Wire Report

(WIRE/TMB) – If you are going to listen to Washington politicians at all, it is always best to listen to the party that is currently out of power. After each election, it is the job of the losers to try to attack the winners in any way they can. Often, they inadvertently advocate genuine principles of liberty in the process.

During the 8-year nightmare that was the Bush administration, it was the Democrats that stumbled upon these principles in their efforts to regain the throne. It was they who pointed out that the government should not be spying on its own citizens, that the president was assuming un-delegated powers through executive order, and that it was neither morally justified nor prudent to invade a third world nation that had committed no acts of aggression against the United States and lacked any reasonable means to do so. Their hysterical mouthpiece, Keith Olbermann, even went so far as to cite a long-forgotten document, the U.S. Constitution.

Of course, it is now abundantly clear that these arguments were made simply out of expediency. With the Democrats in power, it is now the Republicans’ turn to “fight City Hall,” and they have rolled out their usual rhetoric about small government, free markets, and traditional family values. Moreover, they, too, have rolled out the U.S. Constitution and waived it around in opposition to the Democrats’ plans to “spread the wealth around.”

Let’s take note that the Republicans are now correct in opposing the main tenets of the Democratic agenda, including expansion of government involvement in health care, “Cap and Trade,” and other wealth redistribution schemes. Amidst all of the usual noise coming from Washington and its media pundit class, it is only the Republicans that are making any sense at all.

Unfortunately, this is shaping up to produce familiar results. There is a growing movement for “change” that promises to “throw the bums out” in the next two elections. However, those who are part of this movement do not stop to consider what the Republicans’ true agenda will be once they regain power. As they have for over 100 years now, Americans are dashing to the other side in their perennial political game of “pickle in the middle.” They still haven’t learned that the pickle never wins.

The Republicans are having remarkable success in painting President Obama’s agenda as socialist and their “conservatism” as its antithesis. Most average Americans who identify themselves as conservatives accept this argument. If socialism redistributes wealth through the force of government, then conservatism, being its opposite, must oppose such redistribution of wealth. If socialism means that the economy will be centrally planned by government “experts,” then conservatism, being its opposite, must leave those decisions with private citizens. If socialism results in big government, conservatism, being its opposite, must result in small government. These are the assumptions that inform the political decisions of most conservative American voters.

There is only one problem. None of them are true.

The conservative-liberal dichotomy is as old as politics itself. It was present at the founding of the American republic. However, despite the Republicans’ claim to represent America’s founding principles, America was actually founded upon radically liberal ideas. The secession from the British Empire was in essence a complete rejection of conservatism.

Most Americans today believe that the primary motivation for the American Revolution was a separation from the British government. However, the revolutionaries only acquiesced to the necessity of complete separation as a last resort. Even after Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill, the colonists were still making attempts to settle their differences with the British king and remain in the British Empire. The primary objection of the colonists was not the British king being their executive, but the conservative, mercantilist economic system that the British government enforced. The colonists objected to the policies of corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, a central bank, militarism, and the taxes levied upon them to support these and other aspects of the worldwide British Empire. Had the British not imposed this system upon them, they would have been content to remain British citizens.

As soon as the Revolutionary War was won, the exact same debate erupted within the new American political system. Alexander Hamilton and his Federalists wished to replicate the British mercantilist system under an American government that would closely mirror the constitutional monarchy of Great Britain. The Federalists were the party of big government, national debt, corporate welfare, militarism, and central bank inflation¹.

They wished to preserve the status-quo insofar as the role of government and the nature of civil society was concerned, which benefited a privileged, wealthy elite. They were the conservatives.

Socially, this party was the less tolerant of dissenters and tended to promote religion as useful in informing public policy. During Adams’ presidency and with the Federalists in control of Congress, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed, making it illegal to criticize the government. These also are core conservative principles.

Their opponents, Thomas Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans, promoted exactly the opposite ideas. They wished to radically change the role of government in society to one that was strictly limited to enforcing the non-aggression principle of liberty, most importantly economic liberty. They were opposed to corporate welfare or any other government redistribution of wealth, railed against the dangers and injustice of standing armies and the national debt, and opposed the central bank. Over and over again when asked about the role of government, Jefferson consistently applied the non-aggression principle to arrive at an unambiguous answer. Always his answer supported each individual’s right to do as he pleased as long as he did not violate the rights of others, and to keep the fruits of his labor.

Jefferson and his followers insisted upon a “wall of separation” between church and state and denounced the Alien and Sedition Acts. They advocated free speech, civil liberties, and tolerance. These are core liberal principles.

While the conservatives gained the early lead due to George Washington’s election as president and subsequent appointment of Hamilton as treasury secretary, it was not a decisive victory. Washington, who along with Vice President John Adams was certainly a more moderate Federalist, also appointed Jefferson to his cabinet as secretary of state. This set the stage for an epic battle between the two ideologies after Washington departed from politics. Adams eventually broke with Hamilton and his party, costing him the 1800 election, and resulting in a decisive liberal victory by Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans. For the next 60 years, it was the liberal ideology of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom that dominated federal politics.

