UNC Politics

Not unexpected?….Never Mind!

Anthony Bruno — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 21:40:50 +0000

For an Administration which says diversity is important in our country, there is an area where diversity is nowhere to
be seen……diversity of viewpoint. The president is quick to reach out, but only to like-minded groups, not those in
disagreement with his policies.

President Obama did it with the UAW, he did it with health care legislation, and now the issue of immigration.

The latest event occurred today when police chiefs from across the nation arrived in Washington to speak with the Justice
Dept about the new Arizona immigration law. All are opposed to what Arizona is doing, citing the difficulty and the cost
placed on their departments to enforce this law in their cities.

Never mind the Administration refused to meet with the Arizona governor who wanted to speak him directly.

Never mind the Justice AG Holder, Homeland Security Secty Napolitano and even the president did not read the legislation
they publicly criticized.

Never mind more than 70% of the American people are in support of a state protecting its borders when the Federal government fails.

And finally, never mind the majority of these chiefs are not required to enforce immigration law, so it doesn’t even affect their
communities, unless their is an underlying fear illegals may avoid Arizona and seek refuse in what has become known as
“Sanctuary Cities”, who were well-represented at the meeting today with Justice.

Considering these cities are not required to enforce this law, why would they spend money to travel to Washington, especially when
most cities have financial difficulties? You have to wonder what is the underlying reason…

I think I know…but………Never Mind………….

–
Stay well,
Tony

“How do you like me now……”

Anthony Bruno — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 21:30:03 +0000

Photo by jurvetson

The subject title is from a song by Toby Keith, who sings about a long ago girl friend who had
no interest in him while they were in high school but may think differently today as he achieved
success.

Well, the title was borrowed, but that is the extent of the comparison, for this title is now directed
to the American media, that may have some misgivings about the man they actively promoted
during the election campaign of 2008.

They never questioned his lack of experience or his paper thin resume making him the weakest
in a large field of contenders.

It was no surprise the left-leaning media favored any Democrat over whichever candidate the
Republicans would nominate. But, as they carefully scrutinized others in the field the media
simply listened spellbound to his oratory skills never questioning what he was saying about
“redistribution” of wealth. One seasoned partisan even admitted having a chill go up his leg
when Obama spoke.

The media had little interest in the warning signs of a candidate who resisted challenging questions,
who went so far as to advise others in his party to avoid appearing on a network which did ask the
“tough questions”.

The media allowed his blatant criticism of some voters who “clung to their guns and religion”, never
questioning him about what he meant. Nor, did the media research his questionable ties and involvement
with convicted Realtor Tony Rezko who “sold” him a home at a ridiculously low price.

Even after the election Obama, with the strong support of the Congress, took our nation into uncharted
waters with takeover of private businesses, accelerating the country’s debt with out of control spending,
including what could be considered payoffs to interest groups, and shifting of traditional govt responsibilities
such as student loans and the oversight of the census to his political home, the White House. Yet, the
media remained mute.

But, now we are nearing the halfway point of his term, millions more lost jobs, greater govt involvement
in key industries, failure to reverse a downward economic trend, expansion of govt with the recently
passed health care bill, several domestic terrorist attacks, and the inability to protect the American
border, and so much more…..which leads me to the question in the subject line…………

“How do you like me now……” which the president might reluctantly ask…..

Stay well,
Tony

State Sovereignty…..needed now!!!!!!!!!

Anthony Bruno — Wed, 26 May 2010 04:02:26 +0000

Photo by taberandrew

For decades the American people have watched state authority and responsibility either willingly or willfully turned
over to the Federal government creating a dysfunctional behemoth often slow to respond and usually weak in resolving
matters best handled at the state level.

For almost three weeks the country has watched as the Federal govt. failed to get actively involved in the BP oil spill,
despite its self-proclaimed authority to oversee, regulate and respond.

This is the latest of many failures of centralized govt not being the best respondent, compounding the problem by not
allowing state and local officials to respond directly, no matter that immediate action is needed.

This is not the fault of a particular administration, or a political party. It is a cultural and political mindset shared by the
people who represent the states and the Federal agencies which appear to be driven by their own self-importance.

The strengthening of state sovereignty is key to ensure the American people understand THEIR responsibilities and
not becoming enslaved by a Federal govt, which uses the allure of dollars to erode our sense of who we are and what
makes our country as unique and exceptional as it is.

Unless Congress is directed to reverse much of the centralization which has occurred for decades the American people
will continue to be disappointed with Federal responses to state and regional calamities.

Here is the latest from Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal who has continually expressed his frustration with both BP and the
federal government.

On May 2, Gov. Jindal requested that federal authorities and BP provide three million feet of absorbent boom, five million feet of hard boom and 30 ‘jack up’ barges. Of that, less than 800,000 feet of hard boom has arrived – less than a fifth of the request. About 140,000 feet of that hard boom is sitting waiting for BP to tell contractors where to take it.

“It is clear we don’t have the resources we need to protect our coast, we need more boom, more skimmers, more vacuums, more jack-up barges that are still in short supply,” Jindal said today. “Let’s be clear, every day that this oil sits is one more day that more of our marsh dies.”

I don’t know whether or not things will get better, but I do know one thing;

Congress will appoint an “independent”, “bi-partisan”, “blue ribbon” commission to review what has occurred..period!

