Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Re: Is the Fed Treasonous?

Lincoln rhetorically redefined treason to essentially mean criticism
of himself and his government.
---
he paid for his mistakes the hard way

On Aug 21, 1:56 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Is the Fed Treasonous?by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> The neoconservative talking heads recently took a short time out from praising, deifying, and anointing Texas Governor Rick Perry as the next president of the United States to chastise him for criticizing the Fed. In particular, he was taken to the neocon woodshed for saying that the printing of trillions of dollars of paper currency was harmful to the economy and, since we are in a depression, such an act was "almost treasonous."
> Governor Perry could not have been referring to the actual definition of treason that is contained in Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which reads as follows:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. (emphasis added).The only Americans who were ever guilty of treason under this definition would have been Abraham Lincoln, his cabinet, the "Civil War" Congress, the Union Army command, and all army volunteers from the Northern states during the War to Prevent Southern Independence. Waging war against the Southern states was the very definition of treason under the U.S. Constitution.
> Lincoln rhetorically redefined treason to essentially mean criticism of himself and his government. This has always been the preferred definition of treason by American statists, beginning with Daniel Webster, who attempted to redefine it as such in his famous debate over the nature of the union with Senator Robert Hayne of South Carolina. Lincoln simply adopted Webster's subterfuge while subverting the Constitution with his war.
> So where does the Fed fit in here? Was Governor Perry totally off base when he said the Fed's irresponsible and reckless behavior is "almost treasonous." The Fed is not "treasonous" according to the actual definition of treason in the Constitution. But what the Fed is guilty of is being the financial handmaiden of the subversion of constitutional government in America ever since its founding in 1913. It has helped to finance all of America's unconstitutional wars and other "military adventures," for example, beginning with the Korean War. Congress no longer declares war, as required by the Constitution, and then disguises the costs of war with debt and with money creation by the Fed. Without the Fed, there would have been fewer unconstitutional wars over the past 60 years, and the wars that did occur would have been shorter.
> World War I was a nightmare for civil liberties in America, with governmental goons literally imprisoning people for such "crimes" as reading the Bill of Rights in public. The Fed financed about one fourth of that war, and is therefore partly responsible for such atrocities. The same is true for World War II and all the other wars, including the most recent ones, where state power was used to trample on the civil liberties of American citizens (as always, in the name of "preserving" those same liberties for us).
> World War I also introduced socialistic central planning to America with the government policy of "war socialism," which included the nationalization of numerous industries and the dictating of prices and production quotas in many others. All price controls are a violation of the contract clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits laws that abridge legal contracts, such as those between buyers and sellers or employers and employees. The contract clause, and much of the rest of the Constitution, was simply ignored during the World War I years and in the succeeding decades, especially during the Roosevelt administration. The Fed was instrumental in making this possible by financing such interventions.
> In his book,Takings, legal scholar Richard Epstein made the argument that both the New Deal and "Great Society" programs were all unconstitutional under the actual constitution despite the fact that generations of lawyers have created case law that essentially rewrites the document as being a toothless inhibitor of governmental powers. All of these government programs have been partly financed by the Fed.
> The original Constitution listed a very few enumerated powers of the federal government in Article 1, Section 8. All other powers were reserved for the people and the states under the Tenth Amendment, which Thomas Jefferson considered to be the cornerstone of the entire document. The creation of the Fed in 1913, along with the federal income tax in that same year, was one of the final nails in the coffin of the Jeffersonian constitution. Armed with the ability to engage in legalized counterfeiting, virtually all political power became centralized in Washington, D.C. All states became effective franchises of the central government who could easily be bribed or bullied into submission with federal grants or the threat of their withdrawal.
> Thanks to the Fed, American presidents can behave like world dictators, ordering the dropping of bombs anywhere and everywhere on a whim without any consent by Congress or anyone else. Thanks to the Fed, the majority of Americans are on some kind of governmental dole and are therefore neutered as opponents of the never-ending growth of government. They do not really have free speech rights, in other words. The same is true of all corporations that receive government subsidies. Or even if they do not, government has become so powerful that it can use its oppressive regulatory powers to ruin any business person who dares to speak up against the government too effectively. Thus, the Fed may not be responsible for "levying war" against the states, the definition of treason that is in the Constitution, but it has played a crucial role in the destruction of the system of federalism or states' rights that was established by the American founders. Perhaps Governor Perry can do a better job of articulating this point the next time he attempts to steal Congressman Ron Paul's thunder on the campaign trail.http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo212.html