During this time, the conservatives constantly fought to establish bigger government, the central bank, and the other tenets of mercantilism that defined American conservatism. After the Federalist Party disbanded, they were replaced by the Whigs, a party made up of the same people and advocating the same principles as the Federalists. By this time, Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans had also had a split, and had emerged as the Democrats.

The Whigs were never successful in achieving their goals, and eventually disbanded. However, as before, the same people and the same principles of big government were back again in 1860, this time calling themselves “Republicans.” They finally won a decisive victory in electing Abraham Lincoln to the presidency and a majority in Congress. Immediately, the Republicans began implementing their agenda of corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, and higher taxes. Contrary to conventional wisdom, it was this economic agenda (particularly the tariff) that motivated the southern states’ secession from the Union, not a disagreement over slavery.

It is vital to understand that the Republican Party was born as the party of big government, inheriting traditional, conservative big government principles from its conservative philosophical ancestors, the Whigs and Federalists. For most of its history, it has remained true to these principles, up to and including the Bush II administration. Barry Goldwater’s more libertarian platform during the 1960’s was a divisive anomaly in the conservative movement. Its popularity was later exploited by Ronald Reagan’s administration to implement the usual conservative philosophy of bigger government, militarism, and debt.

The problem for Americans today is that there is no longer an opposition party that represents a true antithesis of these principles. By the dawn of the 20th century, the Democrats had completely abandoned their core principles of individual liberty and economic freedom and adopted a socialist, democratic ideology of popular wealth redistribution. Where the Republicans continued to promote a system which plundered the many for the benefit of the privileged few, the Democrats no longer objected to government as an instrument of plunder and now merely fought to divide up the loot differently. They were no longer truly liberal, although they perverted that word in popular culture to mean exactly the opposite of what it really means. Since then, Americans have had to choose between two parties whose ideologies are fundamentally hostile to liberty.

One week ago, Congressman Ron Paul gave a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) that both mainstream Republicans and Democrats disagree with. Of course they do. It was an eloquent articulation of America’s founding principles of individual liberty and limited government. Like Jefferson, Paul consistently applied the non-aggression principle of liberty to every aspect of government, concluding that we must end our worldwide military empire, end the welfare state (both corporate and popular), and get rid of the plundering Federal Reserve.

Socially, he advocated tolerance, civil liberties, and the right of every American to express his or her opinion, even if those opinions contradicted Paul’s own most preciously-held beliefs. Despite being likely the most truly Christian person in any branch of the federal government, he never once made any allusion to religion during his entire speech, except for a purely philosophical reference to Thomas Aquinas’ principle of the just war (he alluded to this as part of his anti-war argument). Young Americans for Liberty, an affiliate of Paul’s Campaign for Liberty, invited a gay pride group to the conference, invoking a bigoted outburst from one of the younger conservative speakers just before Paul took the stage. Paul’s followers roundly booed him out of the auditorium.

Ron Paul pitched his ideas as “conservative,” but they are not. During one point in the speech, libertarian radio commentator and publisher of Liberty Pulse, Kurt Wallace, turned to me and exclaimed delightedly, “Ron Paul is a radical!” He is. Like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and the rest of the most pro-liberty founders of the United States, Ron Paul is a radical liberal (in the true sense of the word “liberal”). He is also an extremist, in the true sense of that word. He refuses to compromise his principles regardless of the political consequences.

Average Americans elect Republicans because they believe that Republicans will give them small government, low taxes, and economic freedom. They are mistaken. What they are yearning for has nothing to do with the Republican Party or the more general ideology called “conservatism.” What they really want is radical change. They demonstrated this in giving Ron Paul a victory in the CPAC straw poll. They also proved once again that they are wiser than the political class in Washington. At this critical juncture in American history, there is only one thing that can bring America back from the brink of social, economic, and political collapse: radical, anti-conservative change from leviathan government to extreme liberty.

Source(s): ¹Thomas Dilorenzo’s books, Hamilton’s Curse and The Real Lincoln document the true roots and history of American conservatism superbly.

Tom Mullen -Independent Policy Analyst, Freelance Writer, and Business Consultant

Tom Mullen is a writer, musician, and business consultant. In January 2009, he published his first book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. Tom was the opening speaker at the Revolution March in Washington, D.C. on July 12, 2008. The event was attended by over 10,000 supporters and included Thomas E. Woods, Jr., G. Edward Griffin, Naomi Wolf, and presidential candidate Ron Paul. In 2007, Tom released his first solo CD, A Glimpse of the Ether, containing 13 original compositions. Tom’s style has been described as “Powerpop with a hint of modern rock,” although there are a wide variety of styles represented in his music. During the 1990’s, he was lead singer, guitarist, and principle songwriter for The Skeptics, an alternative powerpop band that played for audiences all over the U.S., including opening shows for national acts The Tubes and 10,000 Maniacs. Tom has appeared twice on A.M. Buffalo with The Skeptics, and was also featured on Buffalo’s local music television broadcast, Nickel City Scene. Tom is originally a native of Buffalo, NY and graduate of Canisius College. He earned a Master’s Degree in English from State University of New York College at Buffalo. He now resides with his family in Tampa, FL. For more information, visit Tom’s website at www.tommullen.net.