Regards,
Anthony Bruno

An Election Primer…..II

Anthony Bruno — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:27:50 +0000

April 8, 2010

The upcoming mid-term election will be anything but the typical yawner most previous ones
have been. This one, in all probability (and hopefully), will flip the majority in both the House
and the Senate.

Most of the media foresee what is about to transpire; a knock-down and drag out battle between
the Democratic majority, supported by organized labor and minority groups versus a grass roots
“insurgency”, not politically partisan, who are determined to elect candidates who will reverse the
path our country has been on for a century.

Stakes have rarely been higher, as the outcome will determine whether the majority of American
people want to determine their own fate, or prefer to continue on the road towards full servitude,
captive and dependent on the Federal government.

But, aside from reversing much of the legislation of this Congress and Executive Orders of the
Obama Administration, those who want to “throw the bums out” need to demand more from the
candidates they support.

First, Congress and many of the Federal agencies must be weakened, for this is where the Federal
government acquires its power to influence much of the American people’s lives.

A candidate saying he is for “limited government” is not enough. Words do matter, but only when
followed with concrete legislation which fulfills campaign promises.

As much as the Obama Administration and Congress has been bold advancing legislation and
regulations which they believe benefits the American people, any new majority most be equally
forceful in fulfilling the desires of those who supported their candidacy.

If the next Congress doesn’t defuse the power of Federal agencies, departments such as Energy,
Interior, Education and Transportation will continue to keep all states under the “thumb” of centralized
authority rather than the sovereignty each was given at our founding.

What should the American people demand?

These are the important issues I believe MUST be addressed:

1. Strengthening state sovereignty following these steps, which will weaken Federal departments.

a. State land cannot be acquired by the Federal govt without legislation being passed by its legislature.
b. Public education will be determined by each state without interference by the Dept. of Education.
c. States will determine how their land will be developed.
d. Each state will determine all speed limits and other related transportation issues.
e. No monies can be withheld by the Federal govt from any state without legal cause.

2. Individual rights and freedoms.

a. Citizens are not required to adhere to any laws not explicitly defined in the Constitution.
b. Members of Congress are not exempt of any laws it enacts.

3. Defusing the independent power of Congress.

a. Political campaign contributions will be limited to individuals who are citizens of the candidate’s state.
b. Congressional districts will be determined by a logical, geographic structure, without gerrymandering.
c. Term limits will be determined by the each state, not by Congress.
d. Compensation will be determined by each state.
e. Repeal the 17th Amendment, election of senators, return to appointment by state.

This is a start, not too difficult to gain the public’s support, but equally not very palatable to those eager
to serve in Congress.

More to come……………..
Feedback greatly appreciated…

Regards,
Anthony Bruno
Cary.

Photo by dani0010

September Politics

Will Rand — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 06:04:50 +0000

First off, as others have noted, where have all the anti-war protestors gone? “When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?” My suspicions are many of them would have lauded the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a noble effort had Obama or Clinton been president, not all mind you, because they are some very sincere people that are anti-war, but how is it as soon as a democrat is president, we just don’t hear too much about it?

I know, I know…..Afghanistan is the good war and Iraq the bad one. But since we still have 130,000 troops in Iraq and are escalating the war in Afghanistan, isn’t this all just “more of the same”?

In fact, on many issues people were upset with Bush over, Obama is indeed more of the same, except worse. Bush was secretive. Obama is even more so. Bush spent billions in deficit spending. Obama is spending trillions. Bush allowed earmarking to get out of control. Obama has taken absurd pork barrel spending and deference to Congress to a new historic level altogether. Bush fired political appointees in the Justice department as it was his right to do. Obama fires non-political Inspectors that dare censure his buddies despite it being illegal to do so.

At least Bush basically told us what he wanted to do and followed through, for better and worse, on his promises to cut taxes and expand government in education and prescription drugs. Say what you want, but America knew what they were getting with Bush. Obama portrayed himself as a guy that would take a surgeon’s knife to the budget to cut spending; allow any bill to be posted so it can be read by the public first; have health care policy debates and discussions on C-span instead of behind closed doors; and not raise taxes (what is Cap and Trade if not a tax) on most Americans. He’s kept none of those promises. It’s like we elected Nancy Pelosi instead.

Oh yeah, and what about this energy independence stuff he talked about in the campaign after McCain and Palin brought it up? Wouldn’t that be a great way to create jobs and stimulate the economy? Instead of borrowing 750 billion to supposedly stimulate the economy, we could actually take the hundreds of billions we spend overseas EACH YEAR and spend it here creating millions upon millions of jobs for Americans. You’d think this would be a no-brainer and that the stimulus package would have focused on this.

Instead, we see an administration lending 2 billion to one of the largest corporations in North America to develop oil fields off-shore in Brazil. It helps that the corporation is owned by Brazil. We wouldn’t want some American, publicly-held stockholder company to benefit. That might help people’s retirement accounts and then they’d be less dependent on the government. No, we can’t have that.

Nor can we have a common sense approach on health-care. Defensive medicine drives up costs through the roof but nothing from Team Obama about limiting malpractice awards. Hmmm…..perhaps they are secretly thinking it wouldn’t be necessary if they can take over health-care entirely. Then, they could say no one can sue at all because its government owned and controlled. I don’t know if they are that Machiavellian or not. But why have health-care reform if you don’t do something so obvious to limit costs. That doesn’t mean no awards but let’s be honest with people. Doctors are going to make mistakes, even good doctors, and they will practice malpractice under the John Edward’s definition of the term. Medicine is not perfect science.

