THE MILITANT JEFFERSONIAN

Money Or Money Substitutes?

2010-12-12T19:22:00.007-05:00

Within all the disastrous disadvantages of the fiat monetary system that now infects this country and the world, there is one positive element and that is the assurance of its collapse. This forthcoming collapse will force this country and the world to look, once more, to the single monetary building block of economic production: gold. Just as fiat currencies lead to economic collapse so too do such collapses lead to a return to gold money. The reason for that is that nothing else can form an economic foundation, no other form of money, no alternative fiat currency can reestablish economic viability once that system has imploded and consumed itself.

There are suggestions that the IMF or other agencies are considering yet another reserve fiat currency or even a newly established reserve fiat regime, another fiat regime will do absolutely nothing to reverse the effects of the upcoming collapse. There is simply no way to adequately replace a fiat currency with another similar fiat currency, it does not work. There is a very good reason why governments introduce fiat currencies on the back of sound money and that is because the sound money provides a very firm foundation until the fiat regime can take root and be established economically.

The idea that a sudden introduction of fiat currencies into circulation can be achieved without a sound monetary foundation contradicts monetary mechanics, there must be a foundation of asset value to the currency otherwise the introduction of a new fiat currency will fail for there is nothing that can be used to impart a measurement of valuation to the currency itself.

There is also another major consideration when talking about the introduction of an alternative fiat regime and that is the fact that no fiat regime can prevent massive government deficit spending and the accumulation of debt that accompanies such spending. There are simply no budgetary restraints placed on government under a fiat regime.

There are those who suggest that the current dual-tier fiat system be replaced by a single-tier system; their rationale is that if the fiat currency is not directly associated with debt creation and interest accrual as with the dual-tier system then there would be no accumulation of debt, nor interest, at least that is the simplistic assertion. There would still be a necessity for government borrowing, the only difference under a single-tier fiat system is that there would be a division between the issuance of fiat money and the issuance of government fiat bonds, the two would not have the same close association that it currently does under the dual-tier fiat system, but it would not do anything to prevent the dangerous accumulation of debt. The process of simply printing fiat paper money does not mean that it will be any more effective than the system that we now suffer under; in fact, things could easily get much worse since hyper-inflation is indicative of single-tier fiat monetary systems.

The idea that if the government could only issue our fiat money directly without the monetization of debt then there would be no debt, that is a very dangerous misconception about the mechanics necessary to maintain a single-tier fiat monetary system and an operational government. Under a single-tier fiat system, where the government simply issues currency directly into circulation, there is absolutely no system of economic measurement, no means to determine the level of supply or the level of interest that would be associated with any sub-issue lending.

Essentially, the requirements of supply would be completely arbitrary, it would almost be “throw a dart and pick a number” since the mechanisms of determination of needed supply and even demand would no longer be operational. That is one reason why governments abandoned single-tier fiat monetary systems and replaced them with dual-tier fiat systems, it was that the latter provided a bit more stability and a slight degree of direction and the former bought massive inflationary depreciation combined with massive distortions in the markets.

As earlier stated there is one beneficial characteristic that all fiat regimes have in common, they collapse. Fiat monetary regimes always are consumed by the system itself. Such collapses always give rise to sound money and the manner of its introduction can be very simple and, if necessary rapid. If the government politicians and bureaucrats possess any degree of wisdom they will recognize the collapse for what it is and in response all that is necessary is that the government legalize gold money and get out of the way of the market processes that will naturally follow. There is indeed a high probability that this will happen, but it will not be necessarily through legislative deliberation but desperation, there will simply be no other options left for government to consider…the proverbial writing will be on the wall.

As with the rise of fiat monetary systems there will be a similar reversal with the rise of gold money. At first there will be a natural separation of the pricing structure in the economy, this will be disruptive at first however, as the market will express prices in both paper fiat dollars and in a weight of gold. Eventually, the gold money will supplant the fiat paper dollar system as the market determines that asset value is far more efficient in the pricing structure than the depreciating liability value of fiat currency.

There is however, one necessary caveat to the gold monetary system and that is the requirement of a 100% reserve system, without which a fractional reserve gold monetary system would be fraught with similar abuses as the fiat fractional reserve system today. The classical gold system had one problem, otherwise it worked extremely well and that problem was fractional gold reserves. Fractional reserve is a particular problem under a gold monetary system since gold does not behave in the same manner as fiat money, it does indeed lack a certain flexibility, but that is an advantage in that it prevents the abuses of inherent flexible characteristics associated with all fiat regimes.

There are, of course, detractors of the classic gold monetary system, among those detractors are the supporters of the fiat system and also those who, while supporting gold, believe that a gold system must be subject to fractional reserve banking since, according to both groups of detractors there is simply “not enough gold”. What the detractors imagine as a weakness is actually an extremely beneficial strength. The contention is, of course, that a pure gold monetary standard is not possible, nor, according to them was it ever truly possible because of the rigidity of supply verses demand.

Of course, this is the excuse that, in contemporary times, led to the rise of fractional reserve banking in the first place and then to the fiat fractional reserve system later. They claim the need for “elasticity” that can be readily adjusted to meet the needs of a growing economy, yet what they always fail to understand is that even under the fiat monetary system the quality of fiat money is drastically depreciated through such “elasticity” thereby completely diminishing the beneficial effects such “elasticity” is intended to have on the economy.

In other words, inflationary depreciation completely defeats the purpose of “elasticity” of supply. There is no productive economic benefit in the constant expansion of the fiat money supply, in fact the opposite is true, there is a detrimental effect on everything from pricing to wages, from profit to decision-making within an economy subjected to fiat regimes. The degree of distortions created by the system are beyond calculation, even worse is the fact that those distortions interrupt normal economic market processes and therefore, require government intervention and manipulation to maintain the entire system. Without government intervention and manipulation, a fiat monetary system would simply not exist! It is not natural money, and there is no recognition of any asset value other than that which is mandated by government decree.

If we can conceptualize a system under a 100% gold reserve, then we should also be able to conceptualize the restrain that such a system would have on the political economy and the government’s concern about that political economy. Government would find not only find a gold monetary system confining, but the idea of a 100% gold reserve banking system horrifies the corrupt inclinations of government politicians…why do you think we have a fiat monetary system today instead of a 100% gold reserve system? Government hates gold money, but it hates the idea of a 100% gold reserve system even more. A 100% gold reserve system would not only require a high degree of budgetary restrain on government but it would deprive government from the ability to artificially manipulate the credit markets to its socio-political advantage.

The fractional reserve banking system, which is more advantageous to fiat money than it is to gold money, allows the drastic increase of credit creation without the limitations inherent in a gold system, especially a 100% gold reserve system. Additionally, the fractional reserve system allows for the manipulation of interest rates, which, in turn, allows for the manipulation of economic and wealth distribution. This fact is especially true under the fiat regime, but would be almost just as effective if there was a gold monetary system subject to fractional reserve banking. The lower the reserve requirements the greater latitude in credit creation.

Therefore, the greater latitude in the amount of credit creation the greater latitude in the manipulation of interest rates under a fiat monetary system. Thus the government has the instrumentality to manipulate economic “feel-good” booms. There is, within such a system, a very definite illusion created from the idea that an increase in the nominal supply of money always provides the economy with productive gain. What most people are unaware of however, is the fact that as there is an increase in the nominal supply of money there is also a decrease in the nominal effectiveness of the money. The decrease in nominal effectiveness always cancels out the gain associated with the increase in the nominal supply of money.

Unlike government mandated fiat paper currency, gold money is sound for a number of reasons; it cannot be over-issued at will or political whim, because it actually increases and contracts, not by government monetary management, but with the volume of economic activity. In terms of credit/debt, gold money is self-liquidating since it is a double asset on the credit side and the debt side. The supply will always meet the demand within a free market. There is no way that a supporter of government mandated fiat paper money can be a supporter of the free market or the economic freedom for the people associated with such a market. Fiat paper money is controlled and managed; there can be no free market in such a monetary regime because of the manipulative characteristic of the fiat regime.

The disadvantages of a government mandated fiat paper regime far out-weight any possible advantages it may possess, which I can think of none. The combination of a fiat regime with the requirement of a fractional reserve banking system makes the system ripe for massive credit expansion, debt accumulation and ultimately the inevitable collapse of the system. Fiat credit based on a fiat monetary system simply cannot raise all prices simultaneously or uniformly; since the tendency of all fiat regimes is to constantly require the lowering of interest rates to achieve capital growth, the problem becomes a temptation to borrow “easy money”, thus leading to mounting distortions in the economy and massive mal-investments. It appears that one common trait within all fiat monetary systems is that when the mal-investments are finally recognized there is a collapse of the artificial bubble created by the fiat “easy money” credit influx into the market.

The idea that the government can or should be in the money business is not only absurd, but also very dangerous; the consequences of such a government-mandated system always end badly. This government abandoned gold very casually, not actually knowing the consequences of such abandonment. People have seen dramatic results from such abandonment, none of which can be considered in the long-term as beneficial. While it is doubtful that this government would consider returning to a convertible currency regime, it may well find itself with no other option but returning to a redeemable currency system.

While I believe the role of government is very limited when it comes to money, any money, I also believe that the best option at this point is to allow for the private minting of gold coin and the free-market in those coins. It may the only transition that would allow for an abridgement of the inevitable collapse under this fiat monetary system.

Dual and Single Tier Fiat Monetary Systems

2010-12-12T19:21:00.003-05:00

Despite all the efforts of governments to substitute irredeemable paper, they have failed to demonetize gold and even though it is not used as legal tender, it still is recognized as money. That is a strange fact considering the immense pressure that has been placed on society by governments to erase the monetary value from gold. In the most widest consideration, given the sum of history, neither men nor governments for that matter, will actually trust anything other than gold as a hedge against economic collapse. That is evident, even today, as we see more and more people purchasing gold, the same is true with many governments and their central banks.

Unlike Fiat Money, notes issued by government, gold needs no endorsements or coercion to be used as money and valued in exchange. Fiat money of any kind always must be forced upon the population, introduced by stealth into circulation by governments who desire to manipulate the power of monetary economics and eventually siphon off the wealth of the productive population. Unlike Fiat Dollars, gold money does not even have to have a government stamp upon it, it does not require legal tender laws or to lay taxation to enforce its use. Gold money does not require the full faith and credit of a government to make it money or to influence the use of it in an economy, there is therefore no compulsion required when gold money is in circulation, it is a desired commodity, whether it is in the form of money or any other form.

Unlike gold money, fiat money is accepted as money as long as there is faith in the government of issue and in the stability of the purchase value of the fiat money itself, the problem, of course, is that eventually the depreciation becomes evident through price inflation, people see their hard labors wasted on a form of money that no longer holds the same value as it did just a few years prior. Additionally, fiat money must rest upon the expectation that the promises made by the government of issue will be kept, once that expectation dwindles through the various foibles of a government that abuses the power of fiat monetary creation, such as the massive deficit spending that usually accompanies all fiat currency regimes, then the currency suffers and people search out other forms of value, particularly gold. History has proven this fact time and time again since at least 20 B.C.; fiat monetary economies always end the same way, collapse. There is evidence however, that fiat currencies were used as far back as the time of the Pharaohs, with equally disastrous results. In a historical context, the Book of Genesis 47: 15 states a very interesting event: “So when the money failed in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came to Joseph and said, “Give us bread, for why should we die in your presence? For the money has failed.”

It is indeed a very strange psychological occurrence among peoples and governments who are subjected to established fiat regimes, it tends to make them unwilling to view their irredeemable fiat paper money as anything other than what that fiat paper money really is, nothing more than promissory notes that can never actually be redeemed because the promises of the issuing government always become far too extended for such a redemption. It is strange that people seem to think that government authority and laws can create something out of nothing and call it money, it is this undeserved faith, this belief system that allows fiat money to sustain a degree of value as money, but that too ends when the inflated supply of the fiat regime depreciates the purchase value of the currency and such faith is destroyed.

The degree and depth of faith necessary in government issued fiat money is comparable to the faith necessary in religion, for what else could account for the fact that when people see a piece of paper with the numerals $100 printed on it, that they view it as more valuable as the same piece of paper that simply has $1 printed on it. The ruse is complete, the deception is extensive and the faith that has been built around the fiat monetary system must be of the utmost dedication. The Fiat God commands total faith and allegiance! Talk about idolatry, gold makes no such commands of faith, it is its own promise of payment, and it requires no government seal of approval or legal tender laws to enforce or coerce its usage as money.

The constant hunger of government issues its fiat currency that ultimately devours itself, eating up its own purchasing power. There is no doubt that history teaches from an extensive experience concerning money; perhaps one of the greatest lessons is that government is the premier counterfeiter and can no more be trusted with the power to control money than a thief with the keys to a bank. One must wonder why so few believe the fact that governments and money don’t mix. There is a history however, one of sound money, one which is either completely ignored or partially ignored by most in government and in the population in general. Perhaps the strangest fact is that so many are fooled by the absolute folly of fiat money, even stranger still is the fact that this folly is recurring time and time again without the actual lesson being learned.

Except for a period in the 1860s and 1870s, government relatively kept its hands off money for nearly a century, except for the barest minimum Constitutional requirements of establishing a standard of weights and measures. The laws necessary for various liabilities and for banking were kept to a minimum; the market took care of the rest by awarding the prudent and penalizing the less prudent. It was a century that saw the most incredible increase in widespread prosperity that the world had ever seen before. The reach of government was restricted, its presence in monetary and economic matters was limited and the result of that policy was the unleashing of market enterprise, voluntary and free. Government was not in the money business, it did not create it nor did it control it or the supply, nor did it intrude in the affairs of business except in the case of fraud.

The attempts at fiat money in the early experiences of our country were lessons not soon forgotten, but given the greed of government for both power and spending power it did not take long for those lessons to be laid aside in an attempt to grasp and then unleash the power of monetary creation and control. The first major push toward a government-controlled money came during the Lincoln Administration, the problem of course is that government fiat money cannot compete against gold; the attempt was a complete and utter failure. By the time the Lincoln’s illegal War of Conquest was over the Greenback was valued at 35 cents gold. It represented nothing of value and as a result the market created a two-tier pricing structure, one in fiat money, the other in gold money that continued through the 1870s. Coined money disappeared from the United States, gold was exported for goods while the Greenback swayed with instability and through the process the credit of the government was considered questionable, especially by foreign trading partners.

The search was on and government sought a method to use that would allow it to spend far more than the revenue collected and to do it in a way that would be relatively concealed from the population. Through its search, government also sought to control credit, as the ancillary power of money, for just to control the creation and supply of fiat money would not provide the government with the instrument it really needed and that was a market for its debt. Thus the bond market became the ultimate reality of a managed money supply that would produce a managed economic market to allow the control of the ebb and flow of the economy as needed or in more cases than not, as was politically expedient.

The government, not the market was to become the heart of the economy, with credit money being transformed into the fluidity of economic life-blood. Thus, taking the power of money away from private enterprise and placing its control in the grasp of government as a “proper function of government”. It was government that would determine what the proper supply of money would be, the rise and fall of interest rates and in the process; it would determine the actual beneficiaries of its own managed economy.

The problem, of course, is the ability to trust a government, which sees itself without limitations. To aid government in its unlimited vision, a monetary system was necessary and that system was one that provided few restrictions on the supply of money government could “raise”, the best way around that problem of revenue was a two-tier system of fiat currency since all single-tier fiat systems tend to collapse rapidly from government abuses.

Part of the problem government has always had with gold money is the restrictive character of the money that demands budgetary restraint. Another part of the problem, at least on the part of government, is that a sound money economy punishes abuse, both by government and by businesses. Under a gold monetary system combined with the free-market, there are few places to hide fiscal imprudence. These facts however, while viewed by government and those who are politically connected as problems, are actually beneficial in ways that are really beyond calculation. A sound money free-market economy will always indicate problems of excess and malinvestment, it is essentially the nervous system of a free-market economy and will, when necessary demand a remedy to match the abuses.

While there have always been critics of bankers, there is a huge difference between free-market banking and the type of banking that we are now subjected to under government authority. In the free-market a banker must abide by the necessity of good business practices otherwise the bank and banker will face insolvency. The government, on the other hand, has an unlimited supply of fiat money or at least the power to product an unlimited supply; additionally, the government is not bound by free-market restrictions, nor, as it appears, are the banks chartered by government.

In the free-market, bankers are required to maintain the trust of their depositors, as well as their stock-holders, with the responsibility to keep the bank solvent, the same is not true with government or its banking partners. Under a sound monetary system there is the demand that the banker holds his depositors money in trust, not simply to use it as he pleases under a fraudulent fractional reserve system of divided and unsustainable titles. While it is true that a banker under a sound monetary 100% reserve system can issue credit beyond the deposited funds, he does so at his own risk, for to extend credit beyond the funds held on deposit can ruin his bank and his life, particularly in the cases of outright fraud.

Unlike the current fiat fractional reserve system, under a sound monetary system, integrally linked to the free-market, the banker is limited by the amount of real money he has in deposit, lending at the behest of only those customers who give the banker permission to lend their deposits. If, by either chance or deliberate risk, the banker lends out more than his customers have deposited me must immediately stop lending, but additionally he must call in the outstanding loans. This is one of the benefits of sound money under a free-market banking system, it requires absolute adherence to the highest level of responsibility to the customers of the bank. While such measures are not pleasant, it is a necessary medicine under a sound money free market system of banking.

Unlike free-market money and banking, government is not bound by such limitations, nor is it at much risk since it will rarely, if ever, force a contraction of the fiat money supply, thereby tightening its budgetary belt. Government hates the political consequences of bursting economic bubbles and will always attempt to inflate or re-inflate a bubble. Its ability to create money at will helps the government in its attempt to side step the painful aspects of a collapsing economic bubble. The control of money in the hands of government is the control of society, it is absolutely necessary if government is to retain control and expand its ability to rule without limitation.

Given these facts, it is extremely odd that there are those who laud the Lincoln Greenback or any other single-tier fiat system, for to do so it to laud the government in its unlimited ability to create money for both peace, but especially wartime expenditure. Since wartime expenditures tend to be exorbitant, the ability to wage war under a sound monetary system is limited only to those, which are purely defensive in nature. So too, are internal improvement projects and projects of unlimited entitlement programs, the sound monetary system will simply not allow the novelties of popular political expediency.

Unlike the dual-tier fiat system, sound gold money places limitations on government since the government must abide by the law of the free-market. Sound money prevents the unlimited accumulation of debt always associated with fiat money, additionally, sound money cannot easily be manipulated in terms of supply, nor are interest rates easily manipulated by government for political and social gain, the market determines the rate of interest. Of special note, it should be recognized that under free market sound money system the rate of natural interest is relatively stable compared to the manipulated system of fiat interest rates.

The ability to control government by controlling the money available to government makes perfect sense, it restricts government to revenues raised and since the population is sensitive to taxation, the limitation mechanism is ultimately sound. It also effectively controls the ability of government to accumulate debt, since it must abide by the sound practices of borrowing only that which it is certain of repayment within a reasonable amount of time, the money is, after all, the People’s money, not the governments.

In the early years of the 20th Century, a new innovation was created, the monetization of public debt, this technique unleashed the economic, military and social powers of government in ways never seen before. While it is true that prior to this period the government issued bonds, it did so with the restrictions placed upon it by the limitation that sound money placed on revenues and on its ability to repay those bonds under the sound monetary revenue system. The problem however, was that the government was also limited by the amount of the bond issue the public was willing to purchase. That was another limitation of sound money that government saw as a limitation on its ability to powers, especially when it came to any imperial inclinations of a ruling class of politicians. The solution was to create a dual-tier fiat monetary system that would function through the government’s ability to issue unlimited amounts of marketable monetized securities.

Here is the key to the entire system; the dual-tier fiat monetary system had major advantages to the single-tier system. In a single-tier system the government simply issues fiat money, but that system is extremely unstable and usually collapses within a matter of years. The government required a system that could be sustained for decades and one that would provide it with a virtual unlimited supply of funding and therefore, an unlimited resource of power. In the single-tier system, the government can issue its fiat currency, a piece of paper with all the official seals that promise some sort of redemption, but since such fiat notes represent nothing of marketable value, history has shown that such single-tier systems are usually repudiated as the system deteriorates through rapid inflationary depreciation.

Governments found that they simply can’t issue paper money on a single-tier system, it cannot be sustained nor does it provide government with a relatively stable monetary system on which it can build its empire. It is odd indeed, that there are those who continue to advocate that the government simply replace the current dual-tier fiat system with one where the government simply issues fiat money directly, without the use of debt monetization. The fact is that such a system has been tried throughout history without any success whatsoever.

Thus we come upon the distinct differences between the two types of fiat monetary systems. The dual-tier system provides a degree of stability, but the manner in which it is achieved is ultimately very costly and dangerous. Under the two-tier fiat monetary system public debt is monetized using what amounts to essential two pieces of fiat paper, one being the fiat bond issued by government and the other being the fiat currency note issued by government. The bond is issued and provides a surety of repayment, the problem, of course is that the repayment of the bonds is promised with the very fiat notes the issuance and sell of bonds create. So, the government promises to pay its bonds by the very paper fiat notes created by those bonds. Neither the fiat bonds nor the fiat notes represent anything of actual value in terms of purchasable goods, there is no real asset value to either the underlying bond or the repayment of those bonds with the fiat currency created through the salable issue of those bonds.