Wire Report

Sheldon Richman, Editor “The Freeman”

Sheldon Richman is editor of The Freeman, published by The Foundation for Economic Education in Irvington, New York, and serves as senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation. He is the author of FFF’s award-winning book Separating School & State: How to Liberate America’s Families; Your Money or Your Life: Why We Must Abolish the Income Tax; and FFF’s newest book Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State. Calling for the abolition, not the reform, of public schooling. Separating School & State has become a landmark book in both libertarian and educational circles. In his column in the Financial Times, Michael Prowse wrote: “I recommend a subversive tract, Separating School & State by Sheldon Richman of the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank… . I also think that Mr. Richman is right to fear that state education undermines personal responsibility…” Mr. Richman’s articles on population, federal disaster assistance, international trade, education, the environment, American history, foreign policy, privacy, computers, and the Middle East have appeared in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, American Scholar, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, Washington Times, Insight, Cato Policy Report, Journal of Economic Development, The Freeman, The World & I, Reason, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Middle East Policy, Liberty magazine, and other publications. He is a contributor to the Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics. A former newspaper reporter and former senior editor at the Cato Institute, Mr. Richman is a graduate of Temple University in Philadelphia.

WIRE (FFF) – Last week’s Supreme Court ruling striking down the ban on corporate and union spending at election time is both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, removing a legal barrier to free speech is always a good thing in itself. Government shouldn’t dictate who can speak or from where people may get their information. This is more than a matter of abstract freedom; it’s also a practical matter. More contentiousness in politics is better than less. Free-wheeling debate is more likely to produce good outcomes than a controlled flow of information.

But there is a downside to the ruling that we should freely acknowledge. If history and recent times are any indication, big corporations and unions will use their new freedom of political speech to promote bad ideas. By “bad ideas” I mean proposals for more government interference with our lives and liberty. (Not that the spending ban kept them from doing that in other ways.)

It’s a great myth that businesses, especially big prominent corporations, want less government intervention in the economy. On the contrary, they love government power because it provides things they can’t achieve in a freely competitive marketplace where force and fraud are barred. Corporations support and lobby for interventions that benefit themselves by hampering their competitors, both foreign and domestic. You often find companies asking for tariffs and other restrictions on imports that compete too effectively with their products. Agribusinesses welcome government (taxpayer) help in selling their products abroad; they also love subsidies, price supports, and acreage allotments.

Businesses, despite public impression, routinely support regulations imposing product standards and other requirements. Why? Burdens from government rules don’t fall uniformly on all firms. Major corporations with big legal and accounting departments can handle regulations far more easily than small firms can — or one that is still only a gleam in the eye of an aspiring entrepreneur. Moreover, when government dictates product standards, say in the name of safety, it removes that factor from the competitive arena, giving companies less incentive to outdo their competitors along that dimension. This means fewer threats to the market share of incumbent firms and less chance for new challengers to make headway. It also means inferior and more expensive goods for consumers.

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 01/21/2010 Slip Ruling PDF 2.56Mb

In American history big companies were behind virtually ever advancement of the regulatory state. Things are no different today — even under Barack Obama. It’s easy to be fooled by appearances. Banks may balk at a new regulation, but only because they prefer their government privileges with as few restrictions as possible. Major corporations lobby for new controls on and subsidies to energy production not out of concern for the environment, but because they stand to gain profits. The government is literally seen as a tool for enhancing their investments. Instead of decisions being made by entrepreneurs trying to anticipate what consumers will want, they are made on the basis of cronyism and other political considerations.

Often big companies and unions are on the same side of regulatory issues, as when the heads of Walmart and the Service Employees International Union stood shoulder to shoulder to support Obamacare. But even when they disagree, it is usually over how government should manipulate the economic system. The debate is never between regulation and hands-off.

Admittedly this is not the way the story is usually told. Business is thought to favor deregulation, while progressive forces favor enlightened government guidance. But in fact, big business (and a lot of small business too) would panic at the thought of thorough laissez faire — the end to all guarantees. The books of conservative writer Timothy Carney fully document this. Others have an interest in portraying business as pro–free markets because without the charade the public might catch on to the scam.

So here’s the dilemma: limits on free political speech for corporations and unions offend our sense of justice, but they will use free speech to pursue unjust ends. What shall we do?

There is only one answer. We must strip government of the power to dispense privileges to anyone. If we can pull that off, the problem of money in politics will evaporate.

© 2001-2009 The Future of Freedom Foundation. All rights reserved.