Obama and the Dems say they don’t want to ration health-care. Yeah, they just want to say what procedures will be paid for and at what price and make sure everyone uses “best practices”, but as Rahm Emanuel’s brother and adviser to the president says, society has to consider proportioning it’s funds on “productive” members of society first.

Sound familiar? It should, at least to those that remember the 40s.

Of course, the good doctor has since “evolved” his positions from that stance and is against such thinking now. Ok, so let’s give him a pass. They don’t want death panels.

Then, how will they save money? This is the crux of the matter as I wrote on an earlier blog. We absolutely do not have the money to cover Medicare benefits in the coming years. Even Obama admits to this. We could tax the rich at 100% and not even come close to what is needed. The demographics of the Baby Boom mean we won’t have enough working people and wages to tax in order to cover retiree benefits. The money has been wasted and still is being wasted, just at a faster rate under the democrats, though the Republicans were bad at it too. The real push here by the democrats is to find a way to keep expanding government and pork barrel spending. Medicare, Medicaid and social security were great cash cows for Congress while it lasted. They could tell people they were investing in their own retirement as a safety net while looting those funds to spend on their favorite programs and often getting rich, I might add.

Now the gravy train is over, and the government cannot keep its promises. So what can it do? Well, the simple answer is to just not pay the benefits. Ration health-care, kill people off early, and voila, they can keep spending out the wazoo as ever before.

Under Obamacare, I probably wouldn’t be here. I barely made it as it was. When I was born I almost died, and I am sure it was quite expensive to keep me in the hospital. I wasn’t a productive citizen as a newborn, and just think about it, a day earlier under today’s values and policies, I could have been aborted. So why spend all that money on a baby that has a dubious chance of survival?

Wouldn’t someone without health insurance that is an adult with a higher chance of survival be a safer investment of that money? How about the elderly? You need heart surgery and are over 70? At least there will be some free in-house counseling under Obamacare about options to make things easier while you are on a waiting list. It’s been tough to find cardiac specialists these days, you know. The waiting list is quite long.

And when did liberals and progressives decide protesting is now “UnAmerican” and disagreeing with Obama “evil” as some democrats in Washington are saying. It was fine and dandy for some of them to slander a general in the field, General Petraeus, as General Betrayus, but the Town hall attendees and tea party folks are now “low level terrorists.” And when did the progressives and liberals switch to favor government spying. Snooping to catch terrorists was a bad thing, but it’s OK if the government, as proposed under Obamacare, monitors the bank accounts and spending habits of each individual American. I don’t think too many realize that was in the bill. That’s right. The Democrats proposed that every single expenditure by all Americans be monitored by the government. EVERY transaction in your bank account.

No wonder Obama wanted the bill passed before the recess and anyone had a chance to read it.

Thankfully, those “low level terrorists” spoke up and demanded that at a minimum, their Congresspersons at least read the dang thing.

Politics, Politics, Politics

Ryan Stewart — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 03:44:40 +0000

As the controversial swirl over Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court hits full force this week with her Senate hearing, one simple fact has seemed questionably absent in the discussion. In late August 2009, John McCain’s campaign officially tapped Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate. Almost immediately reports began to question the political motives to McCain’s decision. Before the end of the week, it was taken for granted that Palin was a desperate McCain attempt to pick up disenfranchised Hillary Clinton voters. The Democrats constantly reminded the voters of the Republican stereotype: middle-aged, christian, white, male. It was an easy political attack for them. Despite the strong Republican record for appointing women and minorities to high positions, and most often being the first party to do so, the public fell for it. And many people will forever remember Sarah Palin as a political pick, inappropriate and deceiving.

Flashforward several months into President Obama’s administration. Justice Souter has formally announced his plans for retirement, and speculation begins over who Obama will pick as his first major appointee. When the news arrives that Sotomayor, a Latina, is his choice, reports similar to those about Palin were no where to be seen. Regardless of Sotomayor’s qualifications, it cannot be denied that there are many well-prepared and qualified judges that Obama could have picked. Why, then was there no questioning the political intensions of Obama’s decision? President Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, know full well that the Hispanic population is the fastest growing of any in the electorate. They also know that the Hispanic population made border states, such as New Mexico, Florida, and even McCain’s home state of Arizona competitive in 2008. Not only does a significant chunk of our immigration (both legal and illegal) consist of Latinos, but the birth rate of American-Hispanic women exceed other American ethnicities by far. On average, each Latina will produce 2.3 children in her lifetime, compared to 2.0 for African-Americans, 1.8 for Whites, and 1.7 for Asian-Americans.(1) If these trends continue as predicted, it is expected that Latinos will surpass African-Americans as the largest minority group, and by 2050 make up 30% of the US population.

The political impact of this demographic change will be nothing short of radical. And the political implications of Obama and Emmanuel’s appointment of Sotomayor are crystal clear. The Democrats are looking to the future. They are unmistakeably targeting the Hispanic population as its target for coming elections. But for some reason, no one seems to mind that political goals are being applied to policy decisions. Well - at least this time.

(1) http://www.diversityinc.com/public/4390.cfm

A few words to Christian Democrats

Silas Dogood — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:42:31 +0000

While I will agree that the GOP used to be great, I would like to inform the Obama supporters on this website that the GOP train has indeed run off its tracks. I do not associate myself with the Republican party anymore, because the Republican party isn’t like it once was. I agree that the Republicans of today’s world will not stand up and fight for what they believe in. They also are comprimising their beliefs and morals. Let me remind you of one of my favorite quotes:

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

Edmund Burke

Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 – 1797)

For the record, I agree with neither the Republicans, nor the Democrats. I just wanted to get that straight.