Essentially the government states that it will repay its bond issues, but repay it with what? Certainly not anything holding any more value than the bond issue itself. It promises to repay its bond obligations with nothing more than the very Federal Reserve Notes created from the security of those bonds. Thus, in the simplest sense, one piece of worthless paper is serving as security for another piece of worthless paper. The Governments Treasuries secures the fiat money and the fiat money secures the Government Treasuries…have you recognized the folly yet? Thus, the fiat bonds secure the fiat money and the fiat money secures the fiat bonds. Who is the greater fool, the debtor or the creditor? They are equally foolish in their conceit of the system.

The government has no worries as long as the ruse continues to deceive the buyer of its bonds, but it can only last so long before the over-issuance of bonds, combined with massive deficit spending rips the veil from the fiscal Ponzi scheme.

In order to complete this dual-tier fiat monetary system it was absolutely necessary to attempt to demonetize gold. It was essential for Gresham's axiom to be circumvented; otherwise the new dual-tier fiat monetary system would not work. As long as money and credit were related and thus restricted by gold money, the government would not be free to pursue unlimited power; it could not manipulate the sound money supply to an extent that would satisfy its insatiable appetite for domination over the economic and social arenas. The government, if it were to be successful in its powerful desires, would have to eliminate gold money from the economy. History proves that governments hate the restriction of gold money and have, through the centuries, attempted to contain the power of gold money, without much success. You see, there was no way for the system to function while gold was considered and used as money; not only that, but to implement this dual-tier fiat monetary system it was absolutely necessary for the government to outlaw gold altogether until the fiat monetary system was firmly established.

To accomplish this there had to be a stratified repudiation of all debt payable in gold. The first step began, of course, during the Administration of FDR when the domestic public debt was repudiated and private ownership of gold declared illegal in this country. The second step came when Nixon repudiated all foreign debt of this country when he declared that no U.S. Government debt obligations would be paid in gold, at which point private ownership of gold no longer posed a real threat to the pure dual-tier fiat monetary system. This was the crucial moment in time when there was an almost complete seizure of the entire financial economic system of money, banking and credit. With such a seizure, the ability to control and thus manipulate the social policies needed to create a welfare/warfare state was achieved. No longer would the restrictions of gold or the flaws of a single-tier fiat monetary system limit the powers of government. Public debt could be monetized and the repayment of that debt could be achieved through a slight-of-hand structure that paid debt through the very same instrument used to create it in the first place.

The dual-tier fiat monetary system avoided all the pitfalls of a single-tier system, such as the Greenback system, or all the other single-tier systems throughout history that failed within a short period of time. This government fiat money, like all before it, had to be the only legal money allowed in the country, there could be no competition, especially from the most powerful and liberating money in the hands of the People, which is gold money. Governments are limited and thus controlled, when its ability to spend is restricted. Such a restriction came from gold money, its quantity could not be easily increased, nor could it be easily manipulated once in circulation and it became titled money when in the hands of a private individual.

There is such a delusion created by the entire system that government must continually promote the impossible, and that is a perpetual boom through its inflationary fiat monetary policies. While it appears that cheap money and credit offer some sort of immunity from the laws of economics, the truth is that eventually the system is consumed from government excess. It is evident that the last thing our government ever wants to experience is the pain of economic realities created by the system it uses to stay in power and it will use the fiat monetary system to the extreme, if necessary, to maintain its power even if it means such policies will ultimately cause the entire foundation of the economy to crumble.

All the proper functions of money have been suspended, and economic law delayed, by the government’s dual-tier fiat monetary mechanism. It can continue for a while, but eventually all the principles of economic law will bear down upon the fraudulent system. As those principles press against the system, its structure will be exposed, its flaws manifested in economic pain and ultimately economic disaster. At this point in our fiat history the government is attempting to postpone the inevitable and the system itself is exposing the helplessness of the government and, in all its folly, its own insolvency and corruption. The government, with its debased currency, is facing its final repudiation of debt and, in the process, an actual repudiation of the fiat monetary system. The government’s seal, its promises, beautifully engraved on all its fiat obligations cannot prevent the catastrophe that faces this country, and indeed the world. There is no trust in the promises of this government, no matter how the words are engraved on its fiat paper money, no matter how its engraved bonds are promoted as a safe-haven from economic distress.

The Wonders of Fiat Money

2010-12-12T19:19:00.003-05:00

Through the decades, it is well known that unlike gold, fiat money holds certain advantages that simply cannot be duplicated with gold money. Unlike gold money, fiat money is not subject to the scarcity of quantity, thus the supply of fiat money is not subject to the same limitations of as the supply of gold. Gold money requires the costs of production, it usually requires labor, private companies and employees to mine the ore; on the other hand, fiat money is relatively cost-efficient, requiring no real production, no refinement, but it does create huge numbers of government employees paid through its creation, as well as massive amounts of hard-earned tax-payer dollars.

Fiat money has no asset value; there is no actual difference in the valuation between a $100 Dollar Bill and a $1 Dollar Bill except in the minds of us who must be coerced through legal tender laws to use them. The surprising advantage to fiat money is that people are willing to accept the same piece of paper and think that just because the printed image on the paper denotes $100 Dollars that it is actually of more value than the same type of paper which denote simply $1 Dollar. Gold does not possess that advantage, since gold is a commodity, each unit value is expressed in a given weight and there is no way for the government to create a ruse within the minds of the people that a coin weighing the same amount could be valued differently as with fiat money. This advantage allows the government and banks to transfer wealth in massive amounts from those who are productive to those who are unproductive, with very little effort. That, on top of the advantage of monetary inflation is a boon for the government in its efforts of massive wealth redistribution.

Recently, there have been several episodes of the government’s fiat money being counterfeited. $5 Dollar Bills have been bleached and the image of a $100 Dollar Bill has been printed on the bleached out $5 Dollar Bill. What an advantage, unofficial counterfeiters can do the very same thing as the official government counterfeiters, making the same type of paper more valuable by simply changing the printed image. These counterfeited bills are accepted at the higher value, goods and services are exchanged for the higher value even though it is printed on a bill that was previously considered a less valuable $5 Dollar Bill. There is really no difference between the two Bills in terms of actual value, only perceived value based upon an image that bears not actual asset value.

Gold holds a particular disadvantage for the government and banks; since it is an asset it conveys a property title to the bearer of that money. Fiat money on the other hand holds no inherent asset value; it does not convey title to the bearer and remains nothing more than a note expressing a government liability. Given that fact combined with the amazing system of fractional reserve banking, fiat money, being free of property title, can be so flexible that only a fraction of it needs be held in actual reserve. This frees up both the government and the banks to get the benefits of full reserve without actually having the full amount of fiat money on hand. Fractional Reserve Banking also gives fiat money the advantage of maintaining the pressures of inflation, for without fractional reserve banking it would not be possible for fiat money to exist, inflation would simply destroy the currency without the mechanism of fractional reserve.

Gold does not require coercive laws to enforce its use as money, this is a particular disadvantage for the government since the degree of social control cannot be maintained as easily under a gold monetary system as it can under a fiat monetary regime. The act of voluntary market exchange is hampered through the fiat monetary system, this gives the government the advantage of manipulation, not only of the fiat money itself, but also of the markets and rates of interest. Since the government can control the supply of the money it can also control the demand, shifting market forces into politically expedient directions; through this process the economy can be relatively managed based on policy rather than allowing it to self-regulate through market forces. The more control the government has over the markets the more control it has over the public, fiat money presents this advantage to government in ways that are simply not possible under a gold monetary regime.

Perhaps the primary problem with gold money is that of public indebtedness, there is a restriction on the amount of public and indeed private debt that can be accumulated under a gold monetary system, especially one that is subject to the requirements of a 100% reserve, thus there is a limitation of credit expansion under a gold monetary system. Since the utilization of public debt has become essential to our modern society, there would be no way for the extension of credit/debt to be expanded to such a degree under a gold monetary system.

While it now appears that expansion of credit associated with public or government debt is natural, the fact is that it is simply a reflection of underlying political expediencies, but not social necessities. Public or government debts are nothing more than anticipated taxes. At one time, government debt was governed by the amount of tax revenues and if the distribution of the holding of such public debt were equal to the distribution of the weight of taxation then any public debt would pose no burden on the society. The problem is that such a view of public debt was always very restrictive on government under a gold monetary system, but that is not the case under the wondrous fiat monetary system, which is not subject to such restrictions.

Under a very restrictive gold monetary system, government debt was very limited and any expansion of government debt beyond the measure of anticipated revenues always resulted in an increased burden of taxation. Since the imposition of such excessive taxation hampers and places a real check on private enterprise there is a very real economic cost associated with higher accumulations of public or government debt, thus diminishing any socio-economic dividend within the economy.

Such restrictions on public debt posed a severe problem for government, in that it did not allow for the expansion of that debt beyond the anticipated tax revenues. Since a gold monetary system poses such restrictions on government due to the necessity of balancing the extension of spending with that of anticipated tax revenue, the budgetary restraint on government proved very prohibitive on any expansion of government and the services it is able to provide. Government was so limited by gold money that there is a long history of political contrivances to evade such limitations.

The economic limitations of gold are very well known; the lack of flexibility in the supply of gold does pose many problems that restrict the expansion of economic growth beyond a certain point. Unlike fiat money, there is the requirement of good business practices under a gold monetary system, where credit is limited and responsible decision-making is necessary.

Gold, unlike fiat currency is not very convenient; it also does not provide a protectionist system where the value of the currency is managed by the government itself or the banking system the government employees to maintain the system. While gold money does not allow for many variables in both usage and derivatives of financial instruments, fiat money does provide both government and banking with a vast array of financial derivative instruments on which to draw wealth. Perhaps on of the greatest advantages of fiat currency is that it allows for the expansion of deficit spending by government without regard to the possible burden of overt taxation on the people and the private sector, thus there are no such restrictions under a fiat monetary system. There is the ability for a government to set a course of unlimited growth and expansion of its reach, its power and its services under a fiat monetary regime, which is simply not possible under a gold monetary regime.

It can be easily determined that the creation of the Federal Reserve System, as well as the eventual elimination of the gold monetary system provided the government with an instrument that completely extinguished the necessity for direct taxation and the social and economic limitations of such taxation. Essentially, the fiat monetary system allowed for Congress to avoid all the unpopularity associated with the burden of rising taxation. At first, the avoidance was achieved by supplementing borrowing by increasing the supply of fiat money, this form of hidden taxation simply diverted productive wealth from the private sector into the public coffers.

Gold monetary systems hindered the ability of government to borrow and would not allow for the expansion of the money supply, which is absolutely necessary to implement the hidden taxation of monetary inflation, thus the advantage of the fiat monetary system is evident. Through the creation of the Federal Reserve System, the government was able to divert monetary power away from the producers into the hands of government, this allows for an almost unlimited degree of monetary power to be concentrated in the government and in the hands of those who are politically connected to that government through the system.

Another advantage to the fiat monetary system, as opposed to a gold monetary system, is that real wealth under a fiat monetary system is siphoned from all except those who are the original holders of the fiat money as it is issued. Thus, the government and those connected to the government though their patronage systems are the primary beneficiaries of the fiat monetary system. This form of hidden wealth redistribution is very essential to the expansive power of the government, for it does not involve the necessity of the consent of the People in order to achieve any socio-political goals desired by the government.

Another distinct advantage of fiat currency is that the government can expand its military might and the scope of that might without regard to budgetary restraint. It would be impossible for this government to have expanded its military or engage in military intervention under a gold monetary system. There would be no possible way for this government to spend as much on its military as all the countries of the world combined on the far less advantageous gold monetary system. Thus this advantage is of supreme importance to the offensive imperialism and intervention of this government. Without the fiat monetary system there would also be extreme restrictions on the government’s ability to provide entitlement programs to various sectors of the population, this gives the political structure a natural support system within the voting public, which allows politicians to retain their seats in Congress since nearly 50 percent of the population receives the benefits of government entitlements.

The advantages of the fiat monetary system also extend to the fact that the irredeemable notes require no real assets to back them, thus the government is relatively free to pursue its policies without the restrictions redeemable currencies pose. Since modern fiat notes are IOUs that make no promise of actual payment, it amounts to little more than a forced loan from the people to the government.

Additionally, since gold monetary systems rarely involve the necessity of a permanent market for government debt, the government cannot reap the benefits normally associated with the government bond market. Fiat money, unlike gold money, is issued solely to meet the fiscal needs of government, and unlike gold money, fiat money has no real relationship to the actual monetary needs of the business sector. In fact, gold money almost always involves good business practices, forcing good decision-making on business as well as government, the lack or distortion of such business practices always tend to be revealed quickly under a gold monetary system while being relatively concealed under a fiat monetary system.

Such restrictions pose a definite problem that is easily diverted through the fiat monetary system, unlike the gold monetary system. Historically, of course, the issue of fiat money usually meets with general popularity, and is politically expedient, because it makes the issuance of credit relatively easy since there are far fewer restrictions on the ratio of actual savings to loans extended, thus the appearance of wealth generation is widely spread throughout the country.

On the other hand, gold money does not allow for the build up and maintenance of illusionary wealth creation, which is based in the fiat system on the extension of easy credit instead of actual wealth creation. Gold money rarely lends itself to the illusion of paper wealth generated by the extension of credit debt accumulation, instead it requires a strict regiment of fiscal discipline in order to create and maintain wealth.

Another distinct advantage that the fiat monetary system has over a gold monetary system is that the fiat monetary system allows the construction of a view of short-term benefits through inflation as a means of artificial stimulation of business; this, combined with the fact that the fiat monetary system allows for the eventual transference of wealth generated in the boom portion of the business cycle to those positioned to benefit from the burst portion of the business cycle. This is of particular importance to those well-positioned business interests closely associated and connected to the government’s patronage. We recently witnessed just such a transfer as the government sought to “save” certain large corporations and commercial banks during the recent Panic of 2008.

In terms of the Federal Reserve System, there would simply be no way for the FED to expand its balance sheet by over 100% within a time frame of a few weeks under a gold monetary system. Additionally, under a gold monetary system there is simply not the flexibility to manipulate the system as it is under the fiat monetary system. There would have been no way possible for the government and the Federal Reserve to bail out the various troubled banks and industries under a gold monetary system. Thus the advantages of the fiat monetary system can be clearly seen in this most recent economic dislocation. It should also be of note that a gold monetary system would not allow for the increased concentration of power and wealth into the political center of Washington, D.C. or the financial center of New York. Gold money would not allow this government to support the privatization of profit with the socialization of risks as does a fiat monetary system, another distinct advantage to fiat money.

Gold money would also not allow for the concentration of power normally associated with money into the hands of those who are closely related to and therefore highly influential on the members of Congress who are generating political and fiscal policy. In other words, the fiat monetary system has the advantage of opening doors and keeping them open, while doing so under the radar of ethical scruples. This is of particular advantage to those within banking and government, for it allows for the most intricately based accounting practices that can be manipulated to conceal almost anything since the entire system is not based on any actual asset valued commodity, but on a paper system of money that was created to be manipulated.

In the book entitled The Economic Consequences of Peace, John Maynard Keynes stated: “Lenin was right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”

Since it is almost impossible for gold money to be debauched without the public noticing, it is a distinct disadvantage to those in government and since gold money does not allow for the artificial manipulation of the money supply through inflation, the government cannot steal massive amounts of productive wealth as it can through the fiat monetary system, thus the advantage to government is clear. Based on the government’s own calculations, since 1913, the government has siphoned off nearly 2105.2% of the productive wealth of this country through fiat money inflationary depreciation. That has been very advantageous to the government, filling its coffers, allowing for unbelievable government expansion, making this government the largest employer in the history of the world and it is all made possible through the fiat monetary system.

Perhaps one of the greatest advantages of the fiat monetary system is the fact that it provides the people with the impression that the government generally manages the economy well. Inflation tends to bolster confidence that government can and will do what is necessary when necessary to ensure a stable increase in the value of assets. Thus an increase in the prices of real estate and stocks are viewed as positive aspects of the management skills of the government and the FED. In general when people see the price of their homes increase they feel good, that feeling is a direct result in the inflationary policies of the government, it allows the government to continue stealing them blind through the very policy that they perceive as good economic management.

To correspond to that advantage another advantage of fiat currency is that it appears that wages are increasing, at least the face amount of wages are increasing. It matters not if a persons real wages are decreasing as long as it appear they are earning more dollars per hour, the governments ruse effectively continues. This little advantage also provides the government with a tax benefit, for the more a person makes per hour in the amount of face value currency the more of that money is taxed at a progressive rate, thus this form of double taxation is a distinct advantage to the government since it has directly taxed the earnings of a person and it also indirectly taxes it through fiat monetary inflation. So, a person may feel good to have received a $100 dollar raise a month, but calculated in terms of real wages that $100 dollars only represents an increase of approximately $4.52 per month in purchase value while it is being taxed at a given rate based on the face value of the increase.

Another distinct advantage fiat money has for the government over gold money is that, unlike gold, the fiat money supply available to the government can be increased in order to pay for goods and services without any real cost to the government itself. It is important to remember that this advantage is made possible, not only through the issuance of fiat money, but also through the manipulation of that fiat monetary regime. None of that would be possible without the very close relationship build between government and banking.

Factually, the government is at the center of monetary manipulation, the banks; under government charter operate as both the essential agents of the government, but also as the servant of the government’s political agenda. The government has, through the utilization of the fiat monetary system, created a monetary monopoly, a cartel that simply would not be possible without the direct legislative intervention of the government. The reason for the cartelization of banking is to provide government with a direct advantage in every aspect of political, economic and social spectrums. In fact, along with these advantages, it is not uncommon for those in government to move into banking and those in banking to move into government positions they are now almost interchangeable.

Through the fiat monetary system the government has created a very effective parasite system of monetary economics, keeping the host alive while continually feeding upon it. Thus, with all the disadvantages of gold money is it any wonder why the government has chosen to create and enforce the legal tender of a fiat monetary regime?

The Claim of Supremacy

2010-07-04T18:52:00.006-04:00

In order to come to a proper conclusion about Constitutional construction, one must understand the concept of restrictive qualification, for our system of government, both federal and those of the States, are guided by the principle of the restrictive qualification of powers committed to them respectively by the Constitution. As such, not only the governments, but within those governments, the various branches are, or should, be guided by the same principle, which essentially delegates authority within very specified spheres of action. Each may exercise the powers delegated to them, but neither can or should act upon the powers delegated to the other. The essential laws of delegation and representation denies the exertion of powers beyond the sphere of active delegation and representation, any attempts to cross those lines of delegated powers amounts to usurpation. Each of the branches of government, as well as the governments of the States, was established to preserve what each represents and to operate within those spheres of delegated authority. Thus each portion of government from the States to the federal government is to provide aggressive checks and balances on all other respective portions of government.

As such, the House of Representatives served the purpose of a direct reflection of the People themselves, while the Senate, on the other hand, represented the States as a reflection of the Free and Independent character of those States. While these two distinct bodies act within a federal sphere of operations, they are indeed not employed by nor beholden to the federal government, but are, in fact, deputized and authorized by the People directly and indirectly respectively. Thus, the establishment of this Constitutional union was conceived and established for the management of the general concerns of the People and the States they inhabit, and not for a supreme or nationalized federal government. The federal government was not the focus of the formation of the union; it was the resulting agency to be utilized, not as other governments of the world in holding a place of supremacy, but to represent the People as they pursued Life, Liberty and Happiness.

The Executive Branch was also established within the sphere of the allocation of powers between the House of Representatives and the Senate, again a restrictive qualification of powers was imposed for the purpose of the execution of powers delegated, but not beyond. Likewise, the Judicial Branch, while given the name Supreme Court, only has the delegated authority to operate within the restrictive qualification of power. The entire system was never intended to be efficient, by definition, but rather, to be cumbersome in hope that there would be more difficulty in the consolidation of powers, particularly in the federal government. The intent was to create a balance of inequalities within the different spheres of operation without the annexation of exclusive or delegated powers.

Unfortunately, what has taken place is a transmutation of Sovereignty, from the People to the government, in particular the federal government, which, by the way, is no longer federal, but national in both character and administration. It is evident that many of the Constitutions of the States assert, and rightly so, that all Sovereignty resides within the People. The changes however came through the Judicial Branch and began rather early in our history as the Supreme Court decided cases that, instead of following the spirit and letter of the Constitution, veered from that course, allowing for the transference of the Sovereignty of the People from each of the Several States into the hands of government.

Article 6 of the Constitution states an interesting consideration, one that has been taken to construct the word Sovereignty in a very broad sense, yet does it? It has generally been interpreted by the Court, that this clause confers all supremacy on Congress over the States, and thus, all the Sovereignties within those States, i.e. The People. Yet, if logical construction were followed, then there would be no power left to the States to either alter or, in the most extreme necessity revoke the Constitutional Compact. If that is indeed the case, and it appears to be, then the fact that the Constitution, the laws and the treaties are all declared to be the supreme law of the land does not, in any way, bestow any supremacy on the federal government itself, but on the Constitution and the laws pursuant to the Constitution. The federal government is nothing more than the deputized agency utilized to implement Constitutional law. There is no supremacy bestowed on the federal government any more than there is any supremacy bestowed on the State governments, each operate within very specific spheres of operation and reflect, in their character, the supremacy of the People. The Sovereignty of the People is expressed within their governments. The ability to establish government is the single highest expression of the Sovereignty of a People, the character of Sovereignty is also expressed in the ability of the People to alter or destroy their government in order to institute one better suited for their benefit.

