Wire Report

(Wire/FFF) – It may be possible to look into America’s future. How? Watch what’s going on in Greece. According to the Washington Post, “Greece needs to raise about €23 billion [more than $31 billion] in April and May to pay debts coming due. Greek officials say that either is impossible, or would require punitive interest rates — making it harder to bring the budget under control — unless Europe helps out.” So the Greek government awaits a bailout from Germany and France, but first it has to impress them that it is serious about fiscal austerity.

The Greek welfare state’s annual deficit is about 13 percent of its GDP and its accumulated debt is 113 percent of GDP. Meanwhile, the U.S. government’s overall debt is now on track to reach 90 percent of GDP by 2020, more than $20 trillion¹. Just last week the Congressional Budget Office said that over the next decade, the annual budget deficit will be $1.2 trillion more than the Obama administration has guessed. The ten-year figure is now projected to be $9.76 trillion. The annual deficit is about 10 percent of GDP.

Government spending is rising — and the new entitlement called health-care “reform” hasn’t passed yet. That’ll be good for a couple of trillion over the next decade.

CBO  estimates, GDP will reach 90% by 2020

The economic consequences of all that are likely to be dire. As the government tries to borrow more money, both to finance its programs and to pay the old debt that’s coming due, it will have to promise a better return to nervous lenders, such as China. But raising the interest rate will push other borrowers’ rates up, which in turn will put a damper on economic activity. Unemployment will grow and revenues will shrink, but entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, will keep growing. They already face tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities and are heading toward bankruptcy. Military spending will also increase, along with most other government spending.

What will the politicians do when they find interest payments swallowing the budget, leaving them less and less money to shower on political supporters? They might resort to higher taxes, which would further dampen economic activity. They might get the Federal Reserve to monetize the debt through inflation; but that would wreak economic havoc. Politicians aren’t likely to cut spending because it would jeopardize their careers. At that point, the government might default on its debts, a step that has much to recommend it.

Thus, the welfare state is a fiscal failure.

The welfare state has long been presented as the viable “third way,” a happy medium between laissez faire — full separation of state and economy — and state socialism — government control of the economy. Advocates of individual liberty have emphasized that the welfare state violates freedom because government takes wealth from those who produce it and transfers it to favored groups. Defenders have responded that the welfare state embodies compassion: people with means give to those less fortunate. But forced transfers through government are not true compassion. A virtue like compassion requires free choice, but government gives you no choice. So the compassion of the welfare state is counterfeit. It’s more about distributing goodies at others’ expense to win votes for politicians.

Historically compassion had little to do with government programs for the poor and social insurance for the working and middle classes. Beginning as far back as Queen Elizabeth I poor laws were intended to control people who were potential sources of social strife; and social insurance beginning in Bismarck’s German welfare state was calculated to make working people dependent on the government. In both cases the free society was subdued for the sake of those in power.

Now it is clearer than ever that the welfare state is not only morally flawed, it is also fiscally unsustainable. Politicians will always have an incentive to spend, while hiding the costs or pushing them onto future generations through debt. But reality doesn’t go away. It comes back to bite in unexpected ways.

We’re seeing it in Greece today. Tomorrow it will be other European welfare states. Then, if nothing changes, it will be America’s turn.

© 2001-2010 The Future of Freedom Foundation. All rights reserved.

Source(s): ¹Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook, January 2010 •

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.

The Smoking Argus

Weekly Address: President Obama to Send Updated Elementary and Secondary Education Act Blueprint To Congress on Monday

THE WHITE HOUSE/WASHINGTON D.C. – In his weekly address, President Barack Obama announced that on Monday, his administration will send to Congress the blueprint for an updated Elementary and Secondary Education Act that will overhaul No Child Left Behind. The plan will set the ambitious goal of ensuring that all students graduate from high school prepared for college and a career, and it will provide states, districts and schools with the flexibility and resources to reach that goal. [FULL TRANSCRIPT]

—END OFFICIAL STATEMENT—

Related Material(s)
	President Obama Weekly Address: Government Education is the Solution TRANSCRIPT (PDF 44.3KB)

Source(s): The White House • White House YouTube Channel

Wire Report

Census Data Not So Confidential After All -

(WIRE/IndInst) – The current $350 million ad campaign for the 2010 Census, including the much-maligned $2.5 million Super Bowl spots, urges individuals to “Tell your story.” The Census Bureau is particularly eager for minorities and illegal immigrants to do so, as they are traditionally believed to be the most undercounted.