One thing I would like to ask all of you is this: are there any “Christian” Democrats on here? If so, I’d like to talk with you about a few things:

1) Is it not true that modern Democrats are in favor of abortion, homosexuality, and amnesty for illegal aliens?

2) If so, let me remind you of some verses in the Bible that have to do with these things. You’re welcome to look these up.

1-”Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” (Homosexuality, Levit. 18:22)

2-”But if you do evil, have fear; for the sword is not in his[the government's] hand for nothing: he is God’s servant, making God’s punishment come on the evil-doer.(Illegal Immigration, Romans 13:4)

Now I will agree that abortion is harder to disprove. But, here’s a form of logic that will help you understand why abortion is wrong. Consider what Jeremiah has to say:

“Before you were formed in the body of your mother I had knowledge of you, and before your birth I made you holy…”

Now, this clearly states that BEFORE HE WAS BORN, Jeremiah was known, and acknowledged, by GOD himself! Ergo, he was already a person pre-birth. So the argument that a fetus isn’t a person is ruled out. Now, the question you have to ask yourself, is this: is the killing of a person alright by God? Well, the answer to that is the sixth commandment: “Thou shalt not murder.” Some translations of the oldest Bibles suggest that the commandment was “Thou shalt not KILL.” This means any kind of killing, or ending of a human’s life. Note that I said HUMAN. Animals and plants were given to us by God, to use however we wish. Therefore, this commandment is not pertaining to anything but humans. From this, you can conclude that, in an indirect but logical way, the Bible stands AGAINST abortion.

3)I understand this does not apply if you are not Christian, but if you are, you should be able to understand this.

4)Now, given the evidence above, would anyone like to come up with Biblical evidence that any of these three is RIGHT? Truly, I would be interested in hearing it. I love debating, as you can tell.

5) From my statements, it is easy to conclude that I am not a Liberal. I am a strongly Christian Conservative, who hates the government that he lives under. God says to give the government respect, so I will. I will honor the position of President, but I don’t have to honor the person filling the position. Same goes with nearly every government position these days. I love my country, don’t get me wrong. I just despise the people running it.

The last thing I’d like to say is this: Although I despise Obama and all of his cohorts, I would be HAPPY if he did what was best for this country! I am not just biased against these people. I would jump for joy if Obama followed the Bible, introducing legislations against gay marriage, and against abortion, and against homosexuality, and against lowering the US’s defenses, and against raising taxes, and against unnecessary spending, and against the expansion of government! Believe me, I would jump for JOY! But the problem is, it will never happen, because in his first 100- or so-days in office, he has already told us what will happen during his 4-8 years as President of the United States. The problem is, he WON’T introduce legislation on the aforementioned. I wish to God that he would, though.

Feel free to post replies to what I’ve written. Thank you for your time, and GOD BLESS AMERICA!

~ Silas Dogood

America in Denial: The Federal Reserve System

Chase Billow — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 05:02:18 +0000

INTRODUCTION

“The Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States, provides the nation with a safe, flexible, and stable monetary and financial system.”

Those are the words written at the top of the official website of the Federal Reserve . The funny thing is, on a Yahoo! search for “Federal Reserve” [1] (I know, who uses Yahoo! to do a search, right?), only a few spots down we find a very different description:

“Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation’s debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over.

“This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.” [2]

Spend five minutes on that page and you’ll find a few more historical quotes mirroring those sentiments along with accusations that the “the Fed” had a hand in The Great Depression and is the brain-child of European bankers who funded Trotsky and the Russian Revolution. All around are Amazon ads showing the covers of books like “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions”, “End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot”, “The Assassinations”, and “America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bone”. Add to this the horribly-outdated web design and it’s not long before most of us shrug this off as a conspiracy-type, “nutjob” website and are sure that a few more scrolls will lead us to Bigfoot and Area 51.

But why do we react that way? Why are we so quick to roll our eyes, laugh, or get angry when presented with explanations of history that conflict with those taught in our high school textbooks? Do we just have that much confidence in our education? Do we really think that our professors, textbooks, and The History Channel are the infallible, omniscient sources from which all accurate information flows? Do we think the “official record” is always in harmony with reality? Does our government (or any other government for that matter) always give us the best and clearest picture of what’s really going on? Or is there some other reason we act the way we do? Is it possible we instinctively reject non-conforming historical relations because we are in denial?

Denial is “an unconscious mental maneuver that cancels out or obscures painful reality” [3] and is a common defense mechanism. It is used to deal with unpleasant situations over which we have little or no control. One example of denial, given by Sigmund Freud – the famous psychoanalyst who first postulated the concept – is that of King Boabdil. According to the account [4], King Boabdil was the last Moorish King and had just received news that his capitol city was about to fall. In an attempt to delay or erase that painful reality, the King burned the letter and beheaded the messenger.

Boabdil’s reaction didn’t change the fact that his kingdom was lost, but the reality of the situation was too much to bear at the time. Many of us have employed denial to deal with the stress of exams or writing a paper. Overwhelmed by the task before us, we further sabotage ourselves as we put off studying and instead go online to see who’s updated their Facebook status, knowing full-well that 9:00 a.m. isn’t getting any further away. Because of the stress of the reality that faces us, our mind refuses to confront it and we find some other activity to comfort ourselves.