It must be completely understood that under Article 6, the so-called supremacy clause, there is absolutely no additional powers conferred by that Article to the government in any respect than that which is already respectively enumerated. The declaration of supremacy did nothing more than confirm all the enumerated limitations on the powers delegated; it was not a license to extend any powers beyond that which was already enumerated. In other words, while some attempt to construct an almost unlimited degree of power to the federal government under the so-called supremacy clause, the fact is the clause only confirms the restrictive enumerated powers that were delegated to the government. The supremacy is not in the government formed by the enactment of the Constitution, but in the Constitution itself.

Today, it is difficult to grasp the concept that the United States government has absolutely no authority but that, which is specifically provided to it by the Constitutional Compact. In order for any law to be the supreme law of the land it must, by definition, be in complete confirmation of the specific powers delegated within the Constitutional Compact, there can be no question of supremacy without a law meeting such confirmation. If any law does not meet with such qualifications then that law is void and null.

While there has been a tendency for the Supreme Court to operate as though it was indeed the sovereign determinant factor in all matters, the fact is that the Court is little more than a curator of the supremacy within the restrictive spheres of action and is bestowed no powers beyond any other governmental branch. It is however, evident that the Supreme Court has the ability to either impair or enforce the Constitution, but the proper role of the Court is far from that which it now assumes over this land. Thus the supremacy clause is nothing more than the affirmation of the Sovereignty of the People as it is characterized within the Constitutional Compact. Our system of governments, both State and federal, are completely embraced by the Constitutional powers that are delegated and reserved, the supremacy is bestowed coextensively and as such, that supremacy protects the powers delegated to the federal government equally as it protects those powers reserved by the States, otherwise there is no independent supremacy of either the federal or the State governments.

Each is co-dependent upon the other for the supremacy of operation within the very specific and limited spheres of action provided by the Constitution to those entities. There is no independent supremacy granted to any branch of government, otherwise there would have been no need for a Constitutional Compact delineating such powers. If the federal government, or any branch of the federal government had such supreme powers then the efficacy of a Constitutional Compact would have been instantly voided and would contain no practical effect on governing. Thus it is the supremacy of the Constitution, not a political branch of government that imposes limitations on each branch of government to very specific orbits of functionality, with one holding no more supremacy than any other branch within our system of governments. If such supremacy existed within one branch of government, or was extended to one branch then the entire concept of checks and balances would be an exercise in futility.

It is therefore, upon this foundation that the Supreme Court has asserted its power, but it must be remembered, that like every other branch of our system of governments, it too is limited and restricted to its sphere of action. It is not the judgments of the Supreme Court that are the supreme law of the land, but the Constitution and it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to simply determine if laws passed by Congress meet the standards of restrictive qualification within the Constitution. The Supreme Court is equally related to all other portions within government in respect to the limited powers delegated to the federal government and reserved to the States. The Supreme Court cannot be above the very law that created it, but must operate within the qualified limitations imposed upon it by the Constitutional Compact.

Every branch of our system of governments must act within the boundaries enumerated within the Constitution and there is no place within the Constitution that provides for any branch of government to have supremacy over any other branch of government. Neither the federal nor the State governments derive any supremacy over the other, but must act within their specific Constitutional sphere providing a balance within the system that would simply not be possible if such supremacy existed in one or the other parts of government within the system. Each section of our government is supreme within its limited sphere of action, but not beyond that sphere for each branch, and each government, whether federal or State, is bound by the powers delegated or reserved to it.

Thus, the Supreme Court has supremacy limited to its sphere of operation, in other words it can only justify its actions if, while function within the judicial sphere, it annuls an un-Constitutional law legislated by Congress. It is evident therefore, that neither the federal nor the States can place an impediment on the other unless one of those governments overstep their own sphere of operations and intrude upon the delegated authority of the other. Each section of government operates within its own sphere without hindrance from the others unless there is the usurpation of the powers prescribed to the other section of government, and then a hindrance is not only valid, but also absolutely necessary to void the trespass and usurpation. A section within our government cannot exempt itself from the limitations prescribed to it by the Constitution; limited powers cannot become unlimited.

The federal government cannot modify any powers vested in the States, nor can it nullify powers reserved to the States, but each must operate with respect to the powers and responsibilities committed to them by the Constitution. The federal government can claim no supremacy except within the narrow powers prescribed to it, nor are the States subordinate to the federal government in any respect except for those powers the States delegated as the scope of federal power.

The People of the Several States exercised their Right to alter or abolish both the governments of their respective States, as well as the federal government. If such power no longer rests within the People of the Several States, but in the federal government, then such construction must be considered completely erroneous not only with regard to the language of the Constitution, but to the very existence of the Constitution. If such were the case then there would be no need for the Constitution to exist at all. There is no branch within the federal government, which can, by its own volition, modify the terms of the Constitution, which governs its operation, and the sphere of its delegated power. There would have been no need to reserve any powers to the States if the States were to be subordinate to the supremacy federal government. It is the powers reserved to the States that provide a mediated check upon the powers exercised by the federal government, otherwise the whole system would have been subversive to the enumeration found within the Constitution.

The common consensus from the Declaration of Independence through the ratification of the Constitution was that the States, by concurrent consent of the People of the Several States, might modify or dissolve the union by the Right of Self-Government. The People have never relinquished that right and in that Right they retrain absolute and complete Sovereignty. The States, by virtue of the Consent and Will of the People, in Constitutional Compact, retained all power to influence the operations of the federal government in order to maintain the security of their Liberty.

The power reserved to the States and the People respectively demonstrates a particular supremacy over the federal government in that Congress can be compelled, by the States, to call a Constitutional Convention that can, based upon the Will and Consent of the People, ratify changes to the federal government without the consent of any branch of the federal government. In terms of strict Constitutional order, the federal government cannot change itself, nor can it change the governments of the States. While the Constitution enumerates those powers reserved to the States to affect the means and manner of operation of the federal government, it does not enumerate such powers to the federal government over the States. It is evident that while powers of the State Constitutions are limited, that limitation is not placed upon them by the federal Constitution, but by the People of the individual States themselves.

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution clearly states the extent of judicial power within these United States: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; --to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; --to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; --to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.”

It should be concluded that the Supreme Court derives no supremacy from the above article of the Constitution; in fact, Article III limits and defines the powers and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It should also be evident that, based upon sound construction, the term “supreme” in reference to the court is in relationship to the “inferior courts” and that no actual supremacy rests within the Supreme Court itself except in that relationship. There is no reference within the Constitution as to the supremacy of the Supreme Court over State Courts or State jurisdiction.

There was no intention that the word “supreme” as indicative of a power that extended beyond the prescribed limitations placed upon the court by the Constitution, if there were the case then it would be possible for the court to extend its power to any degree it deemed proper and necessary; that would be a dangerous proposition and would allow for the concentration of power within the federal government without regard to the consequences of that concentration. Had the Constitution enumerated that the court had supreme jurisdiction then it would have not be necessary to enumerate or define certain limitations on the jurisdiction of the court as found within Article III. Indeed, had that been the case then there would be no limitation at all and the supremacy of the High Court would instantly abolish the coordinate Right of Constitutional Construction. There is therefore, no power innate within any branch of government to define its own limitations or lack thereof, those are defined within the Constitutional Compact as agreed upon by the States as parties to that Compact. The federal government is not a party to the Compact, but is the resulting agency of that Compact, deputized and authorized to operate within a defined and limited capacity.

Since it is obvious that the Constitution does not invest inferior courts with jurisdiction over State courts, then it must be equally clear that the Supreme Court can hold no such jurisdiction either. Likewise, the Constitution did not declare the Legislative Branch was superior over the State Legislatures, both were considered independent of each other, thus the same construction must be applied to the Judicial Branch of the federal government regarding the State Judicial Systems. If the State Judicial were subordinate to the federal Judicial, then it would have been enumerated and the interactions, as well as the limitations would have been clearly defined, but that is not the case. In fact, if it were the intention of the Framers of the Constitution to place actual supremacy within the federal Court system then it would not have been necessary to define the various operations, limitations and jurisdictions of the Supreme Court.

Federal Judicial power must therefore, be limited in relationship to the State Judicial in the same fashion as the Legislative Branch is limited in regards to State Legislatures, in both instances they are independent of each other and operate within differing spheres of action and different spheres of delegated power. Since it is obvious that Congress cannot repeal a State Law, it would follow that the federal courts cannot Constitutionally abrogate or enjoin judgments of State courts. Indeed, if the three branches of our federal government are separate, but co-equal then every principle concerning the manner and means by which authority is delegated to the federal government must be equally applied.

These principles derive their force from The Declaration of Independence as demonstrated in M'Ilvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), where the Court held:

"This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted."

Again, in Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526, 527 (1827), where the Court stated:

"There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states…Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory…

"[T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour."

New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 139 (1837), the Court held:

"They are these: that a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified and exclusive,"

Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212-223 (1845) the Court clearly delineates the strength of the State’s independence:

"We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed,"

"Because, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted,"

"Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law".

Caha v. United States, 152 U.S., at 215:

"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government."

Additionally, in consideration of proper understanding and construction the Court appeared to be in concurrence with The Federalist Papers:

" The jurisdiction of the general government, is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the Republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any."

If we take such expounders of our Constitutional construction then it should follow that if the jurisdiction of the general [federal] government is limited in both its scope and reach into the matters of the Free and Independent States, then the Supreme Court, being simply a branch of that general government is also restrained by the Constitution to follow the same limitations of power as the federal government as a whole. Since the federal government is limited to certain enumerated objects, then it would behoove us to understand what those enumerated objects consist of and just how they are prescribed for administration.

Also found within The Federalist 82.3, federal power is clearly defined: “…the principle that the States will retain ALL PRE-EXISTING AUTHORITIES not exclusively delegated to the federal government.”

Within the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, it appears that Jefferson is in concurrence:

“Resolved, that the Several States COMPOSING the United States of America ARE NOT UNITED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF UNLIMITED SUBMISSION TO THEIR GENERAL GOVERNMENT, but that by COMPACT under the style and title of the Constitution FOR the United States and of amendments thereto, THEY CONSTITUTED a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, RESERVING TO EACH STATE TO ITSELF THE RESIDUARY MASS OF RIGHT TO THEIR OWN SELF-GOVERNMENT; AND THAT WHENSOEVER THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT ASSUMES UNDELEGATED POWERS, ITS ACTS ARE UNAUTHORITATIVE, VOID AND OF NO FORCE: That to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming, as to itself, the other party; that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the constitution, the measure of its powers; but, that as in " all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the measure of redress."

There can be no doubt that while there is a complex relationship of co-organization between the Several States and the federal government, that they are indeed independent of each other and both the Several States and the federal government have the mutual right of construing the Constitution. It is both recognized and also asserted, as co-dependencies of government, the governments of the Several States and the federal government, along with the principle of those distinct governments, in principle, operate within distinct jurisdictions, and for a very good reason, so as not to allow the concentration of power to be formed by any government, whether it be those of the Several States or, in particular, the federal government. Thus, logical construction should follow that if the entirety of the federal government possesses no supremacy over, nor can require no subordination of the entirety of the State governments, then neither can any part of the federal government have supremacy over any corresponding part of the State governments or, for that matter, the Several States themselves or their citizens except in a very limited delegated manner prescribed by the Constitution.

That being said, it would then appear that there is no obligation of subordination of the legislatures of the Several States to the federal legislature; likewise, there is no supremacy of the federal judiciary over the judiciary powers of the Several States, except as explicitly expressed within the delegated and enumerated powers found within the Constitution. Since there has been, within the Constitutional Compact, a reservation of the residual mass of rights to the States it then follows that all the powers, limited in scope and operation, delegated to the legislature and judiciary of the federal government were deliberately prohibitive. Claims to the contrary defy the co-extensive restrictions on the enlargement of power or the assumption of power that would, by any Constitutional definition, be a trespass against the functional spheres of operation of the States.

There is, without doubt, no assertion of power more inconsistent with the principles of republican government than a claim by any portion of the federal government over the laws and Constitutions of the Several States. The annulment, by the federal government or any portion of the federal government, of the laws of the Several States is an abridgement of the oath that every elected federal official took to uphold and defend the Constitution for the United States of America.

There is, without doubt, an obligation on the part of the governments of the States, as it is on the federal government, to comply with the Constitutional Compact; after all, it is a Compact between the Several States, not with the federal government and the Several States. The primary obligatory focus however, is on the federal government as the resulting agency of the Compact between the Several States, thus the delegation of powers to the federal government from the position the States take as creator of the Compact.

Thus, it is sufficient to say that the Supreme Court can most definitely declare un-Constitutional laws as void and ineffectual however, that does not mean that the Supreme Court may, based upon the authority delegated to it, be the sole authority of Constitutional construction. The final check on the federal government is not the Supreme Court, but the Several States themselves since the Supreme Court’s authority only extends to the limits of the powers delegated to it by the States and no more. It cannot legislate from the federal Bench, it can only determine the Constitutional value of a particular law as passed by Congress or, in the case of Appellate jurisdiction, the opinions of the inferior federal courts. The Supreme Court, as well as the Legislative and Executive Branches of the federal government are not constituent parts of the governments of the Several States, as such, there is no legitimate cause for any portion of the federal government to intrude into the measures taken within the Several States unless those State governments seek to abrogate their Constitutional obligations under the Compact. Likewise, the governments of the Several States cannot legitimately intrude into federal measures unless those measures are determined, by the Several States, to be a violation or usurpation of the Constitutional Compact which created, through ratification, the federal government.

During the ratification process, it is evident that the People of the Several States did not confide the federal government with every possible power, nor did they imbue the federal government the power to determine its own limitations. In the case of the federal Judiciary, the People of the Several States confided the Courts with the power to declare a federal law void and un-Constitutional, but the People, in their own Sovereign character through the agency of their Free and Independent States, provided that the spheres of action between the federal and State Judiciaries, were to be separate and distinct. So much so, that the relationship between the Judiciary of the States and that of the federal government could be compared with that of the court systems of two different States, separate jurisdictions and powers with no power to intrude in each other’s spheres of action or declare a law of a different State void. `

How can there be a reconciliation between the principles found within the Constitutional Compact and the idea that, as the Supreme Court appears to contend, that is has the ultimate and final word on law? If, as the Supreme Court contends, it has the Constitutional authority to effect, with a certain finality, the laws of the Several States, even to abrogate those laws then would that not be a complete surrender of all control over the governments of the Several States, and thus, over the People of the Several States?

If the Supreme Court or the federal courts can abrogate any State law and control the States based upon any construction that it so pleases, then can there be any real retention of the mass of rights which, according to the Constitution, were reserved to the States themselves? Would therefore, the States have any security at all in retaining any of their rights if the federal Judiciary claims such supremacy? The guarantee of the right of republican governments to the States, a guarantee stemming from the Constitutional Compact not the federal government, could possibly be safe under the supremacy of such a federal court system?

The doctrine of federal judicial supremacy is contrary to the principles of internal self-government by the People of the Several States and essentially transfers all authority over every aspect of our political, social and economic life to the Supreme Court. Certainly that could not have been the intent of the Framers of the Constitution, nor of the Conventions of the Several States as they ratified the Constitution. The Framers were careful enough to divide powers between the Several States and the federal government, indeed they went as far as dividing the federal government in order to protect against centralized supremacy; it makes not since therefore, that after such care in construction they would place such an unlimited power within the Supreme Court. Indeed, they would not have placed a power within such a court that would essentially allow it to be the judge of its own limitations and the powers that were delegated to it as enumerated.

The very same principle that allows for the Judicial Branch to restrain the Legislature from extending its power beyond the prescribed enumerated Constitutional powers is also found within the Several States and is an added measure of protection against the usurpation and abuse of power. The States are no less powerful, no less respectable than the Supreme Court itself or any other Branch within our system of governments. Despite the current present condition of the State governments, subjugated to the federal government and pressed beyond measure to a servile state under the now centralized federal government, the States nevertheless, has the same power upon which the Supreme Court depends and they too are equally entrusted to discharge their Duty as Parties to the Constitutional Compact to be loyal to those principles upon which that Compact was founded.

We must, if we are to survive and restore the Republic, remember that the strength of the government lies within the People themselves. While it appears that this Grand Republic of Republics have been reduced to a shell of its former self, there is enormous power residing within the People themselves and there is nothing this deformed centralized government fears more than the power that is reserved to the People. The People are the origin of all power that is delegated to the governments; they are the protectors and the source of all deputized authority. The Framers of Our Constitution never intended any given sphere of government to acquire enough power to control all others, the final determining factor is the People themselves acting through their deputized agents called the governments of the Several States, which can, if necessary, act forcibly against the federal government through interposition, and as a final threat of authority, the abolition of the Compact of Union.

It is evident that the States, prior to the Compact of Union found within both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, were Free and Independent States; these attributes were not relinquished by the Compact of Union, in fact it demonstrates the full character of the States as Free and Independent entities in the ability to form such a Compact of Union.

All Un-Constitutional laws, as well as Un-Constitutional Judgments of the Supreme Court itself are null and void. The Supreme Court is no less bound by its Oath to the Constitution than is the Legislature, the Executive or the States themselves. The States, like the other Branches of government, not only have a right, but also a duty to resist, by absolutely every means within their power, all Un-Constitutional laws or judgments. The Supreme Court has never had the exclusive right to determine its own jurisdiction, for to have such a right would essentially empower it with a jurisdiction without limits and without the ability to be redressed for its abuses.

Since it is the People who are Sovereign, the government, including our State governments cannot be sovereign; the State governments are equally limited in their scope of power as is the federal government. Our system of governments was intentionally subjected to limitations and restrictions, within none of them being exclusively empowered with the ability to enforce those limitations and restrictions, thus a system of checks and balances.

Derived power can never be greater than the power from which it is derived. Since all power is derived from the People themselves, no State or majority of States can exercise supremacy over any other State; equally as potent is the fact supremacy was not conferred to Congress, to the Executive or the Supreme Court because derived power can never be greater than the power from which it is derived. It is very apparent since the federal legislature cannot possess absolute unlimited power or supremacy, then the Executive nor the Supreme Court cannot posses it either. The principle of separate, but equal Branches of government would indeed be a contraction if one of those Branches had any supremacy over the others, likewise, the concept of a Republic of Republics, Free and Independent would equally be contradictory if the federal government had exclusive supremacy over the States.

In consideration of the fact that Un-Constitutional laws and judgments are null and void, such judgments and laws cannot be enforced since they are not indeed law, but mere fabrications of legislative deviancy. Herein is the power of the States, as deputized agents of the People, demonstrated in the nullification of such judgments and laws. The States, as deputized agents of the People, share the mutual Right of Constitutional construction as does the various Branches of the federal government, this is evident by the oath found within the Constitution that requires: “the Senators and Representatives in Congress, and the members of the Several State Legislatures, and all Executive and Judicial officers, both of the United States and the Several States, shall be bound, by oath of affirmation, to support the Constitution.”

This common duty to uphold the Constitution also implies an equal responsibility as to the determination of the actual nature of laws passed by the federal Legislature, executed by the federal Executive and if necessary, subsequently adjudicated by the Supreme Court. The truth is that our government is far more than just a single entity with single authority; it is multilayered with very defined spheres of limited power and with good reason, to protect the Liberty of the People and to provide the least amount of government intrusion into their lives. It must be understood that the constructive supremacy of one single political power over all others within our government invalidates the entire system upon which this country was founded.

Equally as important is the understanding of the type of construction that was used to impart these divisions of power within our system of governments. There was an intentional degree of internal conflict imbedded into our Constitutional Republic. Since it appears that the federal government possesses the greater sphere of influence in terms of governing, due to the nature of the federal government, there is, as we have seen over the decades, a tendency for the Supreme Court to base its decisions on the justification of the federal government’s positions. Such judicial actions can, of course, create distortions within our republican form of government.

Over the years, expressed supremacy has been erroneously merged with implied supremacy within the federal government, as such; the government has assumed authority far beyond that which was enumerated. It should therefore, be obvious that by merging that which is actually expressed and enumerated with that which is merely implied there is a great possibility, as is the case presently with our federal government that instead of the government functioning within the defined limitations and restrictions found within the Constitution, the powers it has assumed have been amplified from implied powers to what now amounts to expressed powers without limitations. Due to these distortions of Constitutional construction, the Court now appears to insist that Congress, the Executive and the Court itself extends to supremacy over the powers reserved to the States themselves. The Constitution was carefully constructed to preserve the powers reserved to the states and well as those delegated from the Several States to the federal government and not where within the Constitution does it give exclusive right to one section of our system of governments to another.

The federal government cannot be the judge of its own limitations for it will always determine that such limitations are no limitations at all. A judge cannot judge his own case any more than our government can determine the extent of its own limitations, there must be external checks and balances which forcefully demand those limitations be obeyed.

Likewise, if the Supreme Court, for instance, is limited by its own will then its conception of power will always gravitate toward that power being unlimited. No power can ever be checked by itself for it will always assume the greatest degree of latitude in the exercise of that power. In such cases there is left little means of resistance except extreme resistance.

Does not a union of States denote the supremacy and equality of the parties forming the union and not the union itself? The act of union did not imply the reduction of the supremacy of the States nor the Sovereignty of the People, it was a mere contractual act between the States to provide a greater degree of flexibility and protection to the People of the Several States than they would have been provided without union.

John Locke correctly stated, “that no man has a right to that, which another has the right to take from him.” This is exactly the state of affairs that the People of this country are now subjected to by the federal government; the Court is more likely to judge the limitations of our Rights instead of the limitations of the government’s exercise of power over our Rights.