Yet widespread non-compliance, especially among those most likely to be discriminated against by a majority, may not be rooted strictly in the “ignorance” the ads are designed to overcome. History—including very recent history—shows that the information provided to the Census can be used against you.

The most recent examples occurred in 2002 and 2003, when the Census Bureau turned over information it had collected about Arab-Americans to Homeland Security.¹

Data from the 1940 Census was used to intern Japanese, Italian, and German Americans following the U.S.’s entry into the war, and to monitor and persecute others who escaped internment². In addition to providing geographic information to the War Department, the Census Bureau released the name, address, age, sex, citizenship status and occupation of Japanese Americans in the Washington, D.C., area to the Treasury Department in response to an unspecified threat against President Franklin Roosevelt in 1943.³

There may well be other instances of such data sharing of which we remain unaware, as the full scope of the personal information released during World War II has only recently been brought to light.

Thus, while the Census Bureau assures us that “your confidentiality is protected. Title 13 requires the Census Bureau to keep all information about you and all other respondents strictly confidential,” these exceptions negate such assurances. Of course, the release of the “strictly confidential” data was also perfectly legal: during World War II, under the terms of the Second War Powers Act, and more recently, under the terms of the USA PATRIOT Act, now extended by the Obama administration.

In preparation for this year’s census, 140,000 workers were hired to collect GPS readings for every front door in the nation. Such pinpoint precision will certainly simplify the process of locating any individual or group that may be identified as a threat to “national security” in the future. Remember, for example, the 1976 Senate Report⁴ in which 26,000 Americans were slated for roundup by the FBI in the event of a national emergency at the height of the Cold War. Now that the U.S. Government’s Terrorist Watchlist has exceeded one million, the GPS data acquired could be instrumental in accomplishing such a roundup.

Meanwhile, the data is also shared a little more broadly than advertised. Stanford University recently joined UC Berkeley, Duke, the University of Michigan, UCLA, and others in having its very own census data center. As the director of the new center explained, “The Census Bureau is very interested in making the centers more accessible to scholars who can use the data they provide.”

As Henry Brady, dean of the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley and principal investigator for the California Census Research Data Centers helpfully added: “We’re trying to make centers where lots of federal agencies will let us use their data.”

While reassurances are repeated that the data is held under the strictest security, and will only be used for innocuous projects like “government programs and solutions to our problems,” do we really want academics to social engineer policy solutions based on sensitive personal data? After all, they may turn out to be no more desirable than the “solutions” provided by government programs like internment and renditioning. Without the protections afforded by a right to privacy, there’s little chance of escaping a political will to enforce discriminatory policies.

This “mission creep” for the Census thus pushes up against a level of discomfort no amount of advertising dollars can likely assuage. Many will no doubt choose to follow former Senate majority leader Trent Lott’s advice to skip any Census questions they feel violates their privacy—which may well include any exceeding the Constitution’s mandate for an “actual Enumeration.” Unfortunately, choosing privacy now costs more: legislation recently passed raises the fine for “anyone over 18 years old who refuses or willfully neglects to complete the questionnaire or answer questions posed by census takers” from a limit of $100 to $5,000—a fact not advertised even in the small print.

Source(s): ¹The New York Times “Homeland Security Given Data on Arab-Americans” By LYNETTE CLEMETSON, Published: July 30, 2004 • ² New York Times “Census blamed in internment of Japanese” By STEVEN A. HOLMES – Friday, March 17, 2000 • ³Scientific American “Confirmed: The U.S. Census Bureau Gave Up Names of Japanese-Americans in WW II” By JR Minkel March 30, 2007 • ⁴Church Report Book II INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AND THE RIGHTS OF AMERICANS – April 1976

© 2010 The Independent Institute

Mary L.G. Theroux, Senior Vice President, The Independent Institute

Mary L. G. Theroux is Senior Vice President of The Independent Institute. Having received her A.B. in economics from Stanford University, Ms. Theroux is Managing Director of Lightning Ventures, L.P., a San Francisco Bay Area investment firm, and Vice President of the C.S. Lewis Society of California. She is former Chairman of the Advisory Board for the Salvation Army of San Francisco, and is on the National and San Francisco Advisory Boards of The Salvation Army. Having been a director of nine corporations and three foundations, she was also Chairman of Garvey International, Inc., and Co-founder and President of San Francisco Grocery Express. Articles on Ms. Theroux have appeared in Business Week, Forbes, Savvy, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and other publications.