Wire Report

(S4S) WESTON, CONNECTICUT – Today, Weston Republican Peter Schiff formally announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate. Over the past few months, Mr. Schiff, a successful entrepreneur and well-known proponent of fiscal responsibility, has been inspired by his fellow citizens urging him to bring his principled approach to Congress. As he enters this campaign, Mr. Schiff’s priority is to serve the American taxpayer. Years of reckless federal spending have placed an immense burden on every American that Mr. Schiff vows to ease.

Peter Schiff was born to a working-class family in New Haven, Connecticut. His grandfather came to New Haven in 1910 and helped with the construction of the Yale Bowl. Mr. Schiff spent his childhood in New Haven during the 60s and 70s during which values were instilled in him by his family such as hard work, self-reliance, and loyalty-loyalty to friends, to family, and to country. After successfully building his brokerage firm, Euro Pacific Capital, in California, Mr. Schiff decided to relocate the headquarters to Connecticut in 2003. He currently resides in Weston with his seven year old son. Since returning to Connecticut Mr. Schiff has published two books: Crash Proof and The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets.

Mr. Schiff gained notoriety in 2006 with a series of national interviews in which he accurately diagnosed the dangers that confronted the economy and predicted the mechanisms that led to the crash. His correct prognosis of the sub-prime lending crisis and subsequent credit crunch made him a popular economic commentator. Ever since, he has tirelessly sounded these warnings.

In January of 2009, with the near-collapse of the financial system and revelations about the corruption of Connecticut politicians, calls began to surface for Mr. Schiff to run for office. An exploratory committee was formed in June.

To date, 10,000 individuals have convinced him to run for Senate with telephone calls and letters of support; additionally, they have raised over $1,000,000 on his behalf. Schiff now believes a run for the Senate is absolutely necessary to give a voice to the majority of Connecticut taxpayers who are misrepresented.

“I plan to bring my dedication and experience to the taxpayers of Connecticut. I may make mistakes in this campaign—but I will not make mistakes in representing you in the Senate. I look forward to an exciting race where I can share my vision with the people of Connecticut.”

Peter Schiff
Senate Candidate
September 17th, 2009

On the Web: SchiffForSenate.com • FixedNews Channel

Jeff Lewis

I have been observing the Iranian election and subsequent eruption of events occurring there for the past week. Several astonishing things are happening on the world stage, currently centered in Tehran, the most significant of which is the world’s first, “Cyber Revolution”, a term I first saw coined on CNN’s coverage. At the initial outbreak of massive voter dissent on Sunday, the ruling theocracy of Iran wasted no time in shutting down all of the traditional media outlets, rounded up all the foreign press and media agents, unplugged and jammed as many venues to cyberspace as they could, but the world’s front row seat is still being viewed on every TV screen and monitor on the planet. The mullahs are not up to speed with the technology network that has proliferated throughout the globe and are learning that “mass media control” is a thing of the past.

Huge crowds assemble on short notice throughout Tehran and remain several steps ahead of Iran’s considerable domestic security apparatus. The demonstrators of Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989 did not have the technical high ground that their protesting counter parts have in Tehran. It remains to be seen, as of this writing, if Iranian security legions can corral and subdue the hundreds of thousands who are outraged at the voting sham that recently occurred in their country.

The ruling theocracy of Iran made a serious miscalculation in rigging this election. They obviously determined all they needed to do was give the appearance of electoral transparency. They permitted large partisan public candidate rallies, accompanied by a nationally televised debate to the voters and world stage. They also encouraged a large Election Day turnout, and then announce their predetermined choice of the victor in the election and hoped everybody would return to their own affairs and daily business. They are now reaping the whirlwind of an entire culture, intoxicated with the notion that their vote actually meant something.

How utterly foolish this theocratic regime has been. They announced, prior to Election Day in anticipation of a huge voter turnout, that they had 55 million paper ballots printed. The reported turnout was around 35 million with Ahmadinejad garnering 22 million and his nearest opponent, Mir-Hossein Moussavi, with 13 million. These results were announced within three hours of the polls closing, according to Richard Engle, veteran Middle East reporter for NBC. Three hours to tabulate 35 million paper ballot votes is preposterous by any previous standard known to mankind! What idiots these rulers must think of the people.

What kind of precedent did they think they were setting for a country of 78 million people, two thirds of whom are under 30 years old and were not alive when the last revolution took place 30 years previously? This youthful population segment is well educated and acculturated to Western customs and politics, as a result of their interaction via cyberspace since they began substantive cognition. In their reporting of election results they said that Ahmadinejad defeated Moussavi by almost two to one in his hometown, which would be like reporting McCain defeated Obama in Chicago by that margin.

For their part, Republicans have wasted no time in advocating a “get tough” approach to Iran. An approach that has been bereft of any positive results with Iran, to date, along with other disastrous Middle East policy initiatives of theirs. Instead, President Obama has adopted a posture of keeping his powder dry until the smoke clears; at least. Today, the Guardian Council of Iran has announced it will review allegations of any voting infractions and irregularities. My bet is they may determine the vote margin was not as great as first reported, but there will be no new election or recounts that would jeopardize their predetermined choice of the winner.