We employ the same defense mechanism when it comes to our government. All of us know politicians mislead or make ambiguous statements to sway voters and keep their jobs – we have seen it happen before our eyes over and over again. I’m willing to bet that every one of us has fumed, even if just for a second, at the blatant lies those in office have tried to feed us. (Of course our candidate doesn’t do that, but we know the opposing party is full of tricks).

One of the clearest examples that we all will remember is President Bill Clinton’s White House Press Conference on January 26, 1998, where, amidst mounting pressures regarding an alleged affair with Monica Lewinsky, he emphatically proclaimed (adding to the drama by banging the pulpit and pointing directly at us):

“But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky…” [5]

However, a few months later on August 17, 1998, President Clinton explained that:

“Indeed, I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinski that was not appropriate… I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people…and I regret that.” [6]

While commentators argued over the legal difference between “inappropriate” and “sexual relations”, most of us had no doubt about the reality of the situation.

Another infamous example is President George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” [7] speech on May 1, 2003. After landing in a jet on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, President Bush announced:

“Operation Iraqi Freedom was carried out with a combination of precision and speed and boldness the enemy did not expect, and the world had not seen before…Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed…The nation thanks all the members of our coalition who joined in a noble cause. We thank the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland, who shared in the hardships of war. We thank all the citizens of Iraq who welcomed our troops and joined the liberation of their own country… America is grateful for a job well done.” [8]

Despite having been “carried out”, Operation Iraqi Freedom continues nearly five years later with a vast majority of coalition and Iraqi casualties occurring after the speech [9]. As the war dragged on, the White House explained in various press conferences and interviews that the prominent “Mission Accomplished” banner and language used was meant to be understood in the context of the end of the 10-month tour of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln and its crew – the longest deployment in Navy history. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino frustratingly responded that the sign probably should have read: “mission accomplished for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission” [10]. Notwithstanding the many clarifications, “Mission Accomplished” continues to be a favorite of political satire. In June 2005, playing the part of Senior Military Analyst on The Daily Show, Stephen Colbert explained that “the most famous seeming miscue of this White House” was:

“…just more of your Western, linear, left-to-right, letters-in-consecutive order, syllable-based banner reading. The true message was there, you just had to read the letters in anagram form as it was intended: ‘C’mon I lied, so scampish.’” [11]

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart M - Th 11p / 10c
Semantics
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes Political Humor Economic Crisis

We known these two examples are not anomalies, and we could all think of many more but despite all this we continue to put our trust in the words of our politicians and give credence to the official record. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve’s statement that they provide our country with “a safe, flexible, and stable monetary system” is very comforting, but is it the truth? And more important to our study here – if it’s not, do we really want to know? Maybe we would just rather take the official record at face value than find out that the system that runs our economy really is “the most corrupt institution in the world.” Maybe we would rather believe the lies than deal with the stress of reality. So is the Board of Governors’ statement an accurate assessment of the Federal Reserve system or do the naysayers have a point?

Let’s assess the claim.

WHAT IS A CENTRAL BANK?

In order to begin to assess the official story, then, we have to understand what a central bank is and what it does; and in order to understand central banks, we need to understand what a regular bank is and does. Banks are institutions where we keep our money, right? It doesn’t seem practical to store all that cash under your mattress, so you take it to a bank. You the customer deposit the money you earn into an account where you can later withdraw it again. But banks do not just hold money, they lend it as well. This is part of how a bank makes its money – by the interest it collects on mortgage loans, car loans, business loans, etc. But where does a bank get the money to make loans? Well, the bank loans out your money. This is how a bank can offer you interest on the money you deposit – the bank makes interest on your money (that it lends) and decides to share a little of the profit for the privilege of using your money and no doubt to entice more depositors. More deposits means bigger loans the bank can collect interest on.

But a problem occurs if there is a “run on the bank”. You may have heard of bank runs in the context of the Great Depression, where scared depositors would all rush to the bank to get their cash out with many coming home empty handed. Banks make the gamble that not enough people will want to withdraw enough money at the same time to cause any problems, so the bank decides not to let all that precious cash just sit there in its vaults and instead loans it out, collecting interest on every dollar. If enough people want to withdraw enough money out at once, though, the bank is mathematically unable to give some people their money back so it’s first come, first serve. This is because the bank no longer holds all of the deposited money, but has given it to others in the form of loans. When a run happens, a bank is either forced to close its doors (sorry everyone, our bad!) and go bankrupt, or get some more money from somewhere else to cover those withdrawals. This is where a central bank comes in.

Central banks are also referred to as “lenders of last resort”. This is because of the situation explained above. If a bank faces the problem of having too many withdrawals than it has cash in its vaults to honor, then, as a last resort, a central bank can lend money to that bank to keep it from collapsing [12]. Of course this is not the only function of a central bank, but it is one of its most important purposes. Among other things, the Federal Reserve System acts as the lender of last resort for the nation’s banks.

So the Federal Reserve is a central bank and the official record can be trusted in this case, right? Well yes, but what about the part about providing the nation with a safe, flexible, and stable monetary and financial system? Don’t you want to know where the Federal Reserve gets that money it lends to banks? Good question.