When Congress passes Constitutional laws, then the States have the obligation to abide by those laws, but when Congress passes laws that are blatantly Un-Constitutional then it is the duty of the State government to resist with the utmost force possible and deny the exercise of those Un-Constitutional laws on the Citizens of the Several States. The supremacy of the Constitution not only embraces the powers delegated to the federal government, but it also embraces those powers reserved to the Several States as they perform a valuable function within our system of governments. There is, inherent in the reservation of powers and rights to the States a declaration that the States are in the position of supremacy over those rights and powers reserved to them rather than the federal government, which has no jurisdiction in those areas; in a similar fashion the States have no supremacy over those rights and powers they delegated to the federal government, yet the States do provide a check upon an extension of those powers beyond the measure prescribed within the Constitution.

There must be a concerted effort on the part of the Citizens of the Several States to not only disavow, but to resist and nullify all laws that are contrary to the lawful adherence and exercise of the Constitution. The States have this power for direct and indirect opposition to laws passed by Congress that do not meet with the measure laid out by the Constitution. For if Congress can continue to take from the States and their Citizens through various legal fabrications and the use of coercion to enforce those fabrications then it can take everything away.

It is apparent that the federal government has, with the assistance of Judicial novelties, effectively abrogated the right of the States to a republican form of government; for now the federal government intrudes into every internal matter within the States and their Citizens, employing various legal measures and maneuvers to accomplish its treason against the Constitution. The abutment of the States reserved powers has been effectively eroded by these measures to the point that the federal government, by implication, can remove any person from the jurisdiction of the States or confiscate any property. We have become a plundered People without redress to the plunders. It is time for this People, though their Rightful State governments, deputized for their protection against usurpation, to stand in forceful resistance against the wiles of a federal government that has illegally imposed itself as sovereign over this People and their State Republics.

The Claim To Sovereignty

2010-06-14T22:19:00.002-04:00

In consideration of the times in which we live and the character of government to which we are now subjected in this country, can there be any possibility that our Founders would have conceived and established a government that was so centralized in its supremacy when they fought, sacrificed and died to gain independence from a supreme government only to create one similar in supremacy?

Through the decades there has been almost a daily remodeling of the very substance of our government and of the intentional divisions created by the Framers of our Constitution to make such consolidation of government supremacy so cumbersome that any such attempts would not only cause conflicts, but pressing inefficiencies. When, in the course of such remodeling, the powers of representation become despotic, not only in its execution of power, but in its very nature, then it becomes the most desperate duty of the People to staunchly defend the original principles enumerated to enlighten the awareness of their Liberty.

Once the spheres of co-ordinate powers were clearly distinguished there was no doubt as to the operations of such powers or of the manner in which those powers should and should not overlap jurisdiction. As time passed however, the lines were intentionally blurred by the body politic as exclusive privileges were introduced, government pensions promoted and various judicial actions dispensed, which allowed an arbitrary power in government to collect and then dispense the wealth of this People at its pleasure, to determine the degree of Rights afforded to the People as though such Rights were a government grant. In doing so, this government has created the most lucrative partialities for itself and its beneficiaries, all in its attempt to gain a centralized supremacy over the system of federalism that once, to a degree, protected the People from the abuses brought about by both uninhibited ambition and the avarice that follows such ambition.

There has been a political habit of corruption within our government, brought about by the instrumentality of supposed necessity and, of course, convenience. As with all such political corruption, there are always consequences, one of those consequences is the positioning of this government as the bountiful grantor to its beneficiaries, whether the wealthy or the poverty stricken, using powers never enumerated and definitely never delegated. Over the years, this government has used these powers; all usurped, to create the most dangerous political combinations, many between the government itself and corporate entities, combinations that provide mutual benefits to both while creating a greater distress among the People who must pay the price for such relationships. There has also arisen, within such political combinations, a power vested by government itself to actually regulate the poverty and even the wealth of individuals through the manipulation of economic principles.

Within these political combinations, there has evolved a body politic that now materially affects the interests of all persons in this country through the expansion of powers far beyond those delegated. It is evident that all powers were originally delegated from the People, through the agency of the Several States, and yet, the federal government now assumes powers far greater than the very source from where all power and authority was delegated, and thus extracted. Policies, pernicious in character, have been formed between those who administer government and those who seek to benefit, either financially or politically from such policies. It now appears that both the vices and the capriciousness of politicians dictate all the claims of government to powers that were never intended to reside in government. Such claims to power always beget a growing oppression of the People, as experience of such coercion has sufficiently proved.

The evolved hostility toward individual Liberty is increasingly exemplified by this government’s claim to regulate essential aspects that are commonly associated with the life of an individual. While it is very true that our Freedoms may well prove inconvenient to this government, we should, in no wise, allow this government any abridgements of the foundations of our Liberty. There is, as there always has been, a propensity of the political process that leans toward mischievous inclinations. There must be a reinstitution of the Constitutional prohibitions on the powers by which this government nurtures itself. There must be a rejection and an elimination of government precedents by which such infringements have become legally justified.

Along with such blatant infringements, our Congress has been successful in the creation of pecuniary inequities, redistributing, as it were, both the wealth and the poverty of this country on a scale that has never been witness in our history. With such inequities come discord and discontent, all the while avoiding the very principles, which would be far more propitious to the happiness of the People and the future safety of the Republic. With such powers, the government has extended itself beyond the limits of all social necessity in the pursuit of its own aggrandizements, its funding systems, emoluments, pensions, standing armies, government sponsored corporations, banks and by its political patronages. In short, it has assumed the absolute power to act according to the pleasure of political expediencies in the interests, ambitions and avarices of its own administration.

The principles of our American Revolution have long since faded; instead we have allowed this government to invest itself in the instruments of our own oppression. By a system of inferences and distorted construction, this government has laden itself with superfluous powers, which are both pernicious in execution and devoid of Constitutional principles. We have yet to understand that the lost of one of our natural Rights is equivalent to the loss of them all.

There are basically two types of construction regarding the Constitution, one which is maintain the principles upon which this country was founded, the other calculated to corrupt those principles and, in the process, destroying such principles. As the expositor of certain powers, this government, extending those powers, no longer seeks to preserve the Rights of the People, but seeks to diminish the force of such Rights in the lives of individuals while reigning over them as though they were subjects of government instead of Sovereigns. It should be very evident that the means to accomplish destruction of the force of our Rights, as individuals must occur before it destroys the Liberty associated with our country. This government has employed a variety of obscurities while assuming unlimited powers of Constitutional construction to destroy our Liberties piece-meal.

Should we find it amazing that the idea of a sovereign national government is nowhere to be found in either the Declaration of Independence, the federal Constitution, nor, for that matter, in any Constitution of the Several States? In fact, the word is never used in any of those documents and yet the word is now used to describe not only the character, but also the very nature of this heavily centralized government. Our Founding documents never presented the intimation of sovereign power to government, instead, every one of those documents we find instead of sovereign powers, powers that are co-dependent, divided powers and powers delegated or, as in the case of the States, reserved powers. All such powers, as evidenced by those documents, were both intentionally restrained and limited.

There is however, a reference within the Bill of Rights which declares the States “to be free, sovereign and independent, but while it is clear that each State has those attributes it does not imply that the government of those States are free, sovereign and independent, for the State governments must also be subject to the Sovereignty of the People themselves. The reference is in regard to each State’s stance in relationship to other States and any foreign entity or country, including the federal government. Since our governments, both federal and State, are established by the People, the People retain all Sovereignty and deputize governments to act on their behalf and in their best interests. Our governments are the Servants of the People, as such there is no way to invest Servants with Sovereignty since Sovereignty, by definition and implication, declares the superiority of the Sovereign and the subordination of the Servant. Likewise, as the States, deputized by the People, did not, upon acceding to the union, transfer any Sovereignty from the People, but confined and limited powers as a means of sustaining the Right of self-government only.

It must be understood that actual Sovereign can neither be fiduciary, nor is it subject to external limitations except by the act of deputizing the law and the trust of the People. A government which has no external limitations, one which has the ability to determine its own limitations will always become unlimited in the scope of power it exerts and will eventually self-destruct from the excesses it pursues.

Can there be any doubt that it is a Natural Right to institute and limit our own government, establishing it on very specific principles designed to inhibit the possible extension, and therefore, the usurpation of powers which are even now used to regulate the consciences of People, confiscate their properties and redistribute the fruit of their own labors. Our government has increased its own authority, and there should be no doubt that the various degrees of our oppression are caused by what can only be described as this government’s pecuniary fanaticism. The Framers, at least most of them, viewed the idea of a sovereign government, whether the federal government or those of the States, as dangerous, as such, they sought to eradicate the principles of a government sovereignty by deeply investing our governments with very specific and very limited powers, all of which were enumerated.

Our country is now tortured by all the usurpations of the People’s Sovereignty and yet, we have been carefully taught to believe that our government is indeed sovereign and that we should, in all allegiance to the idea of its sovereignty, sacrifice ourselves, our Rights, our Liberty and our Freedom to maintain a system that no longer acts on the behalf of the People. Under the pretense that the purposes of this government is nothing less than the advancement of the national good, many have willingly allowed themselves to be subjugated to an illegitimate authority that, by its own claim, is the sovereign power over the People and the People little more than servants to the government’s supremacy. We now find ourselves in a thralldom, subjected to a system that imposes itself upon the People as though they were subjects of the government.

There should be nothing more objectionable to a free People than the idea of sovereign supremacy of government, for such an idea should be no less abhorrent than the rodomontade of kings who claimed their powers by divine right. Contrary to discerning any power of sovereign supremacy of government, our Constitution enumerates such a long catalog of balances, checks, and divisions of powers, limitations and restrictions that the concept of such supremacy is nullified. Sovereignty and the Right of self-government inherently reside in the People, but neither resides in government except by force and fraud.

Sovereignty therefore, by definition, infers a corresponding inferiority. Since this is the case it must be concluded that all political departments of government hold power through the authority of the People as it is delegated to the government and not from the government itself. While our government pretends to respect the Sovereignty and Consent of the People, the truth is that it directly assaults both. Original construction of the Constitution basically established three conventional authorities over the federal government, the mass of which reside within the People of each of the Several States, the next was in the State governments which were deputized by the People to appoint Senators to the federal Senate and the third being the authority of the States to enter into convention for the Amendment of the Constitution. Two Constitutions are involved in our form of government, one being the Constitutions of the States, the other being the federal Constitution, as such there are two distinct jurisdictions, each with powers delegated and reserved.

There is, and must be, a material difference between the concepts of the Right of self-government and sovereignty of a government; the first allows for the People to bestow very limited and enumerated powers to government while the second allows for the People to receive a limited franchise to their lives. The People of the Several States retain all powers that were not bestowed on either the State governments or the federal government; as such, the People never relinquished a portion of their Sovereignty proper, but only allowed for the limited grant of power deputizing the governments of the Several States and the federal government. Essentially, neither the State nor federal governments received any powers except as trustees of the Sovereignty of the People.

Upon reading elements of the various State Constitutions it becomes obvious that the principles behind those Constitutions recognized the self-evident Rights of the Individuals. Additionally, there is the expression of the Sovereignty of the People in their sole ability to form, by compact, a government. There is no higher form of Sovereignty than the capability of forming a body politic or government.

When reading the individual Constitutions of the States, the phrase “Several States or States” does not refer to all the People that comprise the United States, but the People who comprise the individual State Republics. The usage explicitly denotes a mutual consent of the People who have organized themselves into a civil society, as such the Sovereignty of this association and all allegiance due to that Sovereign association, along with the Right to internal self-government clearly declares the fact that there is nothing synonymous between the terms State and government. The States are comprised of Sovereign Individuals and the governments of those States are the instituted organizations that has been deputized by the Sovereign Individuals used, in trust, to help facilitate the maintenance, and if necessary, the defense of their Rights, Liberty and Freedom.

The plurality of the States, as well as the definition of federalism itself, completely rejects the idea that there is a national state organized and centralized in a general supreme government by the federal Constitution. When speaking of the term “United States”, the Constitution simply bears witness that there was an averment of the pre-existing condition set forth by the compact between the People, called the States. There is, in the very word “United” an admission in the Constitution that political societies are able to contract with each other; thus when we understand the phrase “a more perfect union”, it was a recognition that there was, in the powers of the People, the ability to amend the previous union under the Articles of Confederation, each State being the same party to the amended union as they were to the original union.

A Compact, such as the Articles of Confederation or the federal Constitution, exhibited the Sovereign character of the People, via the instrumentality of the States, as they exercised their Right and Power to enter into treaties with each other. While the Articles of Confederation gave preference to the State governments, the Constitution gave preference to a co-ordinate structure of checks and balances between the States and the newly formed general government. The parties of the previous Confederation were exactly the same parties who formed the Constitution, as such, the States, which are trustees of the People’s Will and Consent, not only had the Power to create a Charter, but retain, to this day, the Power to amend or even destroy that Charter. It should therefore be evident that the term “union” was never intended to describe our government, only the Compact between the States as they exercise the Sovereignty of the People.

The lack of uniformity in the Constitutions and the governments of the Several States denotes the explicit independent nature of the States and, in contrast to the States, of the federal government itself, for if the formation of the union of States and the resulting general government it created were the action of all the People of all the States in unison, then there would be no need for State Constitutions. Indeed, had the Constitution been an act of the whole of the population of the United States then every State would simply be a province without the necessity of individual Constitutions, jurisdictions, legislatures, senates, etc. The States would have been relegated to nothing more than departments of the federal government, completely dependent upon the central government’s dictates without recourse or redress, without power to amend any edicts imposed by the general government. Of course, that is exactly what the Consolidationist have always wanted, a nationalized government ruling over provinces and that is essentially what this country has devolved into over the decades.

As trustees of the Sovereign Power of the People, the States have the authority to amend the Constitutional Compact, such power and authority is not left in the hands of Congress, no majority in Congress is able to either call a convention or amend the Constitution. It is the States, acting on behalf of the Sovereign Character of the People, who can, upon gaining two-thirds agreement in the legislatures of the States, compel Congress to call a convention, once called three-fourths of the States may amend the Constitution. That power and authority does not reside in the federal government or in any branch of that government, but in the States. There is therefore, a recognition of the instrumental supremacy of the States as they act in the Sovereign Character of the People. This instrumental supremacy is not only over Congress, but also over the Executive and Judicial Branches of our federal government. The Power to Amend the very document that allows for the general government is the Power over the general government in all its aspects. Indeed, the Power to delegate or even reserve any power or authority denotes instrumental supremacy.

It should also be evidently clear that the People of the Several States, acting in their Sovereign Capacity, invested their State governments with far greater latitudes of political operations than they invested in the federal government. The federal government was limited in its authority and in the execution of that authority. Equally clear is the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits any construction that would allow the Rights Retained by the People to be denied or disparaged; the principle is further constructed in the Twelfth Amendment which reserves to the States respectively or to the People all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States.

A Power can only be Reserved or Retained if it were originally resident in the first place, likewise, a Power can only be delegated from the source of that Power. Therefore, the States, acting upon the Sovereign Character of the People have granted a degree of limited power to the federal government.

Despite arguments to the contrary, there has never been a single one of the States in these United States which have consented to dissolution into one nation under a centralized government. All Powers reserved by the States and Retained by the People are not delegated, in any way, to the general government through the instrument of the Constitution, nor have any Rights of the People, whether considered in terms of the plurality or the Individual, been relinquished to either the State or federal governments.

All Powers and Rights Reserved are only exposed to very specific and narrowly defined deductions, while all powers and rights delegated are limited and with that limitation there is a definitive injunction against the denial or disparagement of the Rights enumerated and those which were not enumerated by the Constitution. It is quite evident in this quote from The Federalist: “The Assent and Ratification of the People, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the Distinct and Independent States to which they belong, are the Sources of the Constitution. It is therefore not a national, but a federal Compact.”

Prior to our Constitutional Compact, societies and governments were formed on the principle of subordination and submission to unlimited power and authority. Had it not been for those Patriots who bravely fought and sacrificed during the Revolution and the political philosophies that influenced those Patriots, then the Natural Right of Self-Government and the Rights of the Individual to pursue Freedom and Liberty may have never arisen. Within the Declaration of Independence there is a proclamation of the Right of the People to Alter, Abolish and Institute governments that “seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness”. That is an amazing principle today, especially when the People begin to once again claim that Right and Duty.

Far from being indistinct or undefined, our system of governments is one of several co-ordinate, but distinct divisions that are specified with the most deliberate exactitude. When speaking of our governments, it is evident by virtue of their Right to Alter, Abolish and Institute governments, the People of the Several States established these co-ordinate divisions within our government, but did so without investing one section of that system of governments with supremacy over the others. Accordingly, due to the mutual structural dependence of the federal Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches, there is also a structural dependence of those federal Branches on the States themselves and upon the union they [the States] have with one another under the Constitutional Compact. At one time, the federal government was dependent on the States, unfortunately that is no longer the case as the principles of Constitutional Construction have been subverted and distorted through federal usurpations.

The primary principle of our system of governments is that both the federal and the State governments are, in fact, nothing more than different agents and trustees, deputized by the People and instituted with different powers for different purposes. The two governments, federal and State, are intended to provide a set of controls which provide for the security of the People in their Sovereign Character. Indeed, the federal Legislature was to be restrained by its dependence on the People, not only by its dependence on the People, but by its dependence and the oversight of the Legislatures of the Several States in order that there be a collateral control outside the federal government. The degree of supremacy delegated to government, either federal or State, is only delegated within the very restrictive spheres of action, limited to the basis of the powers actually and explicitly delegated.

The Framers of the Constitution were well aware that if the general government were to possess powers resembling sovereignty, then it would eventually take upon itself the power to regulate public and private property, disposing of it at the will of government politicians and bureaucrats. Indeed, they were aware of the tendency of governments to grow as the access to power increases; as that access increases, the more people are included in the decisions of the use of such power, the consequences of such growth and access is that the ambition and avarice of those in power is gratified at the expense of the People.

Our Constitution did not empower, nor did it invest our elected representatives with the authority to govern beyond certain limitations, this is especially true when it comes to individuals and their property. Elections were seen as another layer of control over government, while not perfect, it has a chilling effect on the attributes of usurpation when the electorate are involved and educated, otherwise it becomes a an exercise in futility as politicians abuse the electoral system to their advantage.

When the politicians are held to their responsibility as trustees of the People’s Sovereignty, then the relationship between the trustees and the People’s trust is maintained. It is apparent that politicians must be reminded of their obligations and while there is the tendency of politicians to seek powers of supremacy in governing, they must always be held accountable if they seek to subvert the principle of the People’s Sovereignty. This demand for accountability must be held in the highest regard, both by the People and those invested with the People’s trust, otherwise the foundation upon which our Republic rests will eventually crumble.

It must be understood, that in a similar fashion as the federal government, the State governments are also only trustees of the People, deputized on their behalf to lend a layer of protection to the People, not only against internal State intrusions into their lives, but also federal intrusions. Likewise, just as the federal government was not invested with unlimited powers of taxation for maintaining and sustaining itself, so too the States themselves were limited in their ability to tax the People in order to sustain State government. Of course, it is under the pretext of the public good that government tends to mask its requirements of ever-increasing taxation. The People are not the government’s purse!

Within our Constitution there is evidence that the motives behind the various enumerations of powers and rights invested in both the State and federal governments were to be precautionary in nature. Indeed, the Constitution places prohibitions on States as well as on the federal government, and with good reason. For instance, the States were prohibited from passing any bill of attainder or expost facto law or any law that would impair the obligations of contracts, at the same time it empowers the Congress with the responsibility to coin money and to fix the standard of that money in terms of weights and measures. Why? These were precautions against the various modes of assaulting private property and indeed individual liberties associated with economic oppression. It can not be more clear that a power which is prohibited to the States and not expressly delegated to the federal government should be exercised by neither; should it not be equally as clear that if the direct exercise of a power is prohibited, then it should not be exercised indirectly either.

This government, especially Congress, has long-since abandoned the idea that while it has the delegated power to make all laws that are necessary to execute the powers of government, it also has the responsibility to make sure that those laws are also proper for the execution of government. If the end result of a law is not legitimate, then the law itself cannot be legitimate, there must be a proper role for a law, any law passed by Congress and the primary factor determining legal legitimacy is the effect it has upon the People, upon their lives, their livelihoods, their Liberty and their Freedom.

Can there be any doubt that the Framers, at least the majority of them, viewed the consolidation of powers as a very real and potentially destructive danger to not only the Liberty of the People, but the entire structure of the Republic? To entertain the idea that the intention of the Framers was to imbue our federal government with sovereignty is completely inconsistent with all the principles they crafted into the Constitution, such as the balance and restraint of powers, the division of powers; indeed the entire concept of a federation denies the foundation of either centralized sovereignty or localized State sovereignty. While it is true that our government has devolved into a system that determines its own limitations, that was not the case at the time our Constitutional Republic was established. For if our government can determine its own limitations then, it should be obvious, the judgment of government will always exercise power in an unlimited fashion. The federal government, no matter what Branch, cannot be its own judge.

It is impossible for a delegated power to be exercised as though there were absolutely no restrain as to how that power is used, that is the purpose of the act of congruent powers, both delegated and reserved. It is the balance in the system, just as the federal government can seek to impede certain activities of the State governments because of the prohibitions that the States agreed to adhere to in regards to the powers they delegated to the federal government, likewise, the federal government can be impeded in certain activities by the States because of the limitations placed upon the federal government through the delegation of powers by the States. The fact is that both the federal and State governments are both entrusted with certain powers, but with that entrustment comes very distinct limitations, thus both governments are limited governments. Both governments received no monopoly of power nor were they delegated a monopoly on the means and manner in which those delegated powers could be administered.

