle East may not be the innocent, anti-tyranny revolutions most seem to suspect. While this could be a possibility, I had not seen any evidence indicating a specific reason to suspect outside interference or malintent in the preliminary revolutions until now.

I say 'preliminary,' because as should be clear, there is an oil-related justification for our intervention in Libya.

Last night, while watching this video, I discovered that in 2009 Russia, China, France, Japan and the Arab states held a secret meeting without the US considering a move towards ending their use of the dollar. Since we know that the invasion of Iraq quickly followed Saddam Hussein's announcement that he would start accepting euros in place of dollars for Iraqi oil, could it be that this recent secret meeting spurred US operatives to instigate revolutions in the Arab states? After all, Mubarak, like Hussein, has long been a pawn of the US who would be kept around as long as he does our bidding. But, if Mubarak had recently considered a cessation of Egypt's acceptance of dollars, it would make perfect sense for the US to move to replace him, along with all the other Arab leaders at the secret meeting.

As the article says, "The Americans, who are aware the meetings have taken place – although they have not discovered the details – are sure to fight this international cabal which will include hitherto loyal allies Japan and the Gulf Arabs."

Interestingly enough, what are the two regions experiencing the most upheaval at the moment?

Again, the wild card is Saudi Arabia. If the Saudi's dump the dollar, whether voluntarily by the current regime or through upheaval and revolution, it is game over for the dollar.

Clearly, the most important thing you can do, is prepare to protect yourself. And join the Silver Liberation Army.

There's BS, and Then There's the BLS

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is engaged in the most fraudulent mass-psychological cover-up operation perhaps of all time. They, along with their toadies in the media, have hood-winked the majority of the population of these United States and multitudes of others around the world into believing that the current rate of inflation of the price of goods in dollars is at or near zero.

It is estimated that the current rate of dollar inflation, using the same inflation measuring methodology that was actually in use in the 1970s (the BLS changed its methodology in the 1980s, more on that later) is near 9%.

Many financial commentators have asked if or speculated that we may be headed for a repeat of our economic situation in the 1970s of stagflation. One commentator points out:
"The rare combination of surging inflation, artificially low interest rates, and a jobless recovery may be setting the stage for stagflation, an unpleasant economic malaise not seen in 40 years. "

I love the language: "may be setting the stage for stagflation...not seen in 40 years." My dear friend, we are already in Act 4! Not only has the stage been set, we have been living through stagflation at least since 2007.

Compare our recent experience (i.e., the blue line) in the chart above from 2005 to the present, to the chart below from 1970 to 1976.
Indeed, the worst remains ahead of us, and it will be far worse this time, not only because our trade, budget and monetary situation is far less robust that it was in the 1970s (that is to say, the trade deficit is higher, the debt is higher and the amount of money creation is greater), not only because to jack up interest rates to the inflation-stopping levels of the early 1980s would require a move from 0% to 18%, instead of only a move from 6% to 18%, but mostly because no one knows, thanks to the BLS, that we are already experiencing the 1970s all over again!

If the Federal Reserve waited for real inflation to reach 14% as measured in the 1970s before it was willing to cease its counterfeit operation of printing more money, how much longer will they wait this time when our budget deficit is so much worse and they have tricked dollar-holders into thinking inflation is only at 2% when it is really near 10%! In fact, if the Federal Reserve waits until nominal inflation rates as currently measured reach the same 14% as their high point in the '70s, actual inflation as measured by the old methodology of the 1970s will likely be near 22%!

In other words, our economic situation may actually currently be far worse than a comparable year during the stagflation of 1970s, say 1976, and the only difference is this time we are oh-so-unblissfully unaware and so the counterfeit operation will go on that much longer.

Now, just for background information, as I have made the most important points already (Protect Yourself from Inflation!), let us address how the BLS justifies its mis-measurement of inflation.

As the BLS introduced changes to their inflation measuring methodology throughout the 1980s and 1990s, one new factor they introduced is "hedonics."