Allison Bricker

WASHINGTON D.C. – The man once held as a P.O.W. and tortured after his A4E-SKYHAWK jet was shot down during the Vietnam War has authored a bill entitled, “S.3081 – Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010” which thus far has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill outlines the process by which Americans may be held indefinitely, without notice of their Miranda Rights, and without ever being charged with a crime. Worse detainment of an individual according to the legislation is authorized by mere suspicion that the individual did or seeks to harm any asset of the United States government or any civilian target.

Even more disappointing, the bill introduced last Thursday, March 4 already has 9 co-sponsors, including the supposed “Tea Party” candidate Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts.

Calls made by this blogger to Senator McCain’s press office for comment regarding the Senators’ bill entitled “S. 3081__ ‘Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010″* remain unanswered as of this writing. However it is unlikely that Senators McCain or Lieberman would agree that their statist takes on protecting the “Homeland” come at the cost of fundamentally altering the Republic and Constitutional principles for which they took an oath to uphold and defend.

Case in point, Senator McCain’s website proudly displays his most recent vitriolic pronouncements against Liberty whereby he stated:

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that sets forth a clear, comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation and trial of enemy belligerents who are suspected of engaging in hostilities against the United States. This legislation seeks to ensure that the mistakes made during the apprehension of the Christmas Day bomber, such as reading him a Miranda warning, will never happen again…”

Senator John McCain (AZ)
U.S. Senate
Floor Statement³
March 4th, 2010

As was predicted when the Bush Administration first began down the path of forswearing the American principle that all individuals American or alien were guaranteed the inherent right of Habeas Corpus when coming into contact with the U.S. Government, Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman now seek to exert and extend the ever-corrupting power of the Central Authority’s design on the use of indefinite detention, secret interrogations, and denial of counsel to Americans. While many knee-jerked and quipped it was merely “Muslim Terrorists” who were subject to such treatment under the previous White House, this legislation seeks to lump all into the same pot, inherent liberty be damned.

My how far we have fallen from “the Path of the More Perfect Union”. Everyday the “Change” that came to Washington looks more and more  like an emboldened status-quo. Many will remember just months after President Obama’s inauguration, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, reported on the new President’s desire² to scrap former President’s Bush’s piecemeal system of imprisonment via the label of “Enemy Combatant” in favor of constructing a “new legal-framework” of “prolonged detention”, of which this bill will provide should it reach his desk.

Click Picture to Enlarge

Moreover, this bill comes on the heels of the Obama Administration, the C.I.A., and the Director of National Intelligence Dennis C.  Blair seeking to have Congress authorize the assassination of Americans (a story we continue to research), the Central Authority on the Hill seeks to obtain the “legal” authority to label Americans with vague sounding titles such as “Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent” and “High Value Detainee” thereby denying “We the People” our right to Habeas Corpus solely based upon mere suspicion.

Lost Down a Rabbit Hole of Red Tape

Contained within this most abhorrent piece of legislation, whose pages emanate a continual nauseating stench of Imperialist statism, is  a system of interrogation and arbitrary adjudication which should make any cognizant American question their government’s lust for such unchecked power.

According to the bill any individual who is captured or “otherwise” comes into the “effective control” of the United States government shall be transferred into “military custody” at the earliest possible convenience. After which a “team” referred to as the “high value detainee interrogation group” organized by the President and consisting of  members with expertise in National Security, terrorism, intelligence, enhanced interrogation a.k.a torture, or law enforcement will conduct an initial assessment of the detained person to determine whether or not they pose a threat to the Central Authority its “Coalition Partners” or any of the federal government’s  endless Imperial wars/occupations.