The situation in Iran represents the first great clash of a pre-cyberspace authoritarian leadership style and the youthful disciples of emerging technology’s informational applications to international politics and governance. The prophetic theme in Marshall McLuhan’s, “Medium Is the Massage”, of 1967, where he predicted the inexorable emergence of the, “Global Village,” is manifest in this current struggle. Stay tuned.

Kelly

Representative Ron Paul (Texas-R) addresses  Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake in regards to the definition of inflation, while asking Bernake if he could in fact be wrong about applying failed Keynesian concepts as solutions to the current economic crisis.

February 25, 2009

Allison Bricker

NOTE: This is the third part in a 4 part series. Your questions and commentary are both welcomed and appreciated.

• Part 1 – How to Save the Republic
• Part 2 – Abolish the Income Tax
• Part 3 – Repeal the Direct Election of Senators
• Part 4 – Similarities Between the Great Depression and Our Current Crisis

We must understand that the Central Bankers who sought to regain control over our money supply and monetary policy at the beginning of the 20th century did indeed learn a precious lesson from the demise of the 2nd Central Bank of the United States…

From 1832 to 1834 the battle known as “The Bank War”¹ raged in Congress regarding whether or not to extend the charter of the 2nd Central Bank. By this time, President Andrew Jackson finally had found a Secretary of the Treasury who agreed to remove the Federal government’s deposits from the central bank and instead deposit them into various state banks.

Furious over President Jackson’s attempt at reducing the influence of the central bank, Nicolas Biddle, Bank President penned a letter to William Appleton² threatening to send the country into an economic depression by contracting the money supply. In his letter he stated:

Biddle’s plan worked, inflation soared, unemployment became rampant, an unprecedented number of businesses unable to repay loans went into bankruptcy, and President Jackson became the first President in our history to be censured by the Senate³. Unfortunately for Mr. Biddle, his arrogance regarding his ability to cause an economic collapse allowed his ego to get the best of him. He continued boasting, now publicly that relief would only come if Congress renewed the bank’s charter. When Pennsylvania Governor George Wolf, a previous supporter of the central bank was made aware of the bank President’s sentiments, he immediately came out against extension or renewal of the bank’s charter.⁴

Further, the Pennsylvania state Senate legislatively denounced the Central Bank directing both of Pennsylvania’s, Federal Senators, Samuel McKean and William Wilkins, also previous supporters of the central bank, to vote against rechartering or extension of the 2nd National Bank.

Thus since Pennsylvania demanded its Senators vote against re-authorization of the 2nd Central Bank, both Senators McKean and Wilkins had no choice but to follow their state’s mandate or risk being recalled and replaced by the Pennsylvania legislature. With Pennsylvania, the home state of the 2nd Central Bank, coming out against renewal, Biddle and his bank were lost. The bank’s charter was not renewed and it reverted to a private state bank, ultimately collapsing under its own insolvency.

While Nicholas Biddle was able to bribe many individual members of Congress into supporting the 2nd Central Bank, neither the time nor resources could be made available to bribe all of the state Governors and legislatures, which held the leash over Senators to the upper house of Congress.

Seeing this as a possible stumbling block, those involved with crafting the 3rd Central Bank or FEDERAL RESERVE, sought to wholly prevent this check and balance on Federal Authority. The opportunity finally presented itself to sever this connection of Senators to their states during what came to be known as the “Progressive Movement”⁵, 1901 to 1917. It was an era where “Direct Democracy” was touted as a way to put the average person in charge of their government. Progressive shills railed against vacancies in the Senate as proof that the system of state legislative appointments was untenable. They also decried that political party “bosses” had too much sway over the ruling faction within a state legislature.

However, a 2006 analysis of “progressive era reforms” by Raffaela Wakeman from M.I.T. contradicts this “progressive” hyperbole stating:

…supposed [progressive era] anti-party reform actually made it easier for the two major parties to control the election of U.S. Senators.⁶

Morever, prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment and unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate was not a body of career politicians, with most Senators serving anywhere from 4 to 10 years. However, after direct election, Senators began to serve almost in perpetuity; with many serving 30+ years before retiring.

Additionally, the claim that massive deadlocks permeated state legislatures, thereby preventing effective representation is factually incorrect. The historical record indicates that between 1871 to 1913 only 13 deadlocks existed, with 12 of the 13 coming in the 1890′s. Yet another accusation made by “progressives” was that the Senate was a corrupt body purchased by business tycoons, robber barons, and industrialists. This “progressive era” claim also falls flat again as data available in the historical record, shows that prior to 1913 candidates for Senate had the rare hundred thousand Dollar expenditure. However, once popular elections commenced, the cost of a Senate seat exploded to well over $5 Million Dollars by the 1990′s.⁷

Nevertheless, the greatest damage from the direct election of Senators is that in destroying the last vestige of Federalism, it allows for unchecked Federal expansion of power while simultaneously chaining Senators to popular sentiment and thus making them easily corrupted by their reliance on necessary campaign contributions. Moreover, with no threat of recall by the states, it centralizes political authority wholly in Washington, making it even easier to exact a corrupting influence over all of Congress without having to corrupt numerous state legislators and Governors.