Hedonics allows the BLS to discount the price of an item insofar as it has improved in quality. It should be immediately apparent to anyone with a functioning brain how allowing a very subjective factor, quality, to influence a statistic that is supposed to be a grasp towards objectivity could raise problems. If the problem with this is not immediately clear to you, let me explain:

How do we define quality? Quite frankly, we cannot. Quality is in the eye of the beholder. The original methodology of the BLS, a methodology any reasonable person could accept as at least a fair attempt at some objective measure of inflation, involved measuring the change in price (something that is largely objectively observable) of an unchanged good (again, something that is largely objectively observable) from one point of time to another.

However, once we can change the objectively observed change in price by some made-up factor to account for a change of quality in one type of good to an entirely different type of good, we introduce into our process a huge window for error, even if we are making a good-faith effort to remain objective. Never-mind that the BLS has a huge conflict of interest in the matter, as it is at least partially funded (when the Federal Reserve buys Treasury Bonds) by the institution whose counterfeiting behavior it is supposed to be justifying the restriction of.

Indeed, the modern admonition that "they don't make things like they used to" is highly indicative of this hoodwinking process introduced by the BLS to "measure" inflation. Let me give two examples.

A more historical example might involve the manufacturing of a washing machine. Let us say that washing machines were originally made out of steal (I don't know this to be the case, please follow me for the logic of the analogy). A new washing machine is introduced selling for the same price. It is made of aluminum. In a Madison Avenue-esque sleight of hand, the washing machine manufacturer advertises the "new, improved!" washing machine as lighter in weight and of more pleasant design (whatever that means!).

In such an instance, the BLS can claim technological improvement and adjust the cost of the washing machine downwards. If the washing machine were the only good in the economy, we would experience deflation.

But the truth is, steal was getting too expensive. In order to not increase their prices, the manufacturer switched to aluminum. Quite frankly the new, improved, more pleasant washing machine will last half as long as the quality-made, durable steal one. If we were to measure the price of building a steal washing machine, we would experience inflation.

See the problem?

A more contemporary example might be found in food. Originally, a particular food cooked in animal fat might have been better for you, that is to say more in accordance with the nutritional needs of your body. But the price of animal fat has increased, so the food is now cooked in Crisco in order to maintain its lower price. The new product is advertised as better tasting, which it might be. So the BLS marks it down as deflation. But we might also interpret better tasting as more addicting, less satisfying or even less healthy. Not only have we actually experienced price inflation, but we have also experienced belly inflation and the spillover of the effects of inflation on our wider culture. There is so much more to address about such cultural effects, but that will have to wait for another article. One would be the rise of feminism as a reaction to the need to put female family members to work in order to maintain a certain inflation-adjusted income.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Where Are the Americans?

"William Bradford, speaking in 1630 of the founding of the Plymouth Bay Colony, said that all great and honorable actions are accompanied with great difficulties, and both must be enterprised and overcome with answerable courage.

If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred."
 How low have we come in fifty years? From aiming to the moon to not being able to do such a juvenile thing as balance a budget. Americans today have the courage of a twelve year old.

I remember in a very small way the attitude that I once felt, growing up as American. That the age of progress is here. That we are contributors to the great human struggle, to be the best we can be.

Americans today must honestly admit that they have become the very reason 'man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is...deterred.' We hold a position of responsibility in the world. Instead of being the main instigators of progress, we are the main instigators of inflation and economic debasement. Instead of being the main instigators of peace, we are the primary instigator of three concurrent wars.
"The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not...
We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond "
And so the progress of the world cannot be deterred, regardless of whether we lead it or not. The emerging nations are hungry for growth, discovery and innovation in ways not seen since America first industrially developed. Our minuscule leading edge does not give us the right to loaf, it is the very reason we can charge even further ahead in the advancement of humanity.
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.
Today, we choose to watch TV, to drive gas-guzzling cars, to buy unaffordable houses. Not because it is hard, but because it is easy. Because so few of us can judge for ourselves outside of the pressures of society what is right, good and just. This has been the case since they assassinated the first Catholic president. They must have assassinated the soul of America as well.