Moreover, one can only guess that Senator McCain was seeking to hedge against any backlash the bill may produce upon seeing the light of day and included language that indicates the “high value interrogation group” must decide whether or not the person is indeed a threat within a 48-hour timetable. (phew) Whilst 48-hours is still an awful long time without access to legal counsel, one might think to themselves, well it sure is less oppressive sounding than indefinite.

Click Picture to Enlarge

However, as anyone who has spent any time at all reading the schizophrenic manner in which legislation is crafted  will tell you, beware the redirect to previous sections of the bill and/or U.S. Code. As such, at the conclusion of SECTION 3; Sub-Section b; Paragraph C(3) which delineates the “48-hour” time window, the draconian measure directs you back to Section 2, which reveals that the the time-limit for detention and transfer of custody is only applicable if the detainee is determined not to be of any value from an intelligence or strategic perspective.

If the detainee is determined by any members of the ad hoc Tyrant tribunal, then the detainee may face indefinite detention without a trial or charges filed in a fashion similar to  many of the detainees in Gitmo who were held for years upon years without formal charges before their release.

After all, being indefinitely held without trial, legal counsel, and tortured, reassures this blogger that those detainees will harbor no ill will towards their captors which might motivate them to seek revenge against said government  captors/torturers. Such observations of  “blowback” are only for the weak minded who secretly lust for the Glorious Imperial Homeland to fail, or are obviously “terrorist” sympathizers, and as such, indefinite detention is just punishment for their “un-NeoPatriotic” sentiments; right Mr. Hannnity?

Does this mean that Senator McCain himself might qualify as  an “Overprivileged Belligerent Aristocrat” if he helps recruit “enemies of the STATE” by proxy via the guaranteed abuses which are sure to follow should this legislation find its way into law? Does that count as material support of the enemy Senator McCain?

Upon reading this bill in its entirety, one can only hope that a piece of legislation which cites MIRANDA v. ARIZONA (384 U.S. 436 (1966)) solely to indicate that this right is no longer applicable should the whim of an unelected and unaccountable field agent of the CIA, FBI, DHS, NSA, et al declare an individual American to be an “Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent” would go down in flames. Its authors at a minimum, censured or at optimum, removed from their seats in the Senate and replaced with Senators who actually understand their oath to the Constitution and the principles embodied therein.

However, it is a new season of American Idol, and America’s Next Top Model, so maybe it is just wishful thinking that this legislation is tossed into the proverbial shredder and its machinations contained therein never see a vote in a conference committee or the stroke of the President’s pen.

As was once practice in all stenographer classes across the nation, “Now is the time for all good patriots to come to the aid of their country.”

In my estimation, we stand at an intersection of which two paths are quickly diverging. While we may take the time to celebrate such victories as our momentum on exposing the nature of the FEDERAL RESERVE, the flawed nature of Keynesian Economic Philosophy, and the insanity that is Fractional-Reserve banking, we must at the same time be vigilant to further resist the stratagem of the status quo’s desire to amass more unchecked power for themselves while indenturing our obedience through endless war and fear mongering over the threat of terrorist boogie men.

For it is up to us whether we stand to Restore the Republic or sacrifice human liberty to a second dark ages.

Source(s): ¹“S. 3081 “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010″ PDF (174.0KB) • ²MSNBC Rachel Maddow Show, originally aired May 22nd, 2010 • ³Website of Senator John McCain, Floor Statements, STATEMENT BY SENATOR McCAIN ON THE ENEMY BELLIGERENT INTERROGATION, DETENTION, AND PROSECUTION ACT OF 2010 / March 4, 2010

* Note S. 3081 has not been received by the Government Printing Office. As such the version contained within this post is the original draft. If any changes in the Bill exist after printing by GPO, the post will be updated to reflect the official Text of the bill. *See Update at top of page.

The Smoking Argus

In his weekly Texas Straight Talk update, Representative Ron Paul discusses the invasive nature of the 2010 U.S. Census and past abuses of such information regardless of promises otherwise by the Federal Government. Dr. Paul points out that the original intent of the census was to conduct a headcount every ten years for the sole purpose of Congressional representation, not the expansive data-mining operation it has become over the years.