THE MANDRAKE MECHANISM

The Federal Reserve gets money to member banks by “monetizing debt”, a characteristic ability of all central banks. Monetizing debt is banker language for creating money out of the need to borrow and is accomplished by the Federal Reserve through what G. Edward Griffin calls “The Mandrake Mechanism” [13]. The Mandrake Mechanism works like this:

The United States adds ink to a piece of paper and calls it a Treasury note or bond. These are promises to pay a given sum at a given interest on a given date. The paper is then given to the Federal Reserve where it is classified as a “securities asset”. These government bonds are also available to you and me and some of you may even have received these as gifts from grandma and grandpa. They are purchased at a certain lower price and can be cashed for a certain higher price years down the road when they “mature”. It’s one way the government funds itself – by borrowing your money today and promising to pay it back with a little interest tomorrow. When the government deals with the Federal Reserve, however, it’s for much, much greater sums of money.

This Treasury note or bond is considered an asset by the Federal Reserve because the assumption is the U.S. government can tax its citizens when it needs to in order to pay the debt. The Fed can now use this “asset” to take on a liability and adds ink to a paper, calling it a Federal Reserve Check. On this check will be inked the same number that was inked on the piece of paper called a Treasury note or bond (symbolizing a specific amount of money). The government will then endorse the Federal Reserve Check and deposit it into its account at one of the Federal Reserve banks [14].

From its account at the Federal Reserve bank, the United States will issue more inked pieces of paper in smaller amounts called government checks that it uses to pay its bills. When these checks are deposited into the bank accounts of those being paid by the Federal government, they become commercial bank deposits. As long as these “assets” remain in bank accounts, commercial banks (Bank of America, Trustco, WaMu – oops, nevermind, KeyBank, etc.) consider these to be bank “reserves”.

This is where we come back to our discussion of how banks work. Banks hold your money as well as lend it to make a profit. So the more money a bank has in deposits, the more loans it can make and the more interest it can collect. In addition to lending money that doesn’t belong to them, under the Federal Reserve system banks are also allowed to practice what is called “fractional reserve banking” which is a nearly magical process by which banks can increase their profits many times over.

Under this system, commercial banks are only required to hold $1 in reserve for every $9 they lend [15]. That 10% ($1 for every $10) is called their reserve-ratio. With a 10% reserve-ratio, for every $1 million in deposits a bank has $900,000 in “excess reserves” burning a hole in its pocket. So instead of letting it sit there, banks put that $900,000 to good use by making car loans, home loans, business loans, etc and collecting interest on them. But it doesn’t end there. As Griffin explains:

“The process now repeats but with slightly smaller numbers each time around. What was a “loan” on Friday comes back into the bank as a “deposit” on Monday. The deposit then is reclassified as a “reserve” and ninety percent of that becomes an “excess” reserve which, once again, is available for a new “loan.” Thus, the $1 million of first wave fiat money gives birth to $900,000 in the second wave, and that gives birth to $810,000 in the third wave ($900,000 less 10% reserve). It takes about twenty-eight times through the revolving door of deposits becoming loans becoming deposits becoming more loans until the process plays itself out to the maximum effect…”

Although banks are not usually able to see this process unfold to the 28th time [16], it is theoretically possible and, in any case, banks under the Federal Reserve system enjoy the benefits of not only collecting the interest on money loaned from your account, but are given the ability to collect interest on money that didn’t even previously exist.

Banks can also obtain funds from the Federal Reserve through the “discount window” [17], which are low-interest loans (that will be deposited and loaned again to consumers at a higher rate of interest). The Federal Reserve creates this money in much the same way as when dealing with the United States, only this loan is given directly to member banks and uses a bank’s reserves as backing for the loans.

If you’re a little confused at this point, don’t feel bad. The whole process defies good sense or any of the limits of legal business most of us are used to. If you need to, go back and re-read this section or, for a more detailed explanation of our economic system under the Federal Reserve, borrow a copy of The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve.

THE CONSEQUENCES

The result to all this banking magic is an injection of currency into the economy up to ten times the amount of the original amount “loaned” by the Federal Reserve. Even more significant, is that there is no real value backing this money other than the United States’ ability to confiscate the value from its citizens through taxation if need be.

More dollars in the system might sound like a good thing, but only until we begin to understand its implications. When such a large amount of Federal Reserve Notes (ie, dollars) comes into our system to mix with existing dollars, the result is a decline in the worth of all dollars. This is called “inflation”. It’s very much like adding more water to the Kool-Aid – sure there’s more Kool-Aid, but the potency keeps going down with every cup of water you add. In the end, prices must adjust to keep in step with the value of the dollar and since each dollar is now worth less, this means prices must go up to compensate. One effect of inflation is that the $10,000 you’ve saved under your mattress can buy you less and less over time with each injection of dollars the Fed pumps into the system through the Mandrake Mechanism. During the Revolutionary War, the United States was printing the “Continental” (a form of currency, like dollars) to try and finance the war. So many notes were printed and the currency was devalued so greatly that George Washington wrote: “A wagon-load of money will scarcely purchase a wagon-load of provisions.”[18] Inflation is part of the reason why nickel movies and 25-cent sodas are only memories.

Another consequence of this system is a cycle of economic booms and busts. The Mandrake Mechanism is the source of nearly every dollar in existence today.[19] Because the Federal Reserve creates money out of debt, when that debt is paid that money ceases to exist. Among other mechanisms, by raising interest rates at the discount window, the Federal Reserve can discourage banks from borrowing from the central bank, causing less money to be pumped into the system. As loans are repaid and less new loans created, less dollars are suddenly available to go around and the economy contracts. The more loans that are repaid without new money being created, the less money circulates in the economy and the more severe the effects. If the Federal Reserve were not to create any more money and all loans were repaid, there would not be a single dollar left in existence.[20] Therefore, under the Federal Reserve system the United States and its citizens are obligated to remain perpetually in debt.