When will you do the rights things, the just things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard?

Silver Liberation Army

From http://maxkeiser.com/2011/03/06/silver-liberation-army-official-communique-no-2-formal-declaration-of-war-on-banker-occupation/ 


Today, the Alex Jones program launched a google bomb, "Silver Liberation Army." A google-bomb consists of a mass effort to repeatedly search (that is, enter in the google search text blank) the term "silver liberation army" in order to force the term into mass-consciousness by causing its appearance in trend-discovering software.

Not only do we recommend participation in the google-bomb, we also encourage the mass purchase of silver bullion. The purpose is two-fold. The first is to help you protect yourself from the devaluation of the dollar, particularly if you have thus far not done so with precious metals. The second is to help collapse the JP Morgan short position (where "shorting" or a "short" position is a bet wherein the entity betting loses money if silver prices increase). According to Max Kaiser, JP Morgan retains a huge "naked" short position. This means they have sold paper contracts representing deliverable silver to commodity traders, the silver for which JP Morgan does not actually own. This is fraudulent activity, and if called out, JP Morgan will have to deliver the silver for these contracts.

As the price of silver increases, the value of these contracts to JP Morgan falls, which hurts JP Morgan. Moreover, if JP Morgan moves to close out these short positions in order to minimize their loss as silver prices increase, they must move to acquire the silver necessary to honor the contracts. If the Silver Liberation Army can successfully call JP Morgan's bluff, the price of silver will skyrocket as JP Morgan moves to buy silver to honor its contracts, and JP Morgan will experience significant losses.

This is an attempt to overcome the banksters at their own game. If you concur with this analysis after doing your own research, you may want to buy silver, with particular interest in taking physical delivery, or short JP Morgan stock. Both moves are risky and should only be taken by those with the financial strength to withstand the possible losses that could correspond with the failure of this scenario to play out.

The advantage of success are manifold. You will have acquired a stock of silver at a price low enough, given the resultant changes in the marketplace, that the market price will likely remain above your purchase price for a significant period of time. Additionally, you have the opportunity to cause mass-awakening as the recognition of these events takes hold in the minds of those not aware, while simultaneously discrediting the actions of JP Morgan.

Click here to launch google-bomb.

Please conduct your own research:





Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Invest Like It's 1976

I think our economic situation today is almost directly parallel to that of the 1970s, and we are basically in early 1976. If anything, inflation has been and will be worse this time around as our fiscal, trade and monetary situations are far less robust than they were in the 1970s. You can say inflation is low, but not if you base it on the same inflation measuring methodology that was actually used during the '70s. If you use equivalent methodology today, inflation is similar in level to that of '76.

I am also concerned that the debt situation is so bad, there will be no way to put the genie back in the bottle in terms of inflation, so to speak, and we will see a dollar collapse in the next few years. Again, I think the only thing keeping people in the dollar is the marvelous psychological operation the Fed, the BLS, and some in the financial media have conducted to trick us into thinking that inflation is anywhere near reasonable levels. Yes, it is true, productivity gains from technological innovation may allow the dollar to scrape by miraculously once again without an all out collapse, but the average paycheck receiving person will be no better off as those gains will be inflated away as freshly printed money is turned over to Wall Street. It is a disgusting scene, but at least we may be smart enough to play the game and come out ahead or at least stay even.

Sunday, April 3, 2011

Are You Serious?

 Seriously, I have never read a more literally retarded Bloomberg headline:

Tokyo Electric Sawdust Solution Fails to Stop Radiation Leak

"Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s attempt to clog a cracked pit with a mixture of sawdust, newspaper and plastic failed to stop radioactive water leaking into the sea from its crippled nuclear plant."

Really? There was someone who seriously thought this would work? Maybe we could all stand around and stick our fingers in the hole to plug it. Have the smart guys at Tokyo Electric considered that one?

Reality is worse than the Onion.

Saturday, April 2, 2011

What do Nazism, Monarchism and Fuedalism All Have in Common?