Through concerted efforts to categorize ever individual down to a finite ethnicity, race, creed, et cetera, the census in its current form seeks to further push Americans to think of themselves in terms of “people-groups” as opposed to unique individuals thereby reaffirming the racist notion of collectivism. Further and contrary to current and past promises made by the Central Authority, census data supposedly kept under lock & key has been used by numerous agencies within the federal government for nefarious purposes. From the I.R.S seeking to find Income Tax evaders to the Department of Defense searching for males who dodged the draft and even ethnicity in order to facilitate the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, census data has a history of federal abuse.

According to Dr. Paul, he feels the most succinct answer to the all census questions outside of “how many people live here” should be “none of your business”, but continues to point out, refusing to answer the Census Bureau may result in a hefty fine of $5,000 for failure to render your demographics to the bloated federal government.

Source(s): Representative Ron Paul House Website • MinnesotaChris YouTube Channel

Allison Bricker

Essay No. 3

– A response to my fellow advocate for Liberty, Mr. Jack Hunter, a.k.a. The Southern Avenger regarding the Supreme Court & the Chicago Handgun Ban –

During his most recent editorial, Mr. Hunter asserts that the Supreme Court of the United States has no right to determine the Constitutionality of the City of Chicago’s ban on handguns, which has existed since 1982. He further opines that supporters of the 2nd Amendment and Constitutionalists make an egregious error in looking to the Supreme Court to overturn Chicago’s prohibition, going so far as to say it is in fact Constitutional, albeit ignorant.

He attempts to buttress his point of view by referencing the 10th Amendment, which says all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved by the states, and thus argues that a local municipality has the right to determine its own rules and regulations.

While it is indeed true that, the 10th Amendment prohibits federal interference on state matters, the issue before the Supreme Court is a matter which is not simply confined to the realm of “community standards” or daily operations, instead it is a restriction upon the natural right of an individual to defend themselves against an attack upon their person.

As such, the usual mantra that the states existed prior to the Central Authority is in this case utterly immaterial, as the Natural Rights of the People existed prior to the several states, the federal government, and the Constitution itself in perpetuum.

Further, those aligned against the validity of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction and in support of Chicago’s gun ban point to ARTICLE I, SECTION 22 of the current Illinois State Constitution adopted in 1970 which states:

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The portion before the first comma is where the statists hang there hat. Desiring and thus obtaining its citizens continue to cede their ability to bear arms subject to a determination by the state whether or not public safety would be endangered, these five words, seek to appoint the STATE as arbiter ille supremus over the natural right of self-defense. Moreover, as a state, Illinois has never recognized the right to bear arms as an individual liberty, and instead has from its admission to the union, and under four previous state Constitutions, sought to ordain the right to bear arms exclusively to the militia solely in defense of the state.

While Mr. Hunter seeks to dismiss the “incorporation” counterpoint via the 14th Amendment with the creation of the same-sex marriage straw man, the simple fact remains that Illinois is a member of the union and as such enjoys the privileges and immunities of its membership and thus pledges its allegiance to the Organic laws of the Republic. The aforementioned are the absolute embodiment of the principles as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and secured by the rEVOLution whereby the Individual, not the STATE is the Standard-Bearer of Liberty.

With all due respect, I urge Mr. Hunter re-read the 10th Amendment, most specifically its last four-words.

Nevertheless, let none misconstrue my sentiments, as it is not my purview to cede liberty unto the Hobbesian notion of “popular sovereignty”. For even “Popular Sovereignty” does not reign supreme when its motivations are to seek usurpation of a minority’s or individual’s unalienable natural Rights.

If history is any guide upon the matter, sometimes the individual must be prepared to defend their Liberty, against any and all machinations of knee-jerk populism.

Wire Report

Dominick T. Armentano -Research Fellow, The Independent Institute/Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of Hartford

Dominick T. Armentano is a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute and Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Hartford. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Connecticut, and he is the author of the books, Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure, Antitrust: The Case for Repeal, Intervention in the Petroleum Industry, and The Political Economy of William Graham Sumner. His articles have appeared in such scholarly journals as the Antitrust Bulletin, Business and Society Review, Antitrust Law and Economic Review, and Business History Review, as well as in the Financial Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Reason, National Review, and Hartford Times. Professor Armentano is frequently interviewed on numerous TV and radio programs including “Economically Speaking” (PBS).

(Wire/Ind.Inst.) The economic landscape still looks pretty gloomy despite (because of?) massive increases in federal government spending by Congress. Want something else to worry about? What if your government suddenly went “belly up” on some or all of its public debt IOU’s?