Looking even further into the historical record we see that even with the passage of the 17th Amendment, every single legislatively appointed Senator won re-election by popular vote, seriously calling into question the necessity of this so called “progressive reform”.⁷

Thus, with the limitless spigot of revenue to Washington secured by the
16th Amendment ( February 3rd, 1913) and the subservience of Senators via the 17th Amendment (April 8th, 1913), the central bankers now had within their grasp all that was necessary to finally resurrect the Bank of the United States.

Representative Lindbergh’s mentioning of the “Money Trust” was a reference to the “Pujo Committee”, conducted from May 16, 1912 to February 26, 1913. The committee concluded that a conspiracy to control the money supply and amass wealth did in fact exist, stating:

“An established and well-defined identity and community of interest between a few leaders of finance which has been created and is held together through stock holdings, interlocking directorates, and other forms of domination over banks, trust companies, railroads, public service and industrial corporations, and which resulted in a vast and growing concentration of control of money and credit in the hands of a comparatively few men….”⁸

The entire report from the “Pujo Committee” which substantiates the existence of a conspiracy of bankers is available for download from the “FEDERAL RESERVE Archival System for Economic Research, -FRASER” in 32 separate PDF files.

Regardless of the committee’s findings, on December 23rd, 1913 “The FEDERAL RESERVE ACT” passed both the House and Senate and was thus signed into law by then President Wilson⁹. Within six years and with the Senate now subservient to contributions from lobbyists, financiers, and special interests, Congress became intoxicated with their new endless stream of “money”. The budget ballooned from $714 Million in 1913, to $5.13 Billion by 1919. Whereby the national debt during the first 124 years of the Republic, totaled $910 Million, it skyrocketed up to $24.1 Billion by 1919. An increase of $23.2 Billion in just 6 years.¹⁰

If the Republic is to be saved, the Senate must be restored to its Constitutional position and foundation upon Federalism. While it is my estimation that many “progressives” were of good and genuine intent to see government reformed and corruption eradicated, their movement was merely co-opted by those who sought a total centralization of power unto themselves for purely selfish desires, not to the benefit of “We the People”.

Source(s): ¹Jacksonian America by Edward Pessen 1920 • ²The Second Bank of the United States By Ralph Charles Henry Catterall -1902, pg 330 • ³ United States Senate, “Senate Censures President” • ⁴ The Second Bank of the United States By Ralph Charles Henry Catterall -1902, pg 339 • ⁵Progressive Era Reforms – Regents U.S. Histiory • ⁶ United States Senate Elections before 1914 by Raffaela Wakeman, M.I.T. • ⁷ “Democratizing the Constitution:The Failure of the Seventeenth Amendment” by C. H. Hoebeke* From HUMANITAS, Volume IX, No. 2, 1996 • ⁸ Report of the Committee Appointed Pursuant to House Resolutions 429 and 504 to Investigate the Concentration of Control of Money and Credit. February 28, 1913. Pages 1-258. • ⁹ New York Times “Affixes His Signature at 6:02P.M., Using Four Gold Pens” – December 24th, 1913 • ¹⁰ HISTORICAL TABLES – BUDGET OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT – Office of Management and Budget 2005

Kelly

With the transition process from George W, Bush to Barack Obama already in high gear, liberals everywhere are filled with a tenacious hope that this moment in time is the beginning of a new era, a new dawn. If you voted for Barack Obama, then greatness is upon us, or in the very least, the need to believe that greatness is upon us is still fresh in the hearts of the Obama supporters. I cannot blame them. When people so fervently believe in something as broadly defined as ‘change’, and then put a man at the forefront of responsibility to create that ‘change’, it becomes increasingly difficult to be critical of their well-oiled, well-groomed, hypnotic leader; in much the same way that Christians are not particularly inclined to be critical of their leaders or beliefs.

Barack Obama has become a brand name, packaged and sold to the masses. There were promises made, like so many before, of a better, more efficient government that would end ‘politics as usual.’ The leading product, ‘Change,’ sold because we were told that we ‘could believe in it.’ Though, there is little doubt that the Bush Administration laid the groundwork, brick by brick, for change to become the word so desperately sought. It seems the time was never more ripe, the stars never so well aligned.

The Bush Administration led an invasion of Iraq with promises of “cake-walk” that quickly went from ridding America of the threat known as WMD’s to a war campaign based on Iraqi freedom and the deliverance of democracy to the Middle-East. And lest we forget the atrocities that followed; numerous Executive Orders, the warrant-less searches and wire-tapping (only to be feared if you’re not doing anything wrong), the private security forces of Blackwater, Walter Reed Hospital, Katrina, FEMA, Guantanamo, water-boarding, Attorney General Gonzales, and the more recent mess on Wall Street- the Bailout. ‘Tis no wonder Barack Obama is now our President-Elect.