They are organized based on equality. At least, according to Mark Levin.

When will conservatives wake up and realize the only path to civilization is a recognition of actual anarchy?

Friday, April 1, 2011


Why the triumph of Liberty is inevitable.

Simon Sinek on the Wright Brothers versus Samuel Langely (who?).

An Easier Way to Think About Bubbles

If you're not interested in an intellectual preface of the basic logic of the Austrian theory of the business cycle, skip to the second paragraph.

As Austrians so forthrightly explain, the boom-bust business cycle occurs when artificially low interests rates indicate more capital is available than really exists. Entrepreneurs, totally dependent upon this incorrect market signal, adjust their behavior by taking on new and more round-about production processes (e.g., building a ton of houses). But because the new capital is in actuality mere fiat currency, un-backed as it were by actual resources (i.e., savings) eventually inflation or otherwise an adjustment in prices reveals that the boom is unsustainable. We must then readjust our behavior to a state that cause us to be less well-off than when we started because real savings (read effort) made in the meantime were diverted into unrealizable projects, and it is costly to properly rearrange or salvage it.

But there is a much more personal way to think about how a bubble works and the problems it causes. Let me use myself as an example. I recently obtained a new job. This job pays a significantly higher salary than my previous job. And I do not start until April 25th. I have known this since mid-March. During this intervening time period (from mid-March to April 25th) I have already adjusted my behavior in anticipation of my higher income.

Expenses that I have been putting off (e.g., making a superficial repair to my car) I have now made. I have shifted some of my savings into riskier assets like stocks because, no longer being unemployed, guaranteeing the level of my savings does not fluctuate wildly is less of a concern. I realize most people would not do such a thing, but I nonetheless have. And let me ask, when we apply this analogy to the wider economy, would not a billionaire investor do similarly?

And I have made a hundred dollar plus deposit in order to guarantee me an apartment I otherwise would not have rented. Now, let's assume April 25th arrives and the job is eliminated. Chalk it up to whatever you want:  the company went bankrupt, the hiring manager changed his mind, etc. What does this do to my mis-informed actions? I will lose the hundred-plus dollar deposit, as I no longer need the apartment and being unemployed, don't actually want to rent it. I may need to sell some of the stocks I bought sooner and at lower prices than I would have if I actually got the job. I dearly wish I would've retained the money spent on superficial car repair. This is the equivalent of a bust for me.

Notice, I did not actually have to receive my new salary for it to have an effect my actions, investments, and current standard of living. I am now poorer, at least by the amount of the deposit and the time wasted preparing for a job that does not exist. So too do lower interest rates caused by Federal Reserve "money printing" (or digit creation) lead entrepreneurs to make misinformed decisions which ultimately lead to everyone's impoverishment when it turns out they can't be carried all the way through.

NB: I made my decisions with at least a partial realization that I may never actually see my paycheck. Entrepreneurs, however, are entirely dependent upon the market interest rate and cannot determine whether the particular lot of money they receive is newly created or representative of actual savings-capital. Thus, if anything, the Fed's actions are to that extent even more impoverishing.

Finally, True American Class

Unlike Chrysler, this lady actually gets it.

Apparently there are still a few in this country that will give more than a hat tip (baseball-cap-less nod?) to style and class.

Thursday, March 31, 2011

How Lolcatz Change the World

Or, Social Constraints Outweigh Contractual Constraints

While there is a great deal to be said in favor of the modern, legalistic phenomena of interaction based on written contract, as Francis Fukuyama argues in his book, Trust, and as Clay Skirky demonstrates empirically in this video, unwritten social and cultural constraints are far more effective, in terms of cost and otherwise.

As a fore-warning to interventionists, the data presented in the video suggest that once a cultural institution is disrupted by new, legalistic impediments, the original, more optimal cultural interactions do not immediately re-emerge even if the new legalistic intervention is removed. Indeed, all the king's horses and all the king's men could not put humpty dumpty together again. This may be an empirical indication of Ludwig von Mises' claim that one intervention inevitably leads to another: that there is no "middle road."