Impossible you say? Not really.

When individuals or businesses have long-run expenses that exceed anticipated income—and have neither capital nor savings to fill in the gap—they often declare bankruptcy. And though it is rare, even some city governments (i.e., Vallejo, Calif.) have been plunged recently into insolvency and bankruptcy, and some state governments (with heavy pension costs) might consider it. But could it happen to our own federal government?

Most economists have always regarded this possibility as nearly unthinkable. After all, the U.S. government has never defaulted on a penny of its debt obligations in over 220 years. What this means is that when the Treasury sold government bonds, the bondholders have always received their interest payment and have always had their original principal returned at maturity. In that sense, U.S. government bonds have been 100 percent safe.

There are several ways that U.S. debt could become risky and unsafe and increase the likelihood of a general or partial default. The most obvious problem would be that Congress becomes unwilling or unable to raise taxes sufficient to pay, by law, the interest on the national debt.

So far this has not been an insurmountable problem despite the fact that in FY 2009, the interest cost to “carry” the U.S. public debt was $383 billion. (For a frame of reference, the budget for NASA last year was $19 billion.) The carrying costs by year 2019 are estimated to be more than $700 billion.

But these historical costs and projections are based on conservative guesses about deficits and interest rates. What if annual deficits now become trillion dollar holes (as they have) and rising interest rates (as are likely) force governments to pay far more to fund their increasing debt?

The analogy here would be to a credit card holder who already has debt, spends more this month than last, accumulating even more debt and, in addition, faces increasing payments every month because of higher interest rates. It becomes an impossible situation.

In the case of ever-increasing public debt, where does the new money come from to “carry” this increasing burden? Federal taxes would have to be increased to extraordinary levels; but this effort would prove self-defeating since it would likely destroy incentives and the economy to boot.

Another possible debt/default scenario, and just as depressing, is that the Federal Reserve continues to purchase more and more U.S. government debt. When the Fed purchases government securities in the “open market” it tends to push bond prices up and interest rates down, making it easier for the Treasury to market new debt and keep its funding costs low.

Unfortunately, the purchase of government securities (public debt) by the Fed leads to what economists call a “monetization” of that debt. Sellers of the securities get “new money” from the Fed and that new money normally works its way into the economy and raises prices for almost everything including interest rates.

The resulting inflation (or even the anticipation of it) also starts a vicious cycle of dollar depreciation that makes it even harder (at existing interest rates) to sell U.S. debt abroad. Again, as rates increase on more and more debt, the interest and refunding burden grows exponentially, and the once unthinkable becomes at least debatable.

Depressing as it is, however, the U.S. currency and debt/funding situation is actually in reasonable shape (as measured, say, by recent credit-default swap spreads) at least when compared to near basket-case countries such as Ireland, Spain, Portugal, and especially Greece.

A particularly dangerous example is Japan, where government debt is currently an astounding 200% of its GDP and is expected to rise to 230% by 2012. But none of this should make U.S. government bondholders at all smug since defaults on “sovereign debt” abroad could start a contagion that could swamp all boats. Stay tuned.

Copyright 2010 The Independent Institute

Allison Bricker

Essay No. 2

- A Response to My Friend Republicae from “Essays of the Revolution” and fellow member of the DailyPaul.

From my analysis, based upon multiple perspectives of historical research and subsequently merged harmoniously along with principal philosophies from the ‘Age of Enlightenment’ the Republic is not dormant; but was toppled long before the birth of the “lost” or 13th Generation. However make no mistake; the weight is borne with full impact by the 13th and all herein. As such, if we are to realign ourselves within the natural state of human liberty, it shall, as it always has, require a firm conviction by all who profess to favor Liberty to set about righting the glorious path which for so long has been allowed to drift astray.