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Who Schooled Whom?

what possible reason would the Iranians like the
United States?
---
well, Reagan did illegally sell them arms to kill Iraqi's with

otherwise, there's no reason

On Aug 21, 4:13 pm, Ixtelan <drbuck...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> The Iranians have been battling invading armies for the last 2500
> years. The Americans are only the latest in a long line of pushy
> foreigners. For what possible reason would the Iranians like the
> United States?
>
> On Aug 17, 12:02 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Why prey tell, do the Iranians have a reason to hate us?  Because we seized
> > their assets when their government invaded a sovereign embassy, and because
> > they held fifty-three Americans hostage?
>
> > Again, Dr. Paul is wrong in his history if you are referencing our Nation's
> > support for a coup, that toppled a corrupt government in Iran back in 1953.
> > If we had the opportunity to do so again, I and every other American should
> > support such an action.
>
> > The Iranians have no reason to hate America, we have been one of their most
> > benevolent benefactors!
>
> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 2:54 PM, plainolamerican
> > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > Iran is not the Soviet Union, it is a bunch of fanatics who hate
> > > Western Civilization, and especially America
> > > ---
> > > they have a damn good reason to hate the US
>
> > > treating them any differently from other muslim nations and attempting
> > > to stop them from developing nukes is folly
>
> > > RP's foreign policy is pro-American, not pro-Israel
> > > choose sides carefully
>
> > > On Aug 17, 1:41 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hello PlainOl!
>
> > > > How about from the horse's mouth, on August 12th, at the Ames Iowa
> > > debate,
> > > > with regard to Iran, and a question from Chris Wallace,  who asked:
>
> > > > *"Congressman Paul -- Congressman Paul, you say that President Obama is
> > > not
> > > > too soft on Iran, you say that he is too tough on Iran. I want to put up
> > > > some of your statements. "Sanctions are not diplomacy," you say. "They
> > > are a
> > > > precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service
> > > to
> > > > free trade." As for Iran's nuclear ambitions, you wrote this: "One can
> > > > understand why they might want to become nuclear capable, if only to
> > > defend
> > > > themselves and to be treated more respectfull"*
>
> > > > *"Is that your policy towards Iran?"*
>
> > > > **
> > > > **
> > > > Congressman Paul responded in part:
> > > > * *
> > > > **
>
> > > > *"....Just think of the agitation and the worrying of a country that
> > > might
> > > > get a nuclear weapon some day. And just think of how many nuclear weapons
> > > > surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The
> > > Pakistanis
> > > > are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these
> > > > countries -- China has nuclear weapons. "*
> > > > *
>
> > > > "Why wouldn't it be natural that they might want a weapon? There'd be --
> > > > internationally, they'd be given more respect. Why should we write people
> > > > off? There was -- you know, in the '50s, we at least talked to them. At
> > > > least our leaders and Reagan talked to the Soviets.
> > > > *
>
> > > > *What's so terribly bad about this?"*
>
> > > > Wallace followed up:
>
> > > > *"Congressman Paul -- Congressman Paul, I want to just give you 15
> > > seconds.
> > > > I want to just make sure I understand. So your policy towards Iran is, if
> > > > they want to develop a nuclear weapon, that's their right, no sanctions,
> > > no
> > > > effort to stop them?"*
>
> > > > *PAUL: "No, I think that -- I think that thing -- that makes it much
> > > worse.
> > > > Why would that be so strange, if the Soviets and the Chinese have nuclear
> > > > weapons? We tolerated the Soviets; we didn't attack them.
> > > > And they were a much greater danger -- they were the greatest danger to
> > > us
> > > > in -- our whole history. You don't go to war against them."*
> > > > **
> > > > *========
> > > > *
> > > > **
> > > > As stated, I have the utmost respect for Dr. Paul, and I think he is a
> > > > brilliant individual, who has sound economic and fiscal polices that the
> > > > Republican Party are now adopting.  Kudos to Paul, and the Tea Party for
> > > > finally seeing the light!
>
> > > > I do not agree with Dr. Paul's foreign policy, and I find it just
> > > outright
> > > > naive!  Iran is not the Soviet Union, it is a bunch of fanatics who hate
> > > > Western Civilization, and especially America.  Dr. Paul doesn't see this
> > > or
> > > > realize this.
>
> > > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 1:34 PM, plainolamerican
> > > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > For Dr. Paul to advocate
> > > > > Iran's nuclear capabilities is just flat out scary
>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > cite source
>
> > > > > On Aug 17, 9:11 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I would agree that our foreign policy of, "Nation Building"  was
> > > > > misguided
> > > > > > and not in the best interests of the United States.  I would also
> > > call
> > > > > > "Nation Building"  a form of "Intervention".
>
> > > > > > There is a distinction however, between "Intervention"  and
> > > "Isolation".
> > > > > > Dr. Paul espouses the latter, and that is just as misplaced as Nation
> > > > > > Building.  In fact, It's far more dangerous.  For Dr. Paul to
> > > advocate
> > > > > > Iran's nuclear capabilities is just flat out scary.  A clear
> > > indication
> > > > > that
> > > > > > Paul denies the reality of the world today.  Dr. Paul is a brilliant
> > > guy,
> > > > > > he is just flat out misplaced on what constitutes a danger to our
> > > Nation.
>
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:22 AM, raymorphic <raymorp...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > "It didn't make Dr. Paul any more correct with regard to history,
> > > or
> > > > > > > his
> > > > > > > foreign policy."
>
> > > > > > > I'm not sure about the history part; what I refer to as sensible
> > > was
> > > > > > > the foreign policy solution.
>
> > > > > > > America do not like interventionists foreign policies.
>
> > > > > > > We couldn't run our country well, let alone running other people's
> > > > > > > countries.
>
> > > > > > > In addition, we're in no financial position to intervene.
>
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>
> > > > > > > For options & help seehttp://
> > > groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>
> > > > > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > > > > --
>
> > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > > --
> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Who Schooled Whom?