Perhaps most troubling of all these issues is the ability politicians have to raise taxes without asking. When the United States receives a “loan” from the Federal Reserve and inflation dilutes the value of our existing money, the effects are the same as if we paid the amount of the loan in direct taxes. After all, being able to buy less with your money is the same as having less money, right? All this is in addition to the direct Income and other taxes we pay every year. But because raising taxes directly can be so unpopular, the government has enlisted the Federal Reserve to do its dirty work for them, collecting funds from the American public through the hidden tax called inflation.

CONCLUSION

“The Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States, provides the nation with a safe, flexible, and stable monetary and financial system.”

This statement is not at all unlike the attempts by “Slick Willy” or “Dubya” to sooth and comfort the American public through misleading statements or blatant lies and is simply not true. Yes, the Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States; yes, under the Federal Reserve System, money is flexible in that it can be created out of thin air and its value manipulated; but a monetary and financial system under central banking and the Federal Reserve is anything but safe and stable. At all times, our entire economic system hangs by a thread and we and our country are perpetually in debt. With the general consensus being what it is, and most economic experts never challenging this system, it seems we would rather make it easier on ourselves and believe the official record than deal with the stress of reality.

Denial, however, is never a productive defense mechanism. We refuse to accept reality and excuse it away as not important, refuse to think about it, or re-characterize it into some new half-truth that is less threatening to us. The problem is that despite our coping, the reality of the situation does not change. In this case, the very real problem of our economic system confronts us and only fundamental, and most likely painful, changes can save us. That problems do exist is painfully obvious, given the unfolding of events over the past year, and the futile attempts of our two-tongued politicians to patch up an unsustainable system will not get us far for much longer. However badly we may not want to take the necessary steps that will lead us to real economic safety and stability, if we continue to live in denial and ignore the reality of our situation the time will eventually come where we will have no choice but to experience the pain that has been accumulating since the adoption of this system.

__________________________________________________________

SOURCES

[1] Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, http://www.federalreserve.gov.

[2] Federal-reserve.net – Is Neither Federal Nor A Reserve, It Stole Our Currency In 1913, http://www.federal-reserve.net, quoted from Congressional Record, June 1932 at 12595-12603. (For you Googlers, you have to go to pg. 2 of a search to find this).

[3] Michael A. Milburn & Sheree D. Conrad, The Politics of Denial, 1 (1996).

[4] Id. at 13.

[5] White House Press Conference, January 26, 1998. (Watching the statement on video again helps us remember how convincing Mr. Clinton intended to be. One example is found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs).

[6] Addressing the Nation, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/lewinsky_address/address.html. (full video here – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFKtgTsKDIg).

[7] Whitehouse.gov indexes the speech as “President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended”. Note: With the change of administration, this reference may no longer be accurate.

[8] George W. Bush, President Bush Announces major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, May 1, 2003, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html. (A full video recording of the speech is also found there). Note: With the change of administration, this reference may no longer be accurate.

[9] Survey numbers vary widely, but all agree with this assessment. Iraqi Health Ministry casualty survey, http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMsa0707782/DC1. Lancet survey, http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf. Opinion Research Business survey, http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=88.

[10] Press Briefing by Dana Perino, April 30,2008, 12:40pm EDT, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/04/20080430-5.html. Note: With the change of administration, this reference may no longer be accurate.

[11] Semantics, June 27, 2005, http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=124201&title=semantics. (For maximum context and amusement, view the entire clip).

[12] For more on how the FDIC is not a true insurer of bank deposits, please G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve 33-38, 49-66 (4th ed. 2002).

[13] Id. at 185. (Here Griffin explains that he named this mechanism after “Mandrake the Magician”, apparently a comic strip character of the 1940’s. Mandrake would create things out of nothing and have them disappear likewise. My explanation is taken directly from Griffin’s book. For a more detailed explanation, please see 185-207).

[14] There are 12 Federal Reserve banks, each in a different U.S. city, and named after that city. They are the Federal Reserve Banks of: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Richmond, Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Dallas, and San Francisco.

[15] See Griffin, supra at 194, footnote 1. (“This 10% figure (ten-to-one ration) is based on averages. The Federal Reserve requires a minimum reserve of 10% on deposits over $47.6 million but only 3% on deposits from $7 million up to that amount and no reserves whatsoever below that amount. Reserves consist of vault cash and deposits at the Federal Reserve”).

[16] Id. at 199.

[17] For more detail on the discount window, see Id. at 478-480.

[18] Id. at 312.

[19] Id. at 388.

[20] Id.

Does Obama Plan to Deny Seniors Medical Care?

Will Rand — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:14:11 +0000

“A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children…”

Proverbs: 13:22

Besides leaving the inheritance of a mortgaged future to our grandchildren and their grandchildren ad infinitum, we are guaranteeing that future retirees will not receive the health care they have been promised under Medicare. The government’s current plan will simply devolve into denying care and letting people die prematurely. The problem lies in a demographic shift as Baby Boomers retire with too few workers for every retiree. Moreover, raising taxes on the rich won’t solve the problem even if economic growth would somehow not be damaged. The rich just don’t have the trillions of dollars required. There is a reason we don’t hear of trillionaires. They don’t exist. We could raise the tax rate to 100% on the wealthy and confiscate all the assets of every billionaire in America, and we still wouldn’t have sufficient funds.