Therefore, for the purposes of illustration and exchange let me offer a simplified time line of our history from which to begin:

Whilst it is doubtful the beginning of the simplified timeline would cause undue consternation to most, the justification for the transfer from Republic to Populist Democracy through to the present oligarchy will indeed make court historians of the state take umbrage at such an assertion. Therefore, let me make it plain, the timeline results from analysis that with passage of the “Trifecta” in 1913, the Central Authority, i.e. Washington D.C. was unchained from its Federalist restraints of carefully contrived Checks and Balances in its entirety, thus rendering the Republic as nothing more than an impotent sentimentality. Peering further in to the lecherous year of 1913 forebears witness to the key points of the dismantling, which leads us through to the present state of our disheveled Union:

• 16th Amendment (Collateralization of Americans and posterity, Feb. 3, 1913)
• 17th Amendment (Effectively removes states from any role/check on Federal Authority Apr. 8, 1913)
• FEDERAL RESERVE Act (Monopolization of monetary policy into hands of private bankers – Dec. 23, 1913)

All were principal in absolving the ship of state from its Constitutional moorings thereby allowing the Republic to begin listing in the kneejerk speculative inclinations of populist democracy, and thus resulting in a massive growth of central government. As history will illuminate, “democracy”, like the chaos of anarchy, is always a transitional period which results in the creation of a vacuum granting the means for miscreants and tyrants to further centralize power.

Further, with the end of Bretton Woods in 1971 and thus with the transition complete, the Central Banker Oligarchs gained total unchecked power over the nation; let the derivative financial schemes and nationalist neo-patriotism commence.

In conclusion, it is my view that if there is to be a restoration of the Republic in our lifetime we must accomplish the following for a peaceful transition:

1. End the 3rd Central Bank of the United States, i.e. FEDERAL RESERVE.
2. Repudiate Odious Debt created by FEDERAL RESERVE.
3. Repeal Income tax.
4. Restore State Check on the Central Authority’s power and simultaneously reintroduce the people to their representation amongst the several states by repealing the Direct Election of Senators.

May we see the Torch of Liberty Burn all the Brighter.

Your Friend in Liberty,

Allison Bricker

Allison Bricker

Essay No. 1 – Ignorance may only flourish in an environment whereby information is controlled either by the state so it may wield unquestioned authority or by academic elite who feel contempt for those of a different station. Neither however may retain their grasp in perpetuum. Such is our situation, thus let us seize this glorious opportunity to the benefit of Human Liberty. We live in a time where knowledge is more freely available to those who desire like no other time in human history. The internet is as revolutionary to the propagation of knowledge as was the Gutenberg Press in its day, which helped usher in the first ‘Age of Enlightenment’.

Nevertheless, a shrinking remnant of individuals who refuse to educate themselves further as well as those who purposely forward false information and half-truths hoping in vain to retain the reigns of their pseudo authority persist. They sit  proliferating sound bite-intellectual morsels from their old-media studios and halls of government hoping their “facts” remain unchecked and thus accepted as truth. Never is a  case of this absurdity more painfully evident than as it relates to the action of nullification against government. Whether by a state or an individual, the word nullification is utterly mired in incomprehension.

Typically, speaking of nullification in the political sense will elicit a poorly informed crippled view of history resulting in a quip regarding the “Civil War” or segregation. Both are utter logical fallacies based on the fact that government was using the law to deny individuals their natural rights in the first place. A fact that is plain and counter to the organic laws of the American Union.

What they are remiss to acknowledge or possibly are wholly unaware, Nullification has worked as a check against Federal power throughout the history of the Republic. Most especially in the cases of the denial of free speech, the imprisonment of those deemed “enemies”, a coerced military draft, and enforcement of the Patriot Act, just to name a few.

It remains imperative that the principle, which prevents the Central Authority from acting as final arbiter of its own power, remain both intact and fully understood. Those powers should and must remain the purview of the several states and the People themselves.

The Smoking Argus

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina offers his belief as to why all individuals considered an Enemy Combatant by the U.S. Government should not be allowed access to U.S. Courts and should be tried solely before a Military Commission. Further Senator Graham dismisses the idea of “natural rights” as put forth by Thomas Jefferson and other philosophers during the “Age of Enlightenment” and instead offers his view that all liberty and/or rights are derived solely by the benevolence of government and as such can only apply to whom the government considers friendly to its agenda. (FULL SYNOPSIS & TRANSCRIPT)

Related Material(s)
	GOP Weekly Address Senator Lindsey Graham “No Right to Habeas Corpus for Any and All Persons Classified as “Enemy Combatant”

Source(s): GOPWeeklyAddress youTube Channel