It should also be obvious that when a system of government is reduced to the clients of various interests, whether corporate or political, then our Legislators can be and have been bribed into a docile state of obedience to masters other than the People. Our government officials, both elected and appointed, have, for the most part, have chosen to participate in a bonus and patronage system that can hardly be considered in the best interest of this country or the People.

Today, we live under a system that is the progeny, not of our Constitutional Framers, but under a system born as the continuing progeny of Un-Constitutional Bastards, illegitimate, with no claim to the Heritage of our Founders and no desire to that claim.

Economic Kiss of Death: Obama Style

2010-05-12T09:42:00.001-04:00

While it may appear that the Obama Administration has embarked on a totally different course from other Administrations, the fact of the matter is that it is simply a continuation of an agenda that has been operating in this country, to one degree or another, not only for decades, but for much, much longer.

The seeds of the destructive nature of this present government's policies predate the ratification of the Constitution, but of late those seeds have began to bear fruit, a vile, degenerative fruit that places the future of this country, its people and their liberty in the utmost jeopardy. The eventual effects of this government’s policy will be chaotic in nature and affect every aspect of our lives. As stated, this course is not a new one, but one that has been gradually implemented, whether conscientiously intended or not, by a political mindset that promotes the consolidation of the powers of all government into the hands of the political class.

The ideology has morphed little since the time of Hamilton, the central theme is an all-powerful government, whether Monarchist, Mercantilist, Consolidationist or Socialist in nature. The core of this ideology is that all power rests, not in the people, but in the government. The methods to achieve such a consolidation of power have been varied, but primarily rest within the sphere of monetary economics where a political economy can be produced and expanded to the point of complete government control.

While it is not a recent development, the Obama Administration has embarked on a very definite path toward controlling, either directly or indirectly, the means of production in this country to an extent that has not been seen previously, as such, the distortions which already exist due to past government intervention in the markets will become more exaggerated and new distortions will be created. As the distortions increase so too does the chaos and as this happens those within this government, without a clear explanation of the causes or solutions to the problems it creates, will simply continue on the same chaotic path with even more vigor.

Upon this path lay eventual price and wage controls, they are inevitable. The entire system employed by this government, fueled through a total fiat currency, is built upon an ideology that not only ignores the principles of sound monetary economics, but also must ignore such principles. Of course, one of the major issues of such policies is that eventually they become not only cumulative in nature, but also self-perpetuating. The necessity of further government intervention simply becomes unavoidable.

A point is reached where the government has no alternative but to gear-up its efforts to combat the effects of its own policies, one of the indicators that the government has lost control of the actual economic when it is forced to actually seize control of businesses, the means of production within various sectors of the economy, especially the financial sector. As stated before, this is not a new path, but one that has gradually been enlarged to the point where we now find ourselves.

While there are different definitions of Socialism, the fact is that the common thread throughout all such definitions is increasing necessity of government controls and what amounts to de facto ownership over the means of production and distribution of goods and services. It is the government’s ability to gain and then exercise control over economic matters that increasingly cause markets to lack the ability to adequately calculate economic information in business decisions. This stealth form of Socialism is insidious for it gives the general appearance that government planning is necessary to maintain economic market viability when just the opposite is true.

When government policy encompasses the power to actually determine the manner in which economic functions are expressed in the markets then the entire definition of ownership eventually falls under government control since the government is able to, through legislative acts and non-legislative statutes, determine the actual use of property, as well as the disposal of such property. The economic movement of goods and services are increasingly swayed by government policy and regulation, as such there is, in a very real sense, a transfer of ownership from the private sector to the public sector or government. While it appears that there is private ownership within the economy, in actuality that ownership is only nominal since it has been effectively transferred via such legislations and statues. Essentially, a nationalization of economic functions has gradually taken place where government controls and mandates supercede the ability of control over property rights traditionally thought of as being solely owned through the determination of actual title to goods and services by individuals or companies.

Such gradualism toward a Socialistic economy has, of course, been accomplished under the name of capitalism, the government allowing for a degree of capitalistic traits to be maintained to continue the ruse. Essentially, while it appears that actual private ownership is legally maintained the fact is that due to the legislative and mandated controls, private ownership is actually only maintained as long as the legal restraints on that private property are fulfilled by those who claim such private ownership. If the legal restraints are violated, which is a rather simply matter for the government, at any level, then the government can step-in without any consideration of what should be protected private property rights.

It must also be understood that the actual definition of private property and the rights that protect such property have gradually been diluted, being now dependent upon the allowances of government legislation. It is generally accepted by the population that their property is subject to potential intervention by the government, whether that intervention is through restrictive regulation, increasingly heavy taxation, or more drastically, the potential for forfeiture to some government agency. No longer is allodial title to private property sacrosanct, but all title to property rests solely at the political and bureaucratic whims of government. Gradually, what has been a mixed economic system is being transformed into a completely Socialistic economic system, though it will never be described as such.

Through the last century and a half, this economy has gone from a free-market to a mixed economy and is now moving toward a completely quasi-Socialistic economy that is characterized by government corporatism and economic tyranny. The consequences of such a transition however, will not be as simple as the political class envision, the resulting chaos stemming from this transition has the potential of destroying the political superstructure as it now stands. Under the mixed economy that began in earnest during the 1930s the system requires intervention by government; as stated, it eventually becomes inevitable that more and more intervention is required to maintain the system.

While under a mixed economy, the means of actual production and distribution are maintained privately, but are subject to government control; this continues until the effects of such intervention creates an increasing need for more government intervention, so much so that economic distortions eventually require the government to intervene even more into economy to the point that it must take drastic measures to maintain the economy. Such measures always fail to accomplish the stated purposes, as such more measures are required to keep the system afloat. As economic chaos increases, the uncertainty of the public is used to the advantage of the government, making it politically palatable for the government to propose more intervention, leading to more chaos requiring more intervention.

As this government takes upon itself responsibilities that are normally associated with the markets, it is the government that ultimately decides how goods and services are created, used and disposed. Eventually, of course, such interventions bring about such distortions in the markets that it becomes impossible for the government to reverse the effects of such distortions.

We have already reached the point where the government must begin to institute certain controls to maintain the system it has created. Such controls will come in the form of a greater degree of manipulation of wages and prices until the manner in which the division of labor is determined in the market is corrupted and non-functional. The mere act of buying and selling is no longer governed by the markets alone, but by the legislative policies of government. As the intervention continues, at some point the right to bid pricing on a good or service or the right of ask pricing no longer applies, this happens because of the controls that the government institutes and must institute to keep a semblance of functionality within the economy. This however, only exacerbates the problems associated with continued economic distortions until shortages begin to appear within the market.

The Obama Administration has already given plenty of hints as to what is in store for our country. Recently, Mr. Obama stated that:
“We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.”

J. Kenneth Galbraith said:
"There is a widespread notion that one of the most primitive of modern ideological choices is whether a government shall be Keynesian or not . . . no present or future administration really has the non-Keynesian choice."

As the future will prove, the Administration will engage in a soft form of wage and price controls, but even in the soft state, such controls will ultimately be devastating in terms of economic functions. Such destructive attributes associated with wage and price controls eliminate the rights of ownership in the private economy. It is a de facto form of Socialism that has all the characteristics of a Socialistic economy in everything but name, all that remains of free market capitalism is an empty shell.

Such controls deprive those in business from the use of their capital freely, the uses ultimately being determined by the various measures implemented by government. The government interferes with the natural economic market functions, interjecting conditions and restrictions on business to the point that businesses can no longer use their capital in the most profitable manner possible. The limitations on profit filters through the economy, diverting resources and redistributing those resources in ways that cause economic distortions.

Now it must be understood that such controls have been in place for decades, but with the election of Barack Obama, the goal of transforming the United States into a Socialistic society is closer than ever. It is clear, not only by the actions and the words of Obama, that the intentions of the Administration are far from what could remotely be considered Constitutional, or even American for that matter, but it is also clear that Obama is following a well-beaten path of Socialistic ideology that has plagued this country since the period of Lincoln.

The entire impetus from the period of Lincoln to Obama has been, with little interruption, a path of the consolidation of a nationalized government with the power to control every aspect of the lives of individuals. In order to do this it was necessary for the free-market to be completely destroyed and a system of centralized planning be implemented. The first barrier that had to be removed was sound money, after that it was necessary to implement a form of economic theory that would not only allow the government to gain control over the economy, but would make it necessary for it to gain control through the gradual destruction of monetary and economic functions that operate according to free-market principles.

Keynesian economic theory was, without a doubt, one of the single most important tools in the Marxist agenda for this country. As Joan Robinson, a Keynesian economist stated: “ the differences between Marx and Keynes are only verbal”. The agenda is to control, not necessarily to own all productive and distribution avenues within this country and to do that it is of primary importance that the government bring about a certain degree of disruption in the economy. Such a disruption, whether intentional or not, would make it necessary for more and more government intervention into economy and social matters.

As a former Keynesian Economist, Dr. L.A. Hahn stated: For it [the Keynesian view] presupposes an economy whose members do not see through the changes brought about by monetary or fiscal manipulation or as some might say, the swindle. Above all, it presupposes that people are blinded by the idea that the value of money is stable by the "money illusion."

It is indeed an illusion, there is nothing real about the Keynesian economic foundation upon which this economy now rests, nor is there any reality within the fiat monetary system that keeps the government expanding. The key to ability of this government to expand its power, abusing the delegated and enumerated powers along the way, is the fiat monetary system employed by government to bypass all Constitutional limitations.

As the government continues to expand its influence over the lives of the individual, as it seeks to redistribute the wealth of the people into what it considers a more equitable distribution, it produces, in reality, a stratified society where the ruling classes are never included in the egalitarian plan. A government aristocracy develops that sets itself above its own mandates for Socialistic equalities; those that are privileged exclude their own participation in meeting the required mandates of government legislation.

Unfortunately, for the government, central planning can take unexpected paths; usually it forms chaotic paths due to the effects of intervention in the market. While it most certainly appears that there are those within this government to have full faith in the ability of government to actually control economic mechanics, the reality is that it is simply impossible. All efforts in that direction only increase the distortion already created by previous government intervention and interference into the market. Those within government, the politicians and bureaucrats will always seek to expand production within the economy however; the massive inefficiencies brought about by the governments own intervention in the markets inhibits such production. The incentives of production are destroyed, not only are the incentives to produce destroyed, but the incentive to act productively is destroyed by the unending cycle of government intervention necessary to keep the system hobbling. The really amazing fact is that even in the face of such overwhelming evidence of the failure of Socialistic economic policies, most politicians who adhere to such ideology are completely unwilling or unable to abandon the ideology.

As with all Socialistic or quasi-Socialistic political economic systems, the resources and funds required to maintain such a system become enormous, even crippling to the markets. Instead of providing economic stability, the results are chaotic disruptions as the government intervention apparatus continues to intervene to correct the problems resulting from the previous manipulations by the government in the economic processes. It is a cycle of destruction, feeding upon itself as the government continues to gain more and more control over economic matters. Eventually, the entire system becomes unmanageable and the controls unenforceable. Under such system there can never be any real planning, such planning must eventually reach the stage of reactionary responses to the consequences of the governments own policies and legislative mandates. Real control becomes illusionary.

As the government assumes more and more responsibility for the economic well being of the citizens, the less well being there is to go around. Everyday life becomes almost unbearable as people attempt to skirt the system that has entrapped them. Resentment and open hostility will manifest, causing the government, in the interest of its own survival, to brutalize the people. Individual freedoms are sacrificed for The State Collective, propaganda is geared toward any hint of discontent and those who intend to rule do so with the cruelest intent.

As failures mount, the government is quick to place blame, that is, to place blame on anyone and everyone other than itself and its policies. The government must turn to external threats in hopes to rally the people behind it and no longer depends on reality of potential threats, when it is enough to fabricate those events to garner support. Of course, corruption is always present, but now and then it becomes necessary to expose internal corruption to maintain a degree of legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

As the Socialistic economic and social system crumbles under its own weight, the government must resort to overt force to maintain its control over the people; there is no other alternative but state-terror as a sanctioned method of maintaining its power.

The Obama Administration has set its course, a course that is resulting in one of the most massive periods of deficit spending in the history of our country; the only real method for financing that spending is a policy of inflation since there is no possible way for this government to tax its way to solvency. Using the government’s favorite instrument, fiat currency, it has been able to spend with wild abandon without the worry of massive taxation at this point to keep the system working. Factually, there is absolutely nothing this government can do, or will do, to get itself and this country out of this situation it now faces.

The actions of this government have been, and are, distorting, actually destroying the uniform rate of profit that the markets normally establishes and governs. As such, this distortion can be seen in the manner in which businesses make business decisions and even how they account for profit. The entire system of fiat currency and the economy on which that system must be based creates some of the most destructive economic factors that eventually cannot be hidden in the real world. The rate of influx within the withdrawal and injection of capital is contorted through the inflationary depreciation of the fiat monetary regime. As such, the actual profit and therefore, capital available to business and even individuals is a façade and cannot provide an accurate portrayal of economic reality. This distortion can easily be seen by comparing profits without the effects of inflation with the effects of inflation on the rate of profit. Eventually, this begins to corrode the basis of production, even the motives behind production. Indeed, since the rate of profit becomes distorted, over time, the measure of total production also is distorted, as well as the ability of business to correctly anticipate actual consumer demand.

It should be evident that along with the distortions created by the monetary system and the manipulation of that system, there has, by necessity, been a drastic increase in what can only be considered an almost completely subsidized economy, generated by the power of government to redistribute wealth from what remains of the productive sector of the economy to the non-productive sector, as well as those businesses which are politically connected. Subsidies are nothing more than a form of price control, along with such price controls; wages are equally manipulated through various means, from taxation to fiat inflationary depreciation. Under such a system, there can never be real expectations of stable future pricing or wages sufficient to keep pace with unstable fiat pricing. Since the economy adjusts itself to the quantity of money available, the fiat monetary system, being manipulated by external forces, i.e. the government, the adjustments themselves are a product of quantity distortions in the supply of fiat money.

A problem arises when this distortion affects the value judgments of businesses and individual consumers, which, in turn, affects the demand within the economy, usually causing a misallocation of resources and labor. There is a very good reason why a fiat economy must depend upon a great deal of fiat credit creation, the system by itself, cannot maintain economic progress over a long period of time and will falter without such fiat credit creation. Such a condition, of course, creates a number of dangers, the least of which is the level of accumulated debt that must be held to maintain the fiat economic system.

Additionally, since the normal and healthy forces within a free-market economy are manipulated, and thus distorted, by government intervention, the actual supply of resources are diverted to elements within the economy which, may or may not be the most important employment of those resources as they would be under a free market economy. Government regulation tends to create these diversions of resources, rerouting resources to less efficient production that would be normal under a free market. Normally, in a free market, the market will naturally form a variable range where supply and demand expand and contract naturally, the same cannot be said of the government’s manipulated economy. A free market will determine all prices by costs of production; this is done with respect to the individual’s economic value judgments as a balance is achieved in the market based on the various forces at play within the economy. In the Socialistic economy, eventually no such value judgments are possible, supply and demand become skewed according to government policies affecting those forces.

What was once only a transitional form of Socialism has now been implemented forcefully by the Obama Administration. This form of Socialism cannot be considered traditional Socialism, but is a conglomeration of Socialistic principles mixed, by necessity, with free-market principles, but the transition to a total Socialistic system is much closer under the Obama Administration than at any other time in our history. The problem that the Obama Administration seems to be completely oblivious of is the fact that under such a system there can be no real economic progress, the economy falls into deeper levels of disarray, requiring more and more government intervention just to create a degree of balance within the economy.

While the former Soviet Union suffered a rather rapid decay due to various factors, the least of which were an unsustainable Socialistic economic system, the United States will suffer form a slightly different type of economic and social decay. Obama’s Kiss of Death will include a combination of factors that were not prevalent in the former Soviet Union, but there will be comparisons to be sure. The fact that the United States has been so dependent upon an open fiat monetary system, fractional reserve banking system and fiat credit creation that there will be a much more intense form of decay, causing an intense collapse on many fronts, including societal.

There will be a convergence of events taking place through the fiat economies around the world, the events of the United States will prove to be a fatal blow, not only domestically, but on the foreign economic fronts. As the economic situation grows worse, so too will the attempts of the government to maintain control and power. These attempts will naturally include tactics that will not be mistaken as anything but tyrannical, despotic and cruel. The government will take upon itself life and death decisions that will impact every aspect of the lives of the People of this country.

As an high rate of fiat inflation turns extreme, more extreme price controls will ensue, making matters worse, leading to massive shortages and setting off a cycle of uncontrollable events that will seem, in many respects, contradictory in traditional economic terms since there is no real historical comparison available. A hyper-inflationary depression will produce events that mimic both deflation and inflation, but are not, in the strictest sense either. The displacement of employees will be massive as layoffs increase at an alarming rate. Many of the most respected companies will be wiped away with a rapidity that will literally be shocking and economically earth shaking.

Property rights will be the first to suffer then will come the abolishment of all individual rights. There will be a rapid rise in black market activities and the government will seek to impose draconian measures to prevent such activities, without much effect. The forcible expropriation of the means of all production, the implementation of heavy-handed controls of both prices and wages will inevitably create even more chaos. We will see starvation on an ever-increasing scale, along with acts of desperation by the public as mass confusion and distrust spread. Widespread violence will bring about even more acts of abuse and even atrocities which will be viewed as necessary and perhaps even proper [by the political elite] given the increasingly uncontrollable situation.

The Panic of 2008, which is the preview of events to come, will appear to be good times as the economic system deteriorates in the most surprising ways imaginable. Economic and therefore, social dislocation will be nightmarish in the extreme, social unrest will gravitate toward complete chaos and all faith in government will be erased.

The real danger, particularly for this government, is the social unrest that will result from such distortions. There will either be a complete breakdown of the economic functions in this country or there will be a continuation of a gradual disintegration, which will allow the government to implement a complete Socialistic economy, thus a society, without the need for forceful restraint. In other words, if there is a very gradual decline in the economy well-being of this country then the people will be much more receptive of such government controls and intervention. If however, there is a rapid disintegration, which at this point can be expected, then the likelihood of a drastic backlash against government intervention is possible. The traditional views upon which this country was founded have a chance of resurfacing during such a period of disintegration.

That being said, there is still hope and it is not the kind of hope promoted and promised by this illegitimate Administration. It is a hope of Restoration, a hope that the People of this country have reached the point where they are no longer asleep and have started to question the actions and motives of their government. Perhaps the greatest force to confront this heavily centralized government is the 10th Amendment Movement and the empowerment of the Several States to interpose themselves, effectively nullifying federal government actions and laws in favor for a much more Constitutional stance. The concerted efforts of a growing number of States, with a growing awareness and support of the Citizens of those States, will be persuasive, as the movement grows, so to will be the pressure on the federal government to reconsider its stances and actions.

A plea to the common sense of the American People, or at least that which remains, will go far in crippling the goals of this Administration. There will come a time, and we have almost reached that point, when the American People will finally have had enough of the folly instituted by this government. We are fortunate in that the People of this country are not accustom to nor inclined to trust nearly as much as other countries where the tradition of being subjected to a paternal government was generally accepted as normal. There are rumblings in the land, and many of those rumblings are coming from the some of the more surprising places and people.

Interposition of the States

2010-02-15T08:01:00.001-05:00

“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” The Declaration of Independence

For decades, there have been those who have not only coveted political power, but have gained that power and have, through a variety of cunning devises, used not only the legislative, but the executive and judicial bodies of our government to accomplish a system of the centralization of power that now affects every area in the lives of the People of this country. This pernicious system of centralization is stamped with the indelible character of a growing aggravated oppression.

Laws have been crafted in such a way that many give a special pecuniary interest to particular agendas, a variety of political beneficiaries and has done so with such ingenious political and legislative devices that, at times, makes it difficult to expose the actual character of the laws being passed and the effect those laws have upon this country and its People. Every pretext is utilized, every socio-political slight-of-hand is employed to confer upon the federal government unwarranted powers that far exceed the clearly defined limitations found within the Constitution. To this end, this government sets out every type of molestation upon this People, implemented restraints and placement of hindrances before them thereby preventing them from enjoying the very fruit of their labors and to live their lives as they deem proper.

A sectionalism has evolved, one that pits the power of the federal state against the People and it has, through various means of coercion, promoted all the beneficiaries of a ruling class upon those who enter the federal regime and are employed by its vast resources, all of which are plundered from the People. This Congress has, for years, resorted to numerous unwarrantable acts, legislations, statutes, regulations, taxes and schemes for the purpose of exercising powers not granted to them either by the People nor by the Constitution from which it receives its delegated, and thus subservient authority. They have usurped powers and authorities that do not belong to them nor are such powers and authorities based upon Constitutional principles, but emanate from the perversion of those very principles upon which this country was built. Through devious and subversive means, those within the federal government has changed both the character of government and the execution of government, reducing, as it were, the Constitution into a mere formality and upon the crumbling ruins of our Republic, they have gradually erected a highly centralized power that now borders on a consolidated despotism without any limitations to its powers and without the real checks or balances upon those powers.