The white slave owners knew it had to be so.
----
and what about black and jewish slave owners?

On Aug 19, 12:17 pm, USA Lover <steveo.nor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> THE ANNOINTED ONE   Some stupid thoughts
> The Fox News talking heads on are now telling us Tea Baggers what we
> want to hear
> in the upcoming elections and pointing out and denigrating those that
> do not comply with their appointed political guidelines. (Perry
> comment on the traitorous actions of himself)
> What I want to hear is a candidate that has brains that has at
> least a modicum of smarts and will help return the US to a more
> democratic,
> constitutionally compliant Government; One that recognizes the
> true Sovereignty of Native American land.
> Let's start with the Farmers watering down of the Marijuana crops and
> what made
> them so special.
> Each right wing idiot has different table manners, underpants and sit-
> com ideals. They gathered in clumps like that and immigrated to
> specific areas of the nation in order to live freely in
> a like-minded community with its own outhouses geared to those
> ideals.  The
> idea of the corporate government and those that find one gay bar was/
> is
> somehow different, better or worse than another was and is to kill
> Now that is really tough, Rhode Island is all about foreclosures and
> Iowa
> is all about Swedish fags; not only are there differences but for each
> to do
> what it does best there must be differences in all aspects of life
> and
> accepted practices. The Koch Brothers and those elected Republicans
> seem to think that this
> is just not so.
> The white slave owners knew it had to be so.
> To point this out and name the names that think otherwise is no
> longer
> considered good driving skills. It is considered to be anti-white as
> if
> there is a single definition as to what a white man is…. there is
> not.
> In all the history of the USA the ONLY time that right wing idiots
> seem to
> agree on everything is when their wives find out they been to a strip
> bar This was true until the US decided to enter into a NASCAR event
> on
> a regular basis, now that which once made the USA multi-racial and a
> beacon
> to homeless people.  It is considered unpatriotic and un-American to
> think for yourself.
> What we will soon have is "no laws, no nations, no air force" that
> will
> preclude any common sense. What we will have is a lack of
> competition between men with small dicks for commerce and ideas; what
> we will
> have is just another homo country that loses its edge as it
> slips into a Fascist quagmire.
> What we are doing is losing that very identity that made the USA the
> great and desired example it once was. That's my Glenn Beck Paranoid
> Remember…States have no rights!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Who Schooled Whom?

the Palestinians refuse the right
to exist to Israel
---
not our responsibility

On Aug 18, 8:53 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Keith,
>
> What is there to be baffled by..... the Palestinians refuse the right
> to exist to Israel and as a matter of long standing policy reject 242.
>
> As to the "carry a big stick" policy.... it is whack 'em really hard
> and get out. In Roosevelts own words it is explained as:  "the
> exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action
> sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis". The US has lost the
> meaning.
>
> On Aug 18, 12:38 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I take issue with a lot of Israel's policies;  (I am also familiar with the
> > USS Liberty allegations;  which are unproven).
>
> > I am baffled as to why we have not forced Israel to accept UN Resolution
> > 242, which allowed for a separate Jewish, as well as a Palestinian State.
>
> > Having said all of the above,  Israel is still an ally of the United States,
> > and a Western style democracy.   Whether you like it, or don't like it.
>
> > As I have said on numerous occasions to you, in a number of discussions,
> > the Jews and Israel are not the enemy right now, the fanatical Muslims and
> > the Nation-States that they control are, and you continously miss the big
> > picture on this issue.
>
> > Again, there is a big divergence of opinion between the minority of Ron Paul