The so-called value-voters were outnumbered this November 4th, at least as it pertains to the Presidential election, since the moral high ground seems to have gained something in all of this as the gays went from wedge issue to bargaining chip (California, Florida, Arizona, and Arkansas.)

In 2004, moral values outnumbered the Iraq war as Americans stood at the ballot box. In 2008, it was ‘the economy, stupid.’ Focus on the Family was won out by Focus on the Globe, as President Elect Obama is promising to change the world (Civilian National Security Force, anyone?) Though, I suppose it’s fair to say that every administration has changed the world in one form or another, whether it has been for better or worse is completely subjective.

Clearly, eight years under neo-conservatism was enough. But, where will we go from here? The American citizens were seeking change, and with good reason. But, is another stimulus check the only thing on the minds of a shrinking and sinking middle class? If so, then one could only conclude that the ‘hope’ that backed the 2008 election is an empty idea at best and by this time next year ‘hope’ will surely return to the apathy from whence it came. Or, are the Obama-ites truly enticed by the farce of a luscious utopia, sprouting with entitlement and more government powers, sprinkled with redistribution of wealth and the consequential loss of liberties? I’m afraid that too many believe that they can have their cake and eat it too, but one can hope that a return to apathy is just around the bend.

Joseph Marohl

Yep, hearing that Obama had definitely won the day on Election Tuesday, I teared up. Couldn’t help myself. Really. I saw the magic number, 270 electoral votes, had been reached, and the waterworks just sprang.

The vote appeared momentous, not just because on some level it can be taken to symbolize a triumph over centuries of bigotry and injustice in this nation, but also because it promises to reconcile America with the world.

Everybody’s tearing up.

YouTube will soon have to offer tissues for every deeply moved celebrity or wannabe celebrity posting footage of going verklempt when or shortly after he or she first heard the happy news.

The extra-sensitive may even take their show on the road—finding moments in any conversation during the next few days to recall the moment they heard the announcement and go misty-eyed all over again—or, failing in that, simply and reverently affirm that they, too, like Colin Powell, wept—or very nearly almost wept—when they heard that Obama will be our next President.

These are moving times—and the prevailing gauge to validate our choices, our votes, our sincerity, is our feelings. America has elected somebody named Barack Obama as President, somebody a shade or two darker than the previous 43 US Presidents, somebody who can pronounce the word “nuclear” correctly.

A friend who stayed up late that night to watch Obama’s acceptance speech complained, but ever so reticently, that she was disappointed at how “cold” the President Elect appeared. He must have been very tired after months (years!) of campaigning, she offered by way of explanation. Still, she said, he had looked a lot more “kindly” before he won. Perhaps it was dawning on him what a load of shit he was inheriting from the previous administrations.

I’m reading today of gay activists who are tearing up, too. Tears tinged with a hint of hurt and betrayal, even anger, mixed with their pride in a new America capable of rising above the issues of race. Gay activists who worked hard to elect Obama but found their own causes, same-sex marriage and adoption rights, slapped down in four states—and by the same good people, black and white churchgoers, who voted against bigotry to elect Barack Obama.

Dan Savage wrote in his blog on Wednesday:

“African American voters in California voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8, writing anti-gay discrimination into California’s constitution and banning same-sex marriage in that state. Seventy percent of African American voters approved Prop 8, according to exit polls, compared to 53% of Latino voters, 49% of white voters, 49% of Asian voters.

“I’m not sure what to do with this. I’m thrilled that we’ve just elected our first African-American president. I wept last night. I wept reading the papers this morning. But I can’t help but feeling hurt that the love and support aren’t mutual.

“I do know this, though: I’m done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there—and they’re out there, and I think they’re scum—are a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color.” (1)

The issue, of course, is not so much race as it is fear, ignorance, and hatefulness, which know no racial boundaries, but often find sanctuary among the righteously monotheistic. And, of course, black homophobia poses the biggest problem for black gay men and lesbians.

My previously mentioned friend tried to reason with me over my own disappointment over the failure of Obama supporters to care about the civil rights of homosexual men and women, saying that justice needed to arrive first for the blacks, the women, the Hispanics, etc., before it could trickle down to the queers (not her word choice, of course)—out of respect to the chronology of historical injustices.

But I disagree. In 1624, just five years after the first slave ship arrived at Jamestown, Virginia, the first American sodomite, Richard Cornish, was executed, also in Jamestown (2). And nearly a 100 years earlier, in 1530, further south in Panama, Balboa fed 41 native-American sodomites to his dogs, “a fine action of an honorable and Catholic Spaniard,” so wrote a contemporary, Antonio de la Colancha (3). Even if we take a number according to history, as we stand in line waiting for social and political justice, gay rights should be at the forefront of the struggle for civil rights for all.