This federal government has assumed powers not inherent to it, in fact the federal government actually possesses no inherent powers for all are delegated to it by the People and the Several States respectively. It was the People, through the agency of their respective States that created the federal government and at that creation they conferred upon the federal government its powers in a purely delegated manner and therefore limited form. All power within the federal government is based upon that act of delegation and each power delegated to it is based upon prescribed limitations enumerated within the voluntary Constitutional charter. Prior to the writing and subsequent ratification of the Constitution, each State was Free and Independent, each possessed full Sovereignty as provided by the People residing in those States from whom all Sovereignty rests. The character of that Sovereignty did not change by the ratification of the Constitution as each State entered into a compact with each other for the creation of the general federal government. The creation of that general government provided for very specific objectives that were intended to benefit each of the Several States, yet those specific objectives were framed within a narrow and strictly limited scope of powers.

Jefferson once said: “the Several States composing the united States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to the general government, but by a compact under the style and title of the Constitution of the united States, they Constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, Reserving each State to itself the residuary mass of Right to their own Self-Government, and when-so-ever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are Un-authoritative, Void, and of No Force.”

It should therefore, be understood that the federal government is nothing more than an agency created by the States through the People Assembled in Convention; with that understanding it must also be recognized that the federal government can exert no power or exercise no authority beyond the prescribed limitations of power delegated to it by the Compact of the Constitution. The Constitutional Compact therefore, was not an agreement between the federal government and the States, but between the Several States themselves as they created the federal government as a beneficial agency to act upon the Will of the People within the Several States. Thus, the federal government can lay no claim to any power or authority that was not expressly granted to it by the People through the Several States Individually or Assembled; it can only assume such power and authority through virulent usurpation.

Has it not become evident that this Congress, as well as others before it, have both passed and attempted to pass legislative acts on numerous issues that, on the face, purport to be beneficial for the American People, yet such legislations usually result in the expansion of government, the regulation of all aspects of our society and the confiscation of the choice fruit of our labors. Such gross violations of the Constitution are the most deliberate and palpable, as such they assume some of the most dangerous assaults against the People’s future well being. The Congress even uses those powers that are properly and specifically delegated to it for entirely different purposes, perverting the legitimate powers for illegitimate goals.

The consequences of these violations have, over the decades, served to establish some of the most pernicious principles found within our government, creating a foundation that is now accepted as the norm, providing the greatest latitude of operation and application as government continues to consolidate its powers. Instead of applying the Constitution to government, the government has applied its perverted principles to the Constitution as it has consolidated the Several States and the representative government, by degrees of legalistic invasion, into a nationalized sovereignty.

This government has, through a myriad of contrivances, established an excessive exercise of its general legislative control over the interests and even the pursuits of the People of this country. In ignorance, the government has assumed that it has both the wisdom and ability to undertake the regulation of the lives, labors and properties of the American People. The once Free and Independent States are treated as though they are dependencies, mere colonies of the central government and the People, once the source of all Sovereignty are now subjugated to the all-powerful rule of the consolidated government. The Several States, as the People themselves, are no longer subject to their own interests, but to the interests of others, namely the government and its attempt to create a total dependent state, dependent solely upon the plentitude of the government benefits doled out at its own pleasure.

Indeed, pensions, subsidies, benefits have all been enlarged to such a extent that no other conclusion can be reached but that this government has established its pernicious principles with the purpose of the bestowal of gratuities on the political ruling class and those politically connected. Additionally, in order to achieve this type of usurpation, it has used methods of virtual enslavement, enticing great numbers of the People to become dependent upon the government dole, providing the political parties with a readily available voting block, providing a degree of legitimacy to its actions. Beyond this, the central government has created such a state of dependency that even the States themselves have become addicted to the government’s redistributive system of the Peoples monies.

By all appearances, Congress is evinced of its own power, determined to use its distributive powers to in all manner of new and creative ways to channel the resources of the People into favored avenues, ultimately to the benefit of the government, not the People. Essentially, the central government has sought to absorb all the powers of the Several States, becoming the premiere depository of all sovereignty and power in the Land. It has, in this grand grasp at power, assumed jurisdiction and guardianship over even the most mundane matters in this country, disregarding the fact that many, if not all those matters were either entirely the purview of the Individual or of the Several States in which the Individuals held their Citizenship.

This government has, through systematic manipulation of law, laid claim and assumed the right to exercise such claim, as well as control, over the ability to appropriate public monies in any manner it deems necessary. Like public monies, this government has also assumed complete authority for the appropriation of property, controlling public properties and regulating those, which are private. It has, on numerous occasions, asserted judicial supremacy, not only over the once Free and Independent States, but the Citizens of those States who are, by any estimation, the essential source of all legitimate Sovereignty in this country and by whom all government derives its power to govern by the consent of those State Citizens.

The practice of Patronage has been intentionally established in this government, from the Legislative Branch to the Executive Branch, in order to achieve its complete consolidation of power over this country and its People. Political and financial influences, undue and unjust, permeate the functions of this government. The Several States have been reduced to ancillary elements of the “Supreme Federal”, now nothing more than petty corporations, parts of the whole, and colonies dependent upon the central government for their existence and continued viability. The Several States have been effectively shorn of all hints of Sovereignty as the Sovereignty of the People has been effectively neutralized and their voices silenced.

Saturated thoroughly with the corrupting influences of political patronage and the power that results from such patronage, the government, comfortable in its cozy relationships lends its ear to its patrons while it maintains itself on the backs and payroll checks of the People. This Congress has been fully instructed in the arts of strengthening its hold on power, guarding its prerogatives and extending its reach into every possible aspect of our society.

The continued remonstrations of the People fall upon the stopped ears of our elected officials, all but ignored and answered only with the vainest of promises for reform; with no room for redress, no hope to find a common arbiter between those who seek to rule and the People. With all reasonable hope fading for redress, the People must turn to their States as a means of Interposition to stand in the gap between the People and this illegitimate government. There must come a time when the assertion of the Sovereign Rights of the People are once again expressed through the Several States to pressure this government to abandon its corrupt system of partiality, favoritism, monopolies and protectionism, unjust in its operations as it assumes powers, strengthening its authorities, that were never delegated to it by either the People or their States when they ratified the Constitutional Compact in assembled conventions.

Our forefathers rose up in their might for far less than this People now suffer under, yet, we continue to submit to this thralldom. The American People have become spoon-fed with the idea that our situation is normal, lawful and completely acceptable under the principles of the Constitution and yet, there are few legislative acts passed by this government that conform to those principles.

The governments of the Several States recline in complacency, no longer advocating the Rights of the People or their prerogatives under the Federative Compact agreed upon between the Free, Independent and Sovereign States. Is it not the Right of the People, through the agency of their individual State governments, to lay complaints, to demand redress remonstrating all infractions against them? Is it not the responsibility and the duty of the State governments to refuse any and all obedience to any legislative measure taken by the federal government that is manifestly a violation of the Constitutional Compact? Shall those within this federal government violate the Constitution with impunity?

As it appears, the vast majority of those who call themselves public servants, they must think themselves above the actual Law of the Land, giving lip-service to it while transcending the limitations as prescribed and authorized. The government no longer recognizes the Rights enumerated and completely ignore the fact that there are Rights Reserved to both the States and the People that are not enumerated. How could it be otherwise with the Sovereignty of the People, are they not the Sovereigns, is it not within the character of that Sovereignty that they must consent to the manner in which they allow themselves to be governed?

This government has a long line of measures intent on the annihilation of all hints of Sovereignty, whether it is the Sovereignty of the Individual or the Sovereignty imparted to the Several States by the People. The centralized government has wiped away the Independent nature of the States, consolidating all power in Washington D.C.; something that was never intended by the Framers of the Constitution, nor was there any design that could be construed to support such consolidation and concentration of power in the federal government by the Constitution. The powers being asserted by the federal government, controlling numerous internal measures within the States, in many cases, amount to little more than a form of legalized pillage as their Reserved Powers are trampled under the heel of a federal government that no longer shows interest in anything but its own interests.

So, what shall be done to redeem ourselves, to restore that which has been taken by both deceptive methods and by force of arbitrary laws that have resulted in a state of peonage for the People and a huge productive Vassal State for the complete benefit of the federal government? The question is of the gravest sort, the answer most solemn for if we are simply continue in our present state, waiting for this government to reform itself and return to some sense of justice then our wait will obviously be in vain and any hope can no longer be indulged. The sensibilities of the People have long ago been numbed, their estimation of their Rights lowered and they have been gradually taught to find comfort in their chains as though they were actually free.

The People, for most part, have resigned themselves to their condition and allow the voluntary relinquishment of the prospects of actual freedom to a class of politically advantaged, pecuniary benefits are secured to those who are politically connected by various laws and policies that favor them over the vast majority of the People and indeed over the general welfare of the Country itself. The political and corporate classes have joined forces to enrich themselves under the operation of laws, which are always crafted in the name of the public good.

The crisis has arrived and yet few recognize its arrival; the public is assured that there is nothing to worry about; the government has matters well in hand. It will soon be evident that it is useless to delude ourselves any longer; the time has indeed come when we must either take a very decisive course of actions or we must completely abandon all hope of remedy; there is no middle course. We will either surrender the Rights purchased by the Blood of our Fathers, or we will commit ourselves to the coming struggle that we might once again, as our Forefathers, provide our posterity the Heritage of Liberty.

There must no longer be any restraint in our expression of intent nor in the depth of our conviction that we will take any measure necessary to secure our Liberty and will never consent to be reduced to a state of total dependency or dictated to by un-Constitutional powers usurped and then mandated upon the People by this government. Has not our own experiences taught us the most lamentable truth, that this government is in open and total disregard of the limitations placed upon it by the Constitution and that our Liberty cannot be dependent upon such a government? Without Liberty there is absolutely no need to preserve this current union of States and if the complete Restoration of Constitutional Order cannot be achieved then the peaceful dissolution of the Compact reached between the States is preferable to the looming violent convulsion of revolution as this degenerate state of affairs continue to evolve.

If We the People are given no other alternative but to continue to submit to the injustices and coercive powers of this government, relinquishing to it the last remnants of our Liberty, then what shall we do but seek the only remedy left to us, that being the Revolutionary Right to defend ourselves and our Liberty. If such a point is reached then there can be no recreancy in our resolve, no hesitancy in applying the very hallowed principles provided us by the examples provided to us by our Forefathers.

“We are reduced to the alternative of choosing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force. -- The latter is our choice. -- We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. -- Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them…we will, in defiance of every hazard, with un-abating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.”

If therefore, the Several States do not possess the Right of Interposition to arrest the progressive pace of un-Constitutional advance, then all our claims to our Sovereignty, and indeed all claims of Liberty are in vain. If the Several States, through the Sovereignty of the People, are not allowed the fulfillment of the promise of a republican form of government, complete with every character associated with a federated union composed of Free and Independent States, then the People must be determined under all the obligations and duties to their own Liberty and that of their posterity, to resist all efforts of subjugation.

“Each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming as to itself the other party, that they alone being parties to the Compact, are Solely Authorized to Judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it; Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the Compact, that it becomes a Sovereign State, to submit to undelegated, and, consequently, unlimited power in no man or body of men on earth; that in cases of abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the General Government, being chosen by the People, a change by the People would be the Constitutional remedy; but where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the Act is the rightful remedy; that every State has a natural Right, in cases not within the Compact, to nullify, of their own authority, all assumption of power by others within their limits, and that without this Right they would be under the dominion absolute and unlimited, of whomsoever might exercise the Right of Judgment for them; and that in the case of Acts being passed by Congress, so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration, that the Compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed to exercise over the States all powers whatsoever, by seizing the Rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed of binding the States, not merely in cases made federal, but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent, it would be the duty of the States to declare the Acts void and of no force, and that each should take measures of its own for providing that neither such Acts nor any other of the General Government, not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories.”

THE UNITED FIAT SERFDOM OF AMERICA

2010-01-17T08:35:00.003-05:00

Fiat money is a medium of exchange, but it has no commercial commodity value, no producer or consumer value, nor does it convey any title to an underlying commodity property. The only method of imparting value to an irredeemable paper fiat money is through government decree based solely upon the enforcement of legal tender laws with threat of penalty. In total and absolute contrast, commodity money, such as gold money, is a medium of exchange which retains an underlying commercial commodity value, it retains both a producer and consumer value and since that value is inherent in the underlying commodity of the money it actually conveys title to the commodity as private property of the individual holding the commodity money. Additionally, there is no necessity to involve the impartation of value to a commodity money by government, nor is there a need to enforce the use of commodity money by legal tender laws.

Given the generalized acceptability of gold commodity money, any form of that money, based upon weight would translate into a universal medium of exchange and do so on a global scale even though the coinage may be of foreign origin. Because of this characteristic of gold money, it is possible to construct all currencies based upon weight and the exchange opportunities of such currencies would be subject to both producer and consumer costs that cannot be found in any other type of money, especially fiat money. Gold money, unlike fiat money, is based upon the most fundamental principles of a barter economy; as such the indirect exchange involved with gold money maintains a direct interaction with the underlying pre-existing barter economy. In fact, gold money is the direct result of the barter economy. Gold maintains its marketable characteristic because of its connection to the most basic barter economic principles, which make up its foundation.

Today, the world is plagued with fluctuating fiat currencies that provide absolutely no consistency as a medium of exchange. Exchange becomes difficult since there arises a conflict in the manner in which fiat money must be sustained and in order for any exchange to take place, this system is dysfunctional on several levels, but especially in the balance of trade between countries, and to a large degree the means by which companies of all sizes, and individuals make economizing decisions. Gold money, on the other hand, based upon weight is a very stable and provides a solid foundation on which to base exchange, this factor also gives the ability to make sound economizing decisions and reliable information on which such decisions can be made.

As a medium of exchange, money normally serves as a measure of value, but in order to actually contain a measure there must be an imputation of value otherwise there can be no real measure on which to base value. As such, fiat money does not serve as a measure of value since the face value is in contradistinction with the underlying value, which is essentially the value of the paper itself. The imputation of value found in fiat monetary systems has absolutely nothing to do with the money itself for there is no value to fiat money, all value is imparted to fiat money via the government legal tender laws used to enforce its use and the manipulation of interest rates which serves to provide fiat money with a pricing structure.

It is apparent within the world that we live that most people associate the measure of value of their fiat dollars in terms of face value, but that is far from a meaningful measure of value and only is a numerical valuation that does not relate to the ordinal value of fiat currency since the currency is subjected to inflationary depreciation. As such, the ability to actually measure value within a fiat monetary regime becomes increasingly difficult as time progresses and depreciation takes place. With an unstable purchasing power, it becomes impossible for fiat money to actually serve as a concrete measure of value, this is particularly true considering the nature of our political economy since the continuous state of government and central banking intervention precludes a stable constant of value measurements.

Since fully functional money always arises as commodity money with all the market characteristics of a commodity value; that being said the question therefore, is how does fiat money arise and what is necessary to transform what amounts to pieces of paper into a medium of exchange? Fiat money is a forced unit of value and exchange, which never arises naturally from a voluntary exchange with an underlying measure of value. Fiat money is developed as a money substitute that carries with it some of the characteristics of money but essentially is not money in the purest sense of the word.

Such money substitutes cannot convey title to any underlying value since there is no underlying value in fiat currencies. Since it is not possible for title to be conveyed all claims of ownership are null and void; indeed, under a fiat monetary regime there are usually numerous claims to each fiat monetary unit and those claims range from the U.S. Government, to the Federal Reserve System, to national and regional banks and then to corporations, as well as individuals, but these claims do not convey absolute title to something that cannot, in the strictest sense, be considered private property at any point in ownership.

There are other problems that arise with a fiat monetary system, especially when that system is subject to a fractional reserve system of banking. Under a fractional reserve system the banks do not maintain a 100 % reserve therefore, the system lends itself to providing numerous claims at the same time on the same money, thus the possibility of bank runs is ever present in such a system. When a bank run occurs, the problem is revealed as people want to lay claim to their money but there is only a fraction of their money available to them under the system.

Prior to 1914, the year the Federal Reserve Act took full effect, commodity gold money circulated in various forms ranging from bullion to gold certificates. Gold certificates are actual claim to title of the amount of gold on deposit or warehoused at a banking institution, as such they can and have served as mediums of exchange only because of the underlying value of the gold that entitled them. Additionally, there are non-monetary instruments, which also can be exchanged as though they were money and yet they do not bear weight upon the total supply of money in circulation, they simply serve as an exchange unit in lieu of the money they represent. An interesting fact about gold commodity money is that, unlike fiat money, the gold proper and the gold certificates could circulate side-by-side without affecting the total money stock. This is possible because when a gold certificate is issued in a particular denomination, the equal amount of gold was take out of circulation and placed on deposit, thus there are no nominal pressures on the supply of money.

In this country, fiat money was saddled upon the gold money system by using the certificate system as a medium. It was necessary for those who supported the creation of a complete fiat monetary system to use the existing certificate system as a means of injection into the economy. The fact is that no fiat system can arise without the facility of an existing commodity monetary system upon which it is "piggy-backed"; usually this action is executed by stealth and deception without the population of a country ever being aware that it has taken place. It is in this manner that what was once completely worthless paper can be issued into the money stream and assumes purchasing power for it is accepted and used, by an unsuspecting public, as though it had equal purchasing power as real titled money. Essentially, fiat money appeared to be exactly like certificate receipts and since those certificate receipts represented a complete and unconditional claim to gold money, fiat money with no claim to any absolute money was exchanged as though it were absolute money. Problems arise when the monetary policies of both government and central bank extend the usage well beyond reserves; this is particularly true when there is a political agenda behind such expansive policies.

In most cases, people rarely think of how money actually functions within an economy. In most people’s minds money has a very one-dimensional quality…it buys things. It is, in the minds of most people, a purely linear mechanism that can be counted in a straight line. Basically, money is the purchasing power that each monetary unit provides in an economic transactional exchange. One of the primary signs of the quality of money is its purchasing power, but also, in relationship to that purchasing power is the savings rate. This is both a real and perceived quality that translates into cash-holding behaviors of people.

It is therefore, nothing more than the liquidity status of money that allows for transactional exchange to take place within an economy and as long as that liquidity provides purchasing power at virtual face value for such transactions and the settlement of debts then there is rarely a problem in perception, but when the face value of a currency does not relate to the purchase value then the problem becomes evident and confidence is lost. That is the primary problem with fiat currencies, due to the likelihood in fiat monetary expansion the purchasing power never remains at the face value of the currency.

Now, in terms of perception it really doesn’t matter how purchasing power is generated because people are only interested in what and how much they can purchase with a given unit of money. It is only when that purchasing power is diminished that people begin to take notice however, it is rarely understood that it is not a problem in pricing as they continually rise, but a problem with the currency as it continually depreciates in purchasing power.

With a fiat monetary system there must be a mechanism that provides for the imputation of value and the primary force behind that mechanism is government, its legal tender laws and taxation. Under fiat monetary systems taxation is not related to revenues since under such systems there is no need for taxation, it only serves as a social control and as an enforcement mechanism to require people to use the fiat currency. People do not voluntarily use fiat money; it is a monopoly that government has granted itself outside the parameters of Constitutional authority. Fiat currencies do not arise naturally nor voluntarily, they are always are imposed and the reasons they are imposed are evident to some people, it is purely for the benefit of government. Central Banks likewise, are instruments of this government monopoly and function at both the behest and benefit of the government and the political interests of the government.

The imposition of fiat currencies have never been for the benefit of the people and in fact, the people are the ones that always have suffered when government imposes fiat currencies upon them. Fiat currencies are the most deceptive of currencies for while they retain their face values; the deliberate policy of monetary inflation robs people of their labor and their ability to generate wealth. Essentially, there comes a time when people work for pennies on the hour while they think they are receiving the full face value of their fiat currency paychecks. It is a feudal system that always, without exception creates a peonage where the people labor for little and the government benefits from the virtual unlimited resources of a country. Fiat currencies used by governments always create a productive serfdom and the people that make up that serfdom rarely understand their own fate.

“The problem with fiat money is that it rewards the minority that can handle money, but fools the generation that has worked and saved money.”- Adam Smith

In support of the fiat monetary system, the government has allowed for certain creativity in banking and accounting. What would be considered criminal under an asset monetary system is sanctioned and encouraged under a fiat monetary system and for good reason, without such activities a fiat monetary system could not perform the primary functions of a transactional economic exchange unit, in other words it would not act as money in the economy. Under any total fiat monetary system it is imperative that there be a pricing mechanism to support the imputation of value otherwise it doesn’t function as money, it would be nothing more than what it really is: paper. Of course, this mechanism is found in the various schemes created by both government and the Federal Reserve Banking System.

There are those who mistakenly think that fiat money functions as money because it circulates, but the truth is that without the various artificial mechanisms put in place by government and banking there would be absolutely no value imparted to the paper we use as money. The truth is that the government could print all the fiat money it wanted to and without those hidden mechanisms it would be nothing but the paper it really is: worthless. Voltaire knew exactly what he was talking about when he correctly stated, ““At the end fiat money returns to its inner value—zero.”

The facts are clear, there was a very deliberate plan to the creation and execution of a fiat monetary system. When reading the works of John Maynard Keynes it becomes evident that the fiat conspiracy was nothing more than a shared power-grab between the political powers and banking powers. Keynes stated: “By this means (fiat money and fractional reserve banking) government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.”

While fractional reserve banking has been used in various monetary systems, including gold, it is however, fiat currency that benefits the most from a fractional reserve system. Without fractional reserve banking there would be no possible way that fiat money could function as a medium of exchange because the amount of fiat currency necessary to maintain a 100% reserve demand would instantly peel away all perceived and purchase value imparted to the currency by the various schemes used to support the system.