> > supporters, who believe that it is interventionist to, "Carry A Big Stick";
> > I see nothing at all wrong with this aspect of our foreign policy,  I don't
> > believe that we have been interventionists for the most part in the Middle
> > East Region,  and history proves me out.
>
> > Just like the example of Paul claiming that we were at war with Iran in
> > 1953, because we supported the winning coup that overthrew a corrupt
> > government,  (and replaced it with another corrupt government, *e.g*.; the
> > Shah of Iran).  Where Paul sees error with this action,  I don't, and
> > neither do most of Americans.
>
> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:09 PM, plainolamerican
> > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > I do have a qualm with Iran having anything remotely capable of
> > > blowing up
> > > millions of folks
> > > ---
> > > and what about Pakistan and Israel?
> > > both of these countries are filled with anti-American scum, yet they
> > > get your pass?
>
> > > face it, Keith ... US intervention policies fail every time.  In the
> > > middle east, US policies are slanted toward Israel's best interests
> > > though they have attacked and killed our servicemen, bribe and spy on
> > > our government officials, and have a stranglehold on our politicians
> > > and immigration laws.
>
> > > choose sides carefully
>
> > > On Aug 18, 9:39 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Based on the actions of Iran and its theological government,  no, I don't
> > > at
> > > > all feel comfortable with Iran having a nuclear weapon.
>
> > > > Yep,  "We",  (the United States)  are the big kids on the block.  Despite
> > > > this socialist Moonbat we have for a President,  and the fact that the
> > > > economy is just flat out tanking today,  we still live in the most
> > > vibrant,
> > > > (largest manufacturing country)  creative,  trend setting, free market
> > > > economy State, and most free-est (is that a word?)  Nation-State in the
> > > > world.   There are a lot of individuals collectively who are not amused
> > > by
> > > > this, and hate us for what we are.  Some are just downright envious.
> > > > Nevertheless, we also have the largest arsenals of weaponry, and I for
> > > one
> > > > have no qualm with that.
>
> > > > I do have a qualm with Iran having anything remotely capable of blowing
> > > up
> > > > millions of folks, and herein lies the distinction between you and I, Ron
> > > > Paul supporters nad the rest of the Republican  (and most of the
> > > Democrat)
> > > > Party.
>
> > > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 2:27 AM, raymorphic <raymorp...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > "There is a distinction however, between "Intervention"  and
> > > > > "Isolation".
> > > > > Dr. Paul espouses the latter..."
> > > > > ----
>
> > > > > And There is a distinction between "Interventionism", "Non-
> > > > > Interventionism", and "Isolationism"
>
> > > > > 1)
> > > > > Ron Paul is "Non-Interventionism". He wants to trade with people, talk
> > > > > to people, and be friends with people, but he does not want the U.S.
> > > > > to tell how other countries should live their live.
>
> > > > > Ron Paul Educates McCain
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q9WzCrLuC4
>
> > > > > 2)
> > > > > What's the rationale behind N. Non-Proliferation Treaty?
>
> > > > > Irrational.
>
> > > > > Legalization of big countries bullying smaller countries.
>
> > > > > That's what it is.
>
> > > > > "No one has answered – or until now, even asked – the obvious
> > > > > question: Why is it that the United States can have a nuclear arsenal
> > > > > far larger than that of every other country in the world combined, but
> > > > > that Iran can't have even a single nuclear bomb – especially when
> > > > > Israel, Pakistan, and India have nuclear weapons?"
> > > > > Harry Browne--(2005)
>
> > > > > 3)
> > > > > Suppose Iran does have one, so what?
>
> > > > > All its neighboring countries have one.
>
> > > > > Do you think they can just drop one without paying a heavy price when
> > > > > other countries retaliate?
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > > --
> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Who Schooled Whom?