Or, more succinctly, the middle of the road policy always leads to socialism. Particularly important to realize, it seems, is that in today's impatient world, even if we win a deregulation victory, it takes a great deal of time for the former cultural or societal constraints that governed a particular arrangement to re-assert themselves, or perhaps be re-learnt, after their disruption by government policy. In the case of the example in the video, it is a shame the researchers did not prolong the study to see if, or what type of, new cultural or societal arrangements would eventually come to an equilibrium out of a post-deregulation world. How long is the half-life of a regulation?

During the intervening period of time after deregulation, similar in a way for society it seems as personal withdrawal symptoms, there would be an immediate call by state-intellectuals to return to the less effective policy in order to avoid the costs of re-imposing a higher-level optimal, cultural or societal equilibrium. The real lesson, then, should be clear: do not intervene in the first place. The social planner is not smarter than those who originally introduced the behavior the planner intends to modify. Indeed, the modification will not only lead to a less optimal outcome, but even once state-imposed incentives are withdrawn after an honest recognition of their ineffectual nature, the original optimal social equilibrium does not immediately return.

The ensuing, seemingly relatively chaotic correction period is then used as an excuse to re-impose regulation, and even expand it in order to correct for the most immediately recognizable unintended consequences of the intervention. No doubt, such increased intervention will only further undue the optimal, social equilibrium. This continual one step forward, two steps back process lends itself ultimately to a crescendo of authoritarianism. Such crescendos either doom humans to a subhuman life, as in the case of North Korea, or lead to the total destruction of society, like in Nazi Germany, with the hope that the naturally occurring optimal cultural institutions will be reborn out of the rubble.

In the cases where we have disturbed the natural equilibrium of society by regulation, let us pay the price for deregulation now, rather than consistently uping the ante and going for broke. Click here for a great interview about how this dynamic plays out in the monetary system.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Good News on the Corporate Accountability Front

ActualAnarchy has long argued that the costs currently born by taxpayers of particular types of costly, destructive activities by large, well-connected corporations ought to be born by those corporations themselves.

For a recent example, we argued that BP, if it were actually held fully accountable and forced to pay to restore the effected environment substantially in a confirmed way to the quality that existed prior to its recent Gulf of Mexico oil spill, would likely have gone bankrupt and rightly so. But because the Gulf of Mexico is not privately owned, BP's liability was limited to the amount the government was willing to extract. Because, we argue, BP did not fully bear the costs associated with its destructive activity, most corporations have a greater incentive to allow such destructive events to take place than they would in a fully-privatized system.

Good news, then, from Tokyo that Tokyo Electric investors may be wiped out after nuclear crisis. This is the proper market consequence of their behavior and, if it actually occurs, will send a clear message to all other nuclear power providers in Japan that similar accidents mean a total elimination of your company.

Saturday, March 26, 2011

Just Get Back to Work

For all the policy wonks pondering the best policy to get this country out of its financial mess there comes a succinct response from entrepreneur Alan Sugar, who started his first business making "extra money by boiling and selling beetroot from a stall."

See the full interview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkfVLC43vPA&feature=player_detailpage#t=42s

And a great follow up answer to "why aren't the banks lending?"

A Bright and Profitable Chilean Idea

Continuing with our theme that one ought to invest in such a way as to help alleviate the problems facing our world, today we will highlight one emerging opportunity. Chileonaire blog indicates that solar plants built in Chile's Atacama desert "will produce more direct current electricity than almost any other place in the world." What does that mean? It means solar power will be profitable in Chile at a much lower threshold, viz., sooner and for relatively less upfront investment.

Indeed, SolarPlaza indicates that a joint venture between SolarPack and Codelco, Chile's state-owned copper miner, will build the world's first solar plant "without subsidies or specific tax benefits for solar energy." As far as we can tell however, a direct investment in SolarPack is not available to the typical retail investor. Let us hope that with time this changes, and in the meantime there is always Brazilian ethanol and hydroelectricity.