Among those deceptive schemes is the fact that all of the Treasury’s deposits are not counted as a part of its reserve against any money it has issued. Prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve Banking system all U.S. Government deposits were considered a part of the total money supply, thus all variations in the money stock could be readily known. This is not the case in the Fiat Fractional Reserve System since there can be no total demand on all deposits on the banking books.

So demand deposits under the Fiat Fractional Reserve System are subject to limited transferability. The problem, at least for the Fractional Reserve System, is there is simply not enough money to cover all demand deposits. Since the Fractional Reserve System maintains a well-constructed veil that protects the banking system from bank runs. At one time there was a 30-day notice required for the withdrawal of all savings deposits, but it was very rarely imposed for if it were then the veil would instantly be pulled back on the system causing a very rapid and devastating run on banks across the country. Imagine, if you will, that you wanted to withdraw your savings, your money and the bank teller tells you that you would have to give the bank 30 days notice before you would have your own money. It would be an instant confidence breaker in the system and the system would not be able to survive such revelation of the inner workings of the Fractional Reserve System.

The means of payment under the Fiat Fractional Reserve System actually describes one of the essential definitions of fiat money. In this system the Fiat Money may be parked in one form and spent in another, but the system must maintain the interchangeability in order to maintain a degree of parity and acceptability of the system. This characteristic poses one of the problems with the system and that problem is the extreme elasticity necessary to keep the system from imploding upon demand withdrawals and the total lack of asset value.

Every Fiat Monetary System is designed for the benefit of the government and its political allies never the people subjected to its deceptive functions. Fiat Currencies, at the hands of government, has always been a means by which government could, through the hidden taxation of inflationary depreciation, secure a relatively costless form of power generating funds, most of which are used to either extend the scope of government, but also to amass assets. It essentially accomplishes this by simply using inexpensive paper and inking its official signage upon it, then it is just a matter of enforcing the use of the fiat money by the people through a series of penal codes.

Additionally, one of the more insidious characteristics of all fiat monetary systems is that it allows government to divert the wealth and resources from the private markets into its own coffers. Governments, with the instrument of fiat currency, creates what amounts to a vampire economy where the labor and generated wealth from that labor is siphoned off from the people and transmitted to the government without the necessity of the more unpalatable form of direct taxation.

While there are those who sing the praises of the fiat monetary system, it should be no surprise that those who favor such systems the most are bankers and politicians who have a large stake involved in maintaining the fraudulent and deceptive system. It should also not come as a surprise that there are those within our society that exploit the system to increase their own holdings and are essentially granted almost monopolistic rights by the government and are beneficiaries of a system that otherwise makes life difficult for the working individual.

There are some very peculiar consequences of this fiat monetary system, one being a divergence of wealth generation between those who are politically favored and those who are basically politically ignored. Those who are favored by the political influence they peddle are able to take pecuniary advantage of the system, benefiting from the mechanism of inflation in ways that are difficult for the regular citizen to understand, most citizens are completely unaware of the connections between government and those who are politically favored.

Although there are usual detractors, the truth is that all fiat currency systems have been abused throughout history by governments and has always led to corruption and the eventual destruction of the currency itself along with the economic society connected with the currency. Fiat systems lend themselves to total government monopolies over money; in fact it is impossible to maintain a fiat system without such government monopolistic control. Under such monopolistic control the government enjoys the power to dictate and deprive, give favor and grant influences.

It, fiat currency, is the one instrument that the government has at its disposal that can completely subvert all Constitutional restrictions and limitations. From this one monopolistic tool, there is the granting of privilege that our government was never intended to possess; likewise, with this tool the government also has the ability to deprive the most fundamental right of money property upon which all other private property rights rests. Fiat money is the key for all government usurpation and allows government the ability to act as though it were not the servant of the people but their master and they its subjects.

In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance,
Republicae

The Destructive Keynesian Continuum

2009-02-24T20:20:00.006-05:00

It is, at times, difficult to wade through all the subtle changes that have occurred in this country, particularly the truly drastic changes that took place during the 20th Century. The problem is that there is simply not much information about these subtle, but drastic and transformative changes that were implemented in our government and country but there are hints.

These hints can be found in various publications, documents and news sources from the period from the 1930's to our present day, but the interpretation of these hints requires connecting dots that are not always apparent. One area in particular went through a massive and relatively misunderstood metamorphosis beginning in the 30's and today we remain trapped by those changes in the very foundational structure of our economic system.

It was, without a doubt, a revolution one that completely overturned the order and role of our government in our lives. This revolution came in the form on a complete economic transformation that promoted the intervention of government into the markets, but that was just part of the story; for this transformation allowed the government to expand its ability to intervene into every area of the lives of the American People.

Under the cloak of saving free market capitalism this revolution subverted the very foundations of the free market and throughout the process it has been instrumental in subverting the Constitutional foundation of individual freedom within this country. The Great Depression opened the door to the imagination of economists and politicians; since that time it has run wild.

The government came to the rescue during the 1930's and has been in the rescue business ever since. What the American People didn't know was the heavy price of that rescue; most are still unaware of the actual price that they have paid since the government came to the rescue or the price they continue to pay. They say that nothing is free and that has never been as true as what we have been wooed to relinquish in return for what is purported to be economic security.

We look at what occurred during the 30's and think that the government only intervened in the markets, banks and industry, but the truth is that this was only a portion of the rescue plan that revolutionized the foundational economic and political principles of our country. The other part of this rescue plan involved the government playing a direct role regulating all income, savings, and investments and spending.

Of course, we think we are in control of our income, our savings, spending and investments, but the reality is that the government has implemented controls through various subsidies, taxation, as well as government ownerships and partnerships in various sectors of the economy. Even wages and prices are manipulated through this system of government management. For decades we have been fed the line that we live under free market capitalism, but it is impossible to compare what this government has done over the past three quarters of a century and believe that it remotely resembles free market capitalism or freedom, for that matter.

With the goal of full employment and capacity production, this government began to take a path that would radically change the entire complexion of not only the political economy, but the social economy of this country. In the process, the structure of our government was also transformed into a system of bureaucratic administration responsible for the management of this massive economic machine they created. Once this system was created it could not be abandoned without massive economic and social disruption, the political price for such disruption would simply be too high a price for the politicians to pay therefore, it continues. Of course, it is not without its benefits, but those who benefit are not the workingmen and women of this country.

In order to sugarcoat the reality of this massive management system the government bureaucrats invented various labels such as "Compensatory Fiscal and Monetary Policy", it simply sounded much better than Government Managed Economy, but the name doesn't change the meaning. The drift into a socialized system of economic, social and political management began during the 30's and the march toward a full-fledged, systematic socialistic government has continued unabated. Once implemented, the system became self-perpetuating.

As J. Kenneth Galbraith said:

"There is a widespread notion that one of the most primitive of modern ideological choices is whether a government shall be Keynesian or not . . . no present or future administration really has the non-Keynesian choice."

Regardless of which political party is in office, the nature of this political economic system, once it was implemented, became self-perpetuating. It moves the country toward a self-socializing form of government regardless of the desires of the People of this country and even our elected representatives. The revolution in economy thought during the 30's was far more than economic in nature; it was also completely revolutionary in the political and social arenas as well.

There should be no doubt as to the direction the Keynesian, Neo-Keynesian and Post-Keynesian ideologies are taking this country. As Paul A. Samuelson stated: “[Fascist Regimes] have often passed socialistic measures. This is not a paradox at all, for fascism was (or is) a form of socialism similar to British socialism, or to the managed-currency, welfare state proposed by American Keynesians.”

By the 1940's this revolution in "new economics" had infiltrated the universities of this country and permeated economic thinking to the point that all opposing views were effectively rooted out of the higher educational system in this country. Generations of economic students were completely indoctrinated in the essentials of this new economic catechism. By 1950, the majority of universities and professors were teaching this new economic doctrine, textbooks reflected the accepted doctrine and the students were oblivious to just what they were being taught since it was the only accepted school of economic thought presented.

The truth of the matter is that so-called new economic theory was not new at all, but a revival of core socialist patterns of economic thought that were formulated during the second half of the 1800's. This core socialist pattern involved government intervention into economic affairs that would gradually lead to government intervention into social affairs; the outcome of which would be a transformation of the entire political structure of the country.

One of the ideas that arose from The Great Depression was the idea of "social-consumption expenditures", sounds innocuous enough until we understand what it means and the purposes behind such expenditures.

Lawrence Klein, in his book "The Keynesian Revolution" provided the meaning and the purpose behind such expenditures:
"We need a non-profit institution like the government which can provide a comprehensive, minimum program of social security in order to reduce the propensity to save. This program must cover the entire population, and it must cover all those contingencies which cause people to save on a large scale for the future."

While maintaining the label of free-market capitalism and individual freedom that is associated with it, we have a system that both confiscates and redistributes the labor property of people in order to reduce savings. In a managed economy, savings is an anchor that weighs down the movement of the entire system of this political economy. Under this managed system savings must either be drastically reduced or eliminated all together in order for other aspects of control to take place; it is easy to see that the reduction of savings in this country has been achieved.

Remember, the goal is worker productivity, full employment that allows the system to continue maintains control, particularly social control; without it the flaws in the system quickly become apparent. The focus therefore, is jobs; even the most useless jobs are considered vital to the entire complexion of the system. To understand just how far this ideology goes the words of Theodore Morgan explains the extent that the government will take in order to maintain the system: “. Even from the point of view of output, it is better to employ men in digging holes and filling them up than not to employ them at all; it is better to employ men to make products which we thereupon dump in the middle of the ocean than to leave them idle."

Of course, all of this was seen during The Great Depression, the government followed the recommendations of Keynes to "do something". This rather strange concept can be found throughout the economic theories of those who espoused the "new economy". While it is apparent that those who follow such economic thought must have considered their proposals and theories logical, the following example should show just how irrational these people were, and still are: "Giving money to foreigners is a form of "investment," even though we get nothing in return. If we could only export one of the printing presses used for the manufacture of Federal Reserve Notes to, let us say, China, our foreign investment would be enormously higher."

Keynesian lunacy has run rampant in our country and still, to this very day, influences our government in ways that few understand. According to these ideologues, government spending, obviously of any type, stimulates private employment and economic stability, yet it is all financed through taxing or inflationary monetary policy which drains and strains the entire "private sector" within the mixed economy. As we have seen, this government, along with its partner in managed finance: the Federal Reserve Bank, has effectively manufactured the monetary system needed to achieve the socialization of this country, without the use of a fiat monetary system none of this would be possible. It is also a mistake to believe that the Federal Reserve Banking system serves an economic purpose, it does not, its purpose is political in nature and the directors of the Federal Reserve are completely faithful to the political trust of those who appointed them and the legislation that allows the bank to continue functioning in a political capacity that promotes very specific socio-economic agendas.

Those who followed Keynes were well aware that sound money had to be destroyed otherwise there would simply be no way to implement the complete core socialist pattern in this country. The various proposals of Keynes and his subsequent disciples, who advocated "compensatory fiscal and monetary policies", by implication, necessitated the abandonment of sound money and this was accomplished by the introduction of inconvertible currency. Once the currency became inconvertible it was merely a formality to then create a total fiat system, which was accomplished in 1971. As Nixon said when he cut all ties between the U.S. Federal Reserve Note [once known as the Dollar] and gold: "We are all Keynesians now!"

Of course, Keynes was well aware of the dangers of fiat currency, so too have his subsequent Keynesians and Keynesian-derivations. They have all readily admitted that inflation, and the depreciation of the fiat currency is a problem, but they maintain it is controllable, but the controls are as onerous as the problem. Thus to prevent the effects of an ever-expanding fiat monetary supply, these proponents maintain that the government must have the power to manipulate credit, interest rates, prices and wages. The government, in accordance with this ideology, must be "given" total control over all fiscal policy.

This control, this power "allows" them to spend whenever and spend whatever amount that they "feel" is needed to stimulate the economy, but it also "allows" them to tax, regulate and stifle to any degree to restrain the subsequent inflation brought about by their print and spend fiscal policies. What this means is that the government central planners have a direct affect on the lives of each and every American. Not only do they directly affect the lives of Americans in terms of individual income, savings and expenditures, but essentially the future of the American People to actually determine the direction of their lives is also affected by these policies.

Now, because of the very nature of this "new economic" system, the only alternative to this form of management is for the government to implement wage and price controls. If all of this sound likes Socialism, there is a reason for that. Many of our politicians; and most of those who adhere to the officially approved economic thought don't seem to realize just what this system has done and is doing to this country. It is absolutely amazing to listen to our politicians, the economists they listen to and the media that covers this entire theatrical production of folly and irresponsibility. The have utterly failed to grasp the fact that by "allowing" government to maintain complete control over fiscal and monetary policy that it has effectively abolished the free market principles that promote individual liberty and freedom. The entire concept of government control over the aspects of the market is completely inconsistent with the Constitutional traditions of the United States and destructive to those means.

However, to avoid the flaws inherent within this mixed and managed economy, the government must maintain and expand its authority over taxes, spending, credit, investment, wages and general price controls otherwise the system eventually stumbles. Thus, the self-perpetuating nature of the system becomes of paramount importance even though every solution becomes a subsequent problem that requires yet another solution, which creates, even more problems. The cat cannot stop chasing its own tail.

Again, to understand the mentality of these "new economists", these Keynesians and Keynesian-derivatives we need look no further than their writings. When dealing with the rapid increasing debt, these economists seem to give us a choice between two untenable conditions. As the Stanford economist Tarshis stated: "If we do not want high debt, high interest rates, high wages, and high prices, then in effect we do not want high employment and prosperity." Such logic is required by this political economic ideology and by implication, the system does not allow for one without the other. There are so many connections that are unseen in this system, so many forces at play that few know the consequences of the interactions of those forces, but the consequences are becoming more and more evident.

One such consequence we are facing today is that of our creditors and their willingness to continue to finance our economy through the purchases of U.S. Treasuries. Even a few decades ago this question was on the minds of the Keynesians, once again as Tarshis said: "The only question, then, is whether the government can always find a lender or someone who will accept government bonds. In the final analysis this is no problem for the simple reason that the government controls the Federal Reserve Banks and can always compel them to buy government bonds. Anyone who controls a bank and is free to make the rules under which it operates will have no trouble in borrowing money. The government is in precisely this position, and therefore can always secure funds. There is no sign that a high debt exhausts the credit of the government of the United States. And since as a last resource "it can borrow from itself," there need be no fear on this account."

In the same vein of thought, Lawrence Klein said: "An internally held public debt can never be a burden, because we owe it to ourselves." Of course, this line of thought rests solely upon the idea that the managed "mixed economy" can, under the "compensatory fiscal and monetary policies" continue to grow enough to produce a balance between production and debt, thus affecting the ability to reduce the burden of debt. The balancing act cannot however, be sustained under such an economic system because the system is in constant conflict with the natural market forces that always seek to correct distortions, particularly when those distortions are created by numerous and massive external interventions which seek to artificially manipulate the economy for social and political reasons. Those social and political reasons are based in the concept that the government is the sole provider of appropriate social action, thus it is therefore, the sole granter of all benefits to achieve such action.

Another Keynesian voice from the 50's denotes the attitude that now flourishes in this government: "Probably, majority opinion agrees with our own national policy that the right of a man to engage in business for himself is not a basic freedom." ~ Theodore Morgan. This grand ideological experiment has created the most unbelievable contradictions in our country; while labeling itself as the defender of our liberty and freedom on one hand, on the other it implements policies that are totally and absolutely alien to the principles this country was founded on. It is as if those in our government cannot understand the connection between economic freedom and individual freedom; there is no concept within our government that not only does "compensatory fiscal and monetary policy" infringes upon the liberty of the People, but that it actually contributes to a steady decline in the economic prosperity of this country.

Make no mistake about what the so-called ethical goals of this government are, those goals are doctrinally Socialist whether it is ever admitted or not. Through the years, the decades, it has been easy for these ideologues to accuse and blame free-market capitalism for all the economic and social woes faced in this country, yet when we understand that those economic and social woes are not the result of free-market capitalism, but are a direct result of seven decades or more of government intervention and social engineering.

Even today, the People are hearing that in order to save free-market capitalism we need to abandon the principles of the free-market. Saving capitalism seems to be the favorite mantra of Socialist ideologues and yet, today, as in the 1930's, the problem is not the free-market, but the distortions brought about by government intervention. Under this Keynesian Socialist system the solutions always turn into problems that require more solutions; this fact is clearly evident by looking at the effects of this economic thought in this country over the last seventy-five or more years.

Through the decades, there has been a growing vested interest in the various types of government spending, especially in terms of subsidies; political corruption is a natural outcome of the creation of such vested interests. Indeed, along with vested interests in spending and subsidies, there is the inclination toward inefficiency and waste, not only in material resources, but in terms of human resources as well.

We have allowed our minds to be glossed over with decades of indoctrination that presents a completely different portrayal of our political, social and economic situation in this country; the reality is concealed by years of acceptance and compliance. Those who continue on this diet of social preferences, politically correct social planning and the collective conscience of our country never understand the problems that such policies create, they simply appear unable to see the connection and therefore they must always seek yet another scapegoat on which to place their hands before banishing the animal to the wilderness. Eventually there will be no scapegoats on which to place blame and they will have to take full responsibility for the policies they have promoted and enacted.

As a former Keynesian, Dr. L.A. Hahn stated: For it [the Keynesian view] presupposes an economy whose members do not see through the changes brought about by monetary or fiscal manipulation or as some might say, the swindle. Above all, it presupposes that people are blinded by the idea that the value of money is stable by the "money illusion."

Indeed, Keynesian Economics and its derivatives are little more than the Economics of Illusions, but it appears that those illusions have been so pervasive and obviously persuasive that few in their ranks question its validity. The concrete proof of the illusionary nature of these economic theories is the economy itself; it is the product of such nostrums. As such, it is impossible to believe that based on the illusionary nature of these theories and the application of those theories that a healthy economy can be produced by the policies that emanate from them. It the assumption is incorrect, the results of those assumptions will also be incorrect.

Contrary to those who are following closely in the footsteps of Keynes and his theoretical descendants, it is impossible to have underinvestment in free markets, additionally if they seek a remedy for unemployment they need look no further than to a return of free market labor and the removal of trade barriers, which, by the way, includes the so-called free-trade agreements which are nothing more than managed trade.

There is no alternative, for as we are seeing this government is following a well-beaten Keynesian path toward even further dislocation. It is absurd to believe that this government, by utilizing the same type of policies that created this economic dislocation, can, by simply enlarging those polices, cure the economic ailments that this country now suffers. The government is once again embarking on yet another easy-money policy to solve the problems that easy-money polices cased.

Unemployment cannot be cured by such actions; perhaps I should say that employment, productive economic employment, couldn’t be created by such actions. The government is once again traveling down the expedient road that will ultimately lead absolutely nowhere. Thus is will only perpetuate and in the process only aggravate the very problems it seeks to solve. Eventually, these forces will converge into a situation that is completely beyond the control of any policies, but for some reason those in our government are blinded by the idea that although the solution they are seeking to implement has been the source of the problem that maybe it will work this time if we throw much more money at it; the results will be catastrophic.
Decades have proven that Washington, D.C. is filled with weakness and immense amounts of bad judgment; as well as political officials who are willing to yield to various influences that are far from beneficial to this country and its People. Perhaps the circumstances faced by this country will finally awaken the People to the reality that they now find themselves and in the process the People will once again place demands for real responsibility on every level of government.

In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance,
Republicae

Keynesian Socialist Subversion

2009-02-01T08:31:00.008-05:00

The last seventy years or so have proven the massive flaws in the official economic and monetary policies which are promoted by this government, but it appears that there are few who are either capable or willing to view these flaws regarding the solutions that are available to resolve those flaws. Evidently, during this latest economic dislocation, we will see yet another round of flawed economics and monetary policy emanating from the Keynesian mentality that permeates the official realms of our government.

Keynesian Economics was created to create problems and not offer solutions. That seems to be a radical statement however, when you judge that statement in the light of the writings of those who knew John Maynard Keynes and his economic theories, it becomes apparent that they were well aware of the effects that Keynesian Economics would have on the well-being of the economy and that those effects would create the need for an ever-increasing amount of government intervention. Perhaps the clearest explanation of the effects of Keynesian Economics can be found in the writings of Keynes’ contemporary and Socialist Comrade John Strachey. Strachey stated that Keynesian Economics was “an indispensable step in the right direction. The fact that the loss of objectivity, and the intrinsic value of the currency which is involved (i.e., inflation) will sooner or later make necessary, on pain of ever- increasing dislocation, a growing degree of social control . . . for the partial character of the policy will itself lead on to further measures. The very fact that no stability, no permanently workable solution can be found within the limits of this policy will ensure that once a community has been driven by events to tackle its problems, in this way, it cannot halt at the first stage, but must of necessity push on to more thorough going measures of re-organization."

It should be very obvious, and irrefutable, that the real purpose of Keynesian Economic Theory was to completely undermine economic stability, thus creating a constant and steady need for government intervention that would eventually destroy the actual free market, leaving no alternatives but a government centered Socialist market economy.

In the book ”The Failure of the New Economics”, Hazlitt stated, correctly, "Keynes's plan for ’the socialization of investment' would inevitably entail socialism and state planning…Keynes, in brief, recommended de facto socialism under the guise of ’reforming' and ’preserving' capitalism." That statement, of course, is in agreement with Strachey’s assessment about what effects Keynesian Economics would have on the substructure, and eventual superstructure of economics.