Think I am exaggerating? David Walker, the highly respected, non-partisan chief accountant for the government described our dilemma this way, back in 2007, when the economy was still growing.

“Well, you could decide not to renew the Bush tax cuts, you could eliminate all foreign aid, eliminate all earmarks, eliminate NASA, eliminate the National Endowment for Humanities and eliminate the entire Defense Department tomorrow, and you still wouldn’t solve the problem.”

http://www.newsweek.com/id/70378/page/5

How much are we in the hole?

“….we promise way more than we can afford to keep. Eight trillion dollars added [for prescription drug benefit] to what was already a 15 to $20 trillion under-funding. We’re not being realistic. We can’t afford the promises we’ve already made, much less… piling on top of ‘em.” “

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/60minutes/main2528226_page2.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Since 2007, the situation has become much worse with the current recession. Besides lacking the 23-28 trillion in the bank we would have needed then, we have an 11 trillion dollar national debt with President Obama planning to double that in the next 8-10 years, even assuming a rosy scenario of high growth. Does anyone really think the wealthy have the resources to cough up somewhere around 50 trillion dollars?

Obviously, the government should reverse course and cut spending and government expansion in preparation for this demographic tsunami. Any stimulus spending should have been (and any new spending should be) true investments where we think we can speedily recoup that money such as incentivizing more domestic oil, natural gas and alternative energy so that the hundreds of billions we send overseas are spent here. Unfortunately, current policy has us heading in the opposite direction, spending and borrowing even to the point we are having diffculty finding buyers of the government’s debt. In the not too distant future, we will likely be unable to sell any more debt and will be forced to simply print money with the FED buying our debt as is already occuring. We should be saving this credit to help fund our health care obligations to retirees.

But even if we drastically cut spending, we will still have a shortfall. There are basically two hard choices, or a combination of both, facing retiring Baby Boomers: reduce costs by rationing health care or reduce demand by raising the retirement age.

Option One: Rationing Health Care

This is the current plan under discussion packaged as finding “savings.” What that means in reality is denying medical services to people that need it with the result of people dying prematurely and a reduction in quality of life. We can deceive ourselves that just being more efficient alone will generate the trillions needed, but the stark reality is even accepting the dubious proposition that more government beaurocracy can help us save a lot of money, we are not going to save but so much.

Option Two: Raising the Retirement Age

The second option is rather than deny services to people that need them, the Boomers could decide to actually pay for them by demanding the government raise the retirement age with everyone working longer in order to fully fund the system. That would dramatically balance the demographics by adding more workers and less retirees. Of course, that would probably also necessitate a change in overall government policy. If the Boomers en masse agree to working longer, you can bet there will be serious calls for curtailing government spending, whether on social programs, national defense or bail-outs for Wall Street and unionized companies.

Which choice is best?

Probably only a portion of Baby Boomers would suffer under reduced health care and prescription drugs. People could choose to take the chance that they’d be in the group that will not need those services, or take the other route and mitigate that risk and also make sure their fellow Americans are well taken care of. Putting off retirement and working longer may be unpleasant for many but nevertheless, more attractive than hoping the government will magically find a pot of gold. With the government already having difficulty finding buyers for it’s debt, the stark reality is that this choice simply cannot be ignored. To do nothing is to choose to deny needed, critical medical services to people that need them. The money just isn’t there.

The political reality is neither party will touch this issue, nor even openly admit and discuss solutions to the problem unless they believe they have grassroots support, especially from those that will be most affected and that means the Baby Boomers. The cold truth is both parties have raided and wasted social security, medicare and the Treasury in general and are contining to do so. They do not want to highlight the fact they’ve taken all the money the Boomers paid in and wasted it so that we are bankrupt and cannot adequately keep our promises for retiree medical care. The politicians thus far are keeping quiet so it is up to the people, and in this case, the coming retiring Boomers to speak up. In their youth, the Boomers were labelled the Me-Generation whether fairly or not. Perhaps today they will become the We-Generation calling for and making the necessary sacrifice to insure the nation’s fiscal survival and the health and well-being of their fellow retiring Boomers.

Is this Change?

John James — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 01:17:11 +0000

As a die hard long time Conservative, I have no respect for what Obama stands for, his policies, his whatever.

I do have to say he ran one heck of a camapign, he had a slogan, one that was easily sung, spoken and people who were sick of GWB wanted change, anyone with a pulse would have done it for some. They maybe wanted Hillary, but I think her sex and her known persona hurt her….yeah I know I posted sex and Hillary in the same sentence. That will make me hurl later..

To those who voted for Obama, did you get what you wanted? Has he made your life easier, has what he done so far be something that you went”Yeah thats what I wanted”? I have noticed he has had to back track on some campaign slogans, It is every politician’s job to get re-elected, yeah its a couple of years away…..I get that, but rest assured. Obama does not want to give my side ammunition to go at him with. I doubt he has been all that most expected. I didn’t see housing foreclosures decrease, I haven’t seen people get jobs from the pork laden stimulus package. Have you?

In 2010, unless the economy gets a lot better, and people are working again, the two year spend a thon will be cut short by my party reaping the spoils of his failure. Some about Obama remind me of Carter, I wonder if he will continue that path?

Is he all what you wanted him to be?