So while I too feel swept away by my emotions this week—not least of all because we are still stuck with 76 more days of George W. Bush—it’s imperative that we regain our clear and unclouded eyes to face the issues the country yet faces—wars, a tanked economy, crumbling infrastructure, greed, cynicism, and, yes, bigotry against homosexuals.

Obama’s election is not, after all, a happy Hollywood ending—it is the beginning of something, something that I hope will contain moments of glory and triumph, while inevitably burdened by a great deal of cultural warfare, moral equivocation, and, dare I say it, politics as usual.

***

(1) Savage, Dan. “Black Homophobia.” Slog 5 Nov. 2008. http://slog.thestranger.com

(2) Goodheart, Adam. “The Ghosts of Jamestown.” New York Times 3 July 2003.

(3) Qtd. in Williams, Walter L. The Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity in American Indian Culture. Boston: Beacon, 1992. Pg. 137.

Joseph Marohl

Me, I’m elated by Barack Obama’s win. I wasn’t one to be dazzled by every aspect of the man’s style and certainly not all his stances, but in the last months I came to feel he has the makings to be the best President this country has ever seen—and the nadir George Bush reached in the last eight years makes Obama’s promise shine all the brighter.

The Bush Administration have brought the country low—bankrupt, globally despised, torn between two wars, baselessly arrogant, fearful (no, terrorized … and by its own government!), stripped of essential civil liberties, and contemptuous of the poor, the aged, and the ill.

Whether I’m right or wrong about Obama right now, he needs to be great just to offset the mess we’re all in. More to the point, it is the American people, as a whole, who need to exhibit greatness, for no elected official, however novel or charismatic, can do the work of rebuilding the nation’s character.

My hopes, such as they are, are wrapped on the new President’s being everything I think he can be.

Still, for me, though, the great disappointment—in the midst of my current high—is that California appears to have passed Proposition 8, negating the court’s decision earlier this year permitting lesbians and gay men to marry whom they please. Arizona and Florida have passed similar measures, either banning or reinforcing an existing law banning same-sex marriage. Arkansas voters decided to ban gays from being able to adopt children.

As speaker after speaker recalls Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream at what one hopes can be the dawn of a better America this morning, we must face the truth that electing a mixed-race President is a gigantic step forward, indeed, but pushing others back down at the same moment reveals that America has yet preserved its ugly side—in its homophobia and religious fear and bigotry.

Joseph Marohl

CNN.com reports that damp ballots due to rainy weather today caused problems in key swing states like Virginia and my own state, North Carolina. In Cleveland, Ohio, another key state, the ballots didn’t include the part for voting for a President. Three precincts in Missouri received the wrong registration lists this morning. Robocalls and e-mails told voters in Texas, Missouri, Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas to vote tomorrow—a repeat of the tactic Republicans used in the last two or three elections to trick black voters, generally assumed to vote Democratic. Lines were 375 voters long in Atlanta today (1).

Who wants to stand in line for ten hours to vote? By all definitions, the American voting machine has declined to third-world standards.

I may not be able to trust my memory on this, but I don’t remember national elections having so many fuck-ups 30, 20, even 10 years ago. Sure, I heard reports of “fixed” elections and “stuffed” ballot boxes, but nothing like the routine travesty voting has been since 2000.

It’s not as if voting is a brand new institution here. We Americans should be old pros at this by now. The 2005 legislative elections in Iraq ran more smoothly than today’s elections in the USA.

A colleague at work blames the fact that elections depend too much on volunteerism to manage the voting process. “Amateur hour,” he calls it, shaking his head in disbelief. This is not the Special Olympics, folks; it’s American democracy. Surely, the states can round up enough dough somehow to improve their voting procedures and infrastructure—perhaps by selling World’s Finest Chocolate bars door to door or something.

Attempts to interfere with American citizens’ right to vote—through political dirty tricks, or brain-numbed hooliganism, or simple finger-in-the-nose incompetence—should be branded as treasonous and prosecuted accordingly.

Isn’t voting the lynchpin of democracy? If it is, what does it says about 21st-century Americans that we are so bad at it now?

American public officials, elected or not, who can’t manage the relatively simple matter of ensuring every registered voter’s right to vote on election day every two years cannot be trusted to balance the economy, to protect our borders, to maintain public roads and highways, or to ensure our other civil rights as citizens.

I shouldn’t have to look at the purple thumbs of Iraqi voters with envy, people.

I don’t for a second buy officials’ excuses that they have been “surprised” by the large voter turnout this year. Please. If McDonald’s can serve over 47 million customers every goddamned day, with minimal glitches, the states should be able to prepare themselves for whatever numbers of voters show up once every four years to elect a President.

Failure to operate an efficient, just, and equitable election process is tantamount to proof that a state’s bureaucrats are not competent enough to keep their jobs. Fire the nincompoops. Period.

***

“Scattered Problems Reported in Historic U.S. Vote.” 4 Nov. 2008. CNN.com.

“FAQs.” McDonald’s Canada. http://www.mcdonalds.ca/en/aboutus/faq.aspx.