Strachey again, referring to Keynesian Economic Theory, said: “If once it were admitted that capitalism could be regulated and controlled in this way, might not the wage-earning majority of the population come sooner or later to the conclusion that the thing to do was neither to put up with things as they were nor to go through the fiery furnace of social revolution, in order to establish a wholly new system, but to harness - to bit and to bridle - capitalism in its own interest? Was it not apparent that Keynesism had only to be pushed a little further and a state of things might emerge in which the nominal owners of the means of production, although left in full possession of the legal title to their property, would in reality be working not for themselves, but for whatever hands had grasped the central levers of social control?”

Additionally, Strachey stated: “It is impossible to establish communism as the immediate successor to capitalism. It is accordingly proposed to establish socialism as something, which we can put in the place of our present decaying capitalism. Hence, communists work for the establishment of socialism as a necessary transition stage on the road to communism.”

Thus, according to Strachey, the goal has been to gradually introduce Socialist mechanisms within the capitalist market systems through degenerative measures [such as Keynesian Economic Theory] that would increasingly promote government intervention in the markets. This has indeed happened over the last seventy-some-odd-years, and today we are seeing an even greater push by government in a response to this latest dislocation in the economy, as predicted by Strachey, as well as other Socialists.

It becomes apparent that one of the goals of Keynesian Economic Theory is the transformation of a free market economy into an official government economy. Indeed, if we look at the effects of Keynesian Theory on the actual monetary and economic policies executed in this country over the decades it becomes easy to see that this particular theory has eliminated the normal market mechanics for artificially induced and managed market mechanics. You will notice that over the years the savings rate in this country has gradually deceased, consumption, driven by debt, has increased and during this process the government has drastically increased its power over the economy. Due to various mechanisms within Keynesian Economics, in particular the enforced use of Fiat Money, private monies for investment has gradually dwindled while government monies have increased. Without private monies there is no other way for the markets to be maintained other than through public funding, thus the government must intervene and provide capital in the markets, as we have seen. At this stage, once the government infuses public funding, it has the power, as we see, to dictate not only conduct within the market, but also the various processes involved in business decisions.

John Maynard Keynes was closely associated with various Socialist groups; in fact Keynes once described himself as a Bolshevik and was well aware of Socialist doctrine and theory. Keynes, in his book “Economic Consequences of the Peace”, stated: "By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some.... The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose."

Indeed, Nikolai Lenin spoke before the Second Congress of the Communist International and declared of Keynes: “I will quote another economic source which assumes particularly great significance, the British diplomat Keynes, the author of The Economic Consequences Of The Peace, who on the instructions of his government, took part in the Versailles peace negotiations, watched them directly from the purely bourgeois point of view, studied the subject step by step, and took part in the conference as an economist. He arrived at conclusions which are stronger, more striking and more instructive than any a Communist revolutionary could advance, because they are conclusions drawn by an acknowledged bourgeois....”

The political economic nature of Keynesian Economics cannot be denied, nor can the effects of those theories on the entire economic and social structure of our government. Keynes, in a letter to fellow Socialist George Bernard Shaw, said: “I believe myself to be writing a book on economic theory which will largely revolutionize ... the way the world thinks about economic problems. When my new theory has been duly assimilated and mixed with politics and feelings and passions, I can’t predict what the final upshot will be in its effect on actions and affairs. But there will be a great change, and in particular the Ricardian foundations of Marxism will be knocked away.”

Geoffrey Pilling, a Marxist, wrote of the effects of Keynesian Economic Theory on the Western Capitalist Societies saying: “It [the West] accepts Keynes’ own belief in the primacy of ideas in the shaping of state economic policy. An examination of the development of the role of the state indicates that there is an organic trend towards ever-greater state involvement in the attempted regulation of economic and social matters. It concurs with Keynes’ own judgment about the significance of his work: namely that it did in fact constitute a revolution in economics. We have already noted that there is little if any agreement amongst those who would wish to be labeled Keynesians about the nature of this revolution.”

The “Keynesian Revolution” has effectively created a continual increase in the levels of involvement by the government in economic markets, in fact if you look at the latter half of the Twentieth Century you will see that free market capitalism, not only in the United States, but internationally, has been heavily influenced by this Socialist Keynesian Revolution. It is also important to understand that the works of Keynes was not only lauded by various Socialist groups, including Marxists, but the Fascists and even National Socialists [Nazis] equally held Keynesian Theories in high esteem. In writing the “Forward” to his German Edition of the General Theory, Keynes stated: "The theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under the conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire."

In the Journal of Political Economy, you will find: “German economists in the early 1930s were well aware of Keynes's work, and were developing theories along parallel lines. These involved the now-familiar prescription for economic depressions of large budget deficits, public-works programs, and easy credit.”

Of course, there can be no doubt that government involvement in the markets and the regulatory state reached its height under Fascist theory and execution; likewise Keynesian Economic Theories lead to the overwhelming necessity of such intervention. The Fascists, in particular the National Socialist Party [Nazi], were the first to put into practice the economic theories found in Keynes’ General Theory; the Nazis implemented truly massive public works projects and increased deficit spending seeking to encourage full employment of the German peoples. The Nazis also created what amounts to an inflationary boom, this naturally increased productivity, but as we know it was based on the assumption that an inflationary boom can be permanent when in fact they are artificially induced and will eventually deflate.

The fact is that inflationary booms are nothing more than the conscious application of Keynesian policies, which naturally lead to even more government intervention due to the effects brought about by the collapse of such inflationary booms. Whether Marxist, Socialist or even Fascist, Keynesian Economic Theory provides the necessary economic system to achieve government involvement in the social relationships of economic production.

When a government employs Keynesian Economic Theory there is the inexorable tendency toward more and more government intervention into every area of economic functioning within the market. Actual regulation of the capitalist economy has little to do with what is finally arrived at through the policies employed and are only the medium by which greater intervention becomes necessary. The theoretical work of Keynes, as well as others, cannot be underestimated and should not be confused in judging cause and effect; hearkening back to the words of Strachey, there is an inherent process within the mechanics of Keynesian Economics that promotes the implementation of Socialist Political Economics, thus replacing free market capitalism with government intervention. Generally speaking, while there appear to be contradictions engendered by the apparent growth in economic production during the various business cycles, particularly in the boom portions of those business cycles, the gradual increase of the degenerative effects associated with the bust of the booms cycle provided the material foundation for increasing government activity and intervention in the markets.

In looking at Keynesian Economic Theory, it should be apparent that Keynes has become on of the central forces behind government regulation of the markets and the increasing degree of intervention into those markets. The ideological importance of this aspect of Keynesian Theory is the basis of the growing role of government and has not only transformed capitalism, but has basically negated the effects of capital markets in favor of government control. In this respect, which is of extreme importance, Keynesian Economic Theory has provided the government with a central function within the economy. Since his theories tend to implement the need for such intervention, the question then arises concerning the effects such intervention have on the lives of the individual and the degree to which the individual becomes dependent on the government for his economic, and therefore social well-being?

Keynes’ criticism of unregulated capitalism rest primarily in his belief that social stability could not be achieved or maintained and therefore he saw the need of a highly centralized economic plan be administered by government intervention; thus, this belief lead him to a rather pragmatic-utilitarian view of the necessity of ad hoc government intervention in economic markets. This idea or belief however, did not originate from Keynes’ himself, but came from the Fabian Essays, published in 1889, by Sydney Webb, Bernard Shaw and others. Like Marx, the Fabians, including Keynes, believed that it was necessary for governments to gain control over capital markets, the monetary systems, credit and the implementation of a progressive income tax system to achieve the goals of Socialism. Indeed, Keynes, in pure Fabian form, thought that it was absolutely necessary to end laissez-faire policies in order to end capitalism, for without free markets; capitalism would then be prone to crisis after crisis under the guise highly regulated economy while retaining the capitalist label. Free market capitalism died in the Twentieth Century, thanks in a large part to the policies promoted by Keynesian Economics.

President Bush recently said: "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system, to make sure the economy doesn't collapse." Now, if you look at that quote from President Bush in the light of Keynes’ General Theory, you will find a more eloquent statement bearing the same meaning: “Whilst, therefore, the enlargement of the functions of government, involved in the task of adjusting to one another the propensity to consume and the inducement to invest, would seem to a nineteenth-century publicist or a contemporary American financier to be a terrific encroachment on individualism, I defend it, on the contrary, both as the only practicable means of avoiding the destruction of existing economic forms in their entirety and as the condition of the successful functioning of individual initiative.”

Bush, in short, reiterated what Keynes stated, advocating further government intervention into the markets to save the capitalist system; nothing could be further from the truth however. As Keynes stated: “Our final task might be to select those variables which can be deliberately controlled or managed by central authority in the kind of system in which we actually live.” In concrete terms, Bush, like Keynes, meant that there is a necessity to select as many variables within the economic system as possible, at this point, to achieve effective and applicable controls in preserving the existing economic form while allowing for even greater government management. Under the continuing guise of preserving the capitalist market system, Keynes, and it appears that Bush, believed that the operations of the government intervention would be crucial to “save the free market system”, even though it involves a complete abandonment of free market principles, essentially destroying the last remnants of free market capitalism.

For decades the American People, and even most of our politicians, have lived under the illusion that our economic system has retained its free market capitalist nature; the fact is that there has been a hybrid system that is so far removed from free market principles that it can no longer be defined as a free market. Keynes’ views have prevailed and today we see that the government has taken an extensive and growing responsibility over economic functions in our society.

Like Keynes, most of our politicians believe that the government must not only regulate the economy to provide price stability and “full” employment, but that it is also obliged to promote any and all measures that generate sufficient investments to compensate for the shortfall of private capital in our system due to various economic drains brought about by the policies of Keynesian. Thus, in the Keynesian view, the government should employ what amounts to national income to achieve various economic and corresponding social goals; this is exactly what has taken place in this country over the last seventy years as we have seen the rise of the government as the central component of our economic system and not merely an external force. Essentially, the government has promoted what amounts to “welfare capitalism”, which in realistic terms is nothing more than Socialism where a government “supra-class” of administrators who manage the economic and social welfare of all members of our society regardless of their social status or economic position.

It should be evident in our current state of government involvement in economic relationships in the market that Keynesian theories have become the primary driving force behind economic and monetary policies in this country. Additionally, it is evident that the degree of income redistribution that takes place in this country has proved effective in producing a stratified social structure where a hierarchy of wealth is concentrated in those who are politically connected and enjoy the benefits of those connections with government. Along with the upward redistribution of income, Keynes proposed that the wages of the masses be reduced covertly through the government-regulated process of inflation or monetary depreciation.

Keynes stated: “A movement by employers to revise money-wage bargains downward will be much more strongly resisted than a gradual and automatic lowering of real wages as a result of rising prices.” Thus, as we have seen, particularly since 1971, the government use of controlled inflation would allow for an increase in the nominal wages or face value wages of workers while actually affecting a simultaneous reduction in real wages or purchase value wages through price inflation. This would not only achieve he goal of providing government with needed revenues for its expansion, but would continue the illusion that more money is being put into the pockets of the working man and it would also allow for the illusion of greater profits for business; the reality, of course, is just the opposite. Regarding this effect Keynes stated: ”It is not the ownership of the instruments of production which it is important for the State to assume. If the State is able to determine the aggregate amount of resources devoted to augmenting the instruments and the basic rate of reward to those who own them, it will have accomplished all that it is necessary.”

Essentially, Keynes proposed that the government, and only the government is responsible for the determination of the rate of reward a person can achieve by productivity; thus the functions of market forces are no longer determinant factors. One should make no mistake about what has taken place in this country or in the effect of Keynesian Economics have had on the entire economic structure upon which this country depends. There has been a very definite and intentional control over income policies in this country, all under the disguise of ensuring price stability and social equity. What most people don’t understand is that these policies create numerous distortions within the economy and have untold unintended consequences that promote the need for ever-increasing government intervention. Consequently, there has been a gradual move toward government-centered arrangements within the economy, and those developments have rapidly increased over the last couple of decades which have essentially lead to the creation of a type of Socialist Corporatism, which, by the way, is not inconsistent with the ideals of Fabian Socialism.

Keynesian Economic Theory, in particular The General Theory, paved the way for the ideology that free market capitalism is incapable of being maintained and could not regulate itself or function without government intervention. It is therefore claimed that government intervention and the ancillary spending that always accompanies that intervention is the essential precondition to achieve stability in the market, the consequences of this intervention is, of course, the increased provisions of Socialization, not only in the market, but also in society. The most prominent feature of Keynesian political thought has come in the form of the drastic rise of government spending, but apparently the vast array of economic experts fail to see or choose to ignore is that such intervention and spending is nothing less than a massive drain on surplus value and capital, thus the effects will always aggravate and dislocate the market. Keynesian-based economic and political policy made such spending acceptable and generally respectable due to the fact that such spending is presented as a means of economic growth and stabilization however, the history of the last fifty years has shown that is not the case.

The creation of a mixed economy the standard of Fabian Socialistic thinking, which Keynes obviously adhered to in his theories, can be found in the Fabian Political & Economic Policy is the foundation of the Socialist agenda: "The individualistic manufacturer and farmer will be FORCED BY EVENTS to submit to far-reaching changes in outlook and methods. What is required, if with only a view to equitable treatment of individuals, is transfer of ownership of large blocks of land - not necessarily of all the land in the country, but certainly a large proportion of it - into the hands of the proposed STATUTORY CORPORATIONS and PUBLIC UTILITY BODIES and OF LAND TRUSTS."

Historically, all public expenditures were considered basically economically unproductive however, as Keynesian Economics gained widespread acceptance, the historical and accurate historical view has been pushed out of the way by the proposition that not only was such spending beneficial, but that the massive levels of debt to fund such expenditures was of no consequence. According to the theory, at least, the vast amount of borrowed funds would be recouped by higher taxation on the production stimulated through such expenditures, of course that is not quite how it worked out.

Alvin Hansen, one of the leading Keynesian Economist during the 1960’s stated: “the long-standing lesson of history that growth requires an increase in money, credit and debt. And in the public-private economy of today, a well-balanced growth suggests an increase of debt at all levels – business debt, consumer debt, state and local debt, and federal debt.” While, on the face of it, such a statement seems to be correct, indeed there appears to be a general expansion of economic growth, but the nature of that growth should be called into question. The fact is that such an expansion, both of the money supply and credit, both of which are debt instruments, have a long-term detrimental effect in the markets, creating unhealthy distortions and eventual economic dislocations which always require an increasing degree of government intervention.

Under the prevailing winds of policy, based largely upon Keynesian thought, all government expenditures is financed through borrowing, thus pushing the growing burden into the future and thus, regardless of the political will, it will always drain future surplus value, or as we have seen over the last few years, hope-for surplus value. The reality of our economy, disguised as capitalism, still produces surplus value in the private sector only to have it drained away by the public sector. The resources devoted to the public sector always come at the expense of the private sector. The presumption that government spending can actually be a means to the creation of productive and therefore surplus value is to indulge in an illusion, yet our politicians seek to engage in such illusions on a regular basis. Eventually however, the future becomes the present and the effects of previous economic policies, government interventions and expenditures prevail. We are seeing distortions on a number of fronts, many of which have not revealed themselves as of yet, but will press upon our economic reality in ways that the government will not be capable of providing solutions, even temporary ones.

Even Marx was well aware of the illusions behind such government expenditures: “The sum that was lent to the state no longer has any kind of existence. It was never designed to be spent as capital to be invested, and yet only by being invested as capital could it have made itself into self-maintaining value . . .. No matter how these transactions are multiplied, the capital of the national debt remains purely fictitious, and the moment these promissory notes become un-saleable, the illusion of this capital disappears.”

The charade can only be maintained as long as the growth of government expenditures is at a rate below the accumulation of capital, when the equilibrium shifts and the distortions present themselves the dislocation is no longer containable and there is a growing threat of consumption of a far greater proportion of productivity and thus the extraction of surplus value increases. The inclination of those in government however, is to increase expenditures, as we are currently witnessing; this action, particularly under the already burdened system, will only exacerbate the problems. The parasitic claims of the government continues to fasten onto flesh of this country, it lives and thrives on the backs of the people by passing the burden of debt for the various spurious programs onto the working class of this country through increasing reductions of their living standards, the depreciation of the labor value of their wages and the increase of social controls.

As with former Administrations, the new Administration will continue to press forward with exactly the same policies that created this growing and chronic economic dislocation in the first place. The point will come however, when the government must institute severe cuts in every area that it has assumed responsibility in its expansion of the welfare/warfare state. The conundrum will come when those who have lambasted free market capitalism run out of scapegoats and must admit that the malfunctioning within the economy is due to the character of the policies of government intervention and Keynesian-based economic theory.

In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance,
Republicae

The Enemies of Good Government

2008-12-10T07:40:00.007-05:00

Let us never forget that an enemy to good government is an enemy not only to Our Country, but to each and every Citizen of this country; for such an enemy has divested himself of all social sentiments and duties which are characteristics to the goals of good government. Such an enemy has degraded himself far below the rank and dignity of man and deserves not only to be classed with the lowest of the low, but also deserves our indignation and contempt, such are those traitors who under the pretense of leadership presume their positions to be that of rulers. These enemies are licentious disturbers, destroyers of the public peace and the public good, as well as the future of our Dear Country for whom so many have given their fortunes and their lives.

Those within our government have expressed their disrespect, time and again, for the principles upon which this Country was Founded and through which it once Prospered. It has been proven that these politicians despise good government and sound policy through their presumptuous actions, they not only show disregard for the legal standards set forth by the Constitution, but even disregard the Consent of the People themselves. This federal government is bound by the Compact of Agreement, made solely between the People of the Several States united only by the continuation and adherence of all articles within that Agreement by the parties thereof. When any party of such a contract either disregards or violates the articles upon which they agreed, then that Agreement is null and void. It should once again be obvious that there are those, enemies of both good government and the People, have Breached the Trust of that Noble Compact and trod upon every fundamental principle of Representative government.

Therefore, in order that we may form a right judgment on the duty that has enjoined us by the Noble Text of that Compact of Agreement, for our Protection and the Prosperity of our lives, that we should now not take the necessary steps to ensure both our security and our future prosperity against all usurpations, against all despicable acts and legislations intent on our subjugation and the degradation of our Constitutional Republic would be considered a dereliction of our solemn duty.

Had those we elected persevered the state of sound rectitude in their decisions and their behavior toward the Law of this Land, then we would be disposed to follow them and obey the legislations that they pass however, this is no longer the case. We must therefore, concede to our own conscience and those same principles that led our forefathers to reject the abuses and usurpations that pressed upon them, taking upon themselves the instruments of self-defense and preservation.

Today, we are witnessing a multitude of absurd decisions and the most pernicious legislative acts that are contrary to every good principle of government and Proper Representation of the People themselves. We must understand that the doctrine of non-resistance, of unlimited passive obedience to those who are proving to be the worst of tyrants, concealing their villainy through the use of a light and insubstantial guise, posing in their treason, as Constitutional representatives bound by oath when they are providing us with all the evidence that reason should require to resist their cunning and destructive ventures.

In such a state, should we not have the Right, nay not only the Right, but the Duty to make such persons, those who are enemies within our own house, paid by our own labor, who have injured our well-being and our future stability, repair the damages that they have heaped upon us and upon this country. Is it not within our Right and Duty to inflict Just Recompense and extract Punishment upon them for such heinous crimes against this People and this fair Country and in such actions hope that we will restrain them from doing the like in the future?

Have we not witnessed that even the most basic necessity of our Liberty and our future Freedom is being rendered impossible, in most cases, to enjoy our lives in any tolerable degree without feeling the pressure from this government? Has not our resentment grown, lashing out at our own conscience that we now find ourselves in a state that can no longer be considered or even called a state of Freedom, but a state of the vilest slavery and dreadful bondage?

Is it not the most perfect state of Freedom that consist of obeying the very dictates of right reasoning and thus appropriate actions both in maintaining and defending the very Rights that were secured for us by those who crafted the Articles of our Constitutional Compact? Our Fair Land has been lead into a fallen and degenerate estate; we have been betrayed by the actions of those who were entrusted to protect this Land and its People from the very dangers that they now impose upon us!

Those within this government are saturated with the unbridled lust for power, unrestrained by our Consent and disrespectful of the very tenets upon which government, this government is obligated, by Solemn Compact, to uphold. These officials, forgetful of their oath, have forsaken the true design of good and civil government and that is to protect men in the enjoyment of Liberty. Thus, it should follow that such tyrants, through the use of arbitrary powers, are completely inconsistent with and subversive of the very standards upon which they have bound themselves by oath. Should we not therefore, be of the mind that consequently, all authority of such tyrants is both null and void, making our duty to their actions and their illegal legislations equally as null and void?

When a People find themselves cruelly oppressed by The State, they have the Undoubted Right to cast aside such a yoke of tyranny and assert their Rights and their Liberty. It is however necessary, if such reasoning is considerable, to judge that they have both the sufficient power, and indeed, the strength to maintain their position, standing their ground in the defense of their Just Rights against their oppressors. So, the preeminent law is that of self-preservation, it is the first law and it is our indispensable duty to protect ourselves when all other means of redress have been exhausted and therefore we have the Right to Renounce all submission to such an abusive government.

In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance,
Republicae

The Psychological Trigger of Hyper-Inflation

2008-11-26T11:36:00.005-05:00

In a fiat monetary system, there will always be a balancing act between inflation and deflation since the central banking system must manipulate the money. It is however, very rare for a fiat system to suffer from deflation because of the very nature of the monetary system itself