States rights haven't existed since 1865.

On Aug 22, 9:32 am, Sage2 <wisdom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  States rights are protected under the US constitution not "
> International or UN " laws. Duhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
>
> On Aug 21, 5:19 pm, Ixtelan <drbuck...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > States have an inherent right to self-defense, not to intervene.
> > Threats or use of force by one state against another violate customary
> > international law and the UN Charter.
>
> > Unless you live in Oklahoma, where voters have determined that no
> > state judge may rely on international law to render decisions in state
> > courts. Okies are still having a tough time understanding Article VI,
> > paragraph 2, of the Constitution.
>
> > On Aug 19, 6:50 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The United States has not only a duty, but an inherent right to "intervene"
> > > when its interests or citizens are threatened or somehow placed in
> > > jeopardy.  Collectively, our Nation has used great restraint, and its not as
> > > if the United States is known for sticking its nose in other Nations'
> > > business or affairs,  unless our liberty interests are somehow affected.
>
> > > The support of the Shah and his family was a prudent political move and kept
> > > stability in that Nation for almost thirty years.  A Nation that America had
> > > an abundance of interests in, (as did Great Britain)  as Iran supplied the
> > > bulk of crude oil to the West in the 1950s, and we had a ton of money
> > > invested in that oil, its exploration,  the technology to retrieve it, and
> > > the supply chain to get the product to market.  Just as important,
> > > geopolitically,  Iran sits at the Straights of Hormuz,  and it was critical
> > > especially during the 1950s and 1960s that the Persian Gulf and the
> > > Straights of Hormuz remain a viable shipping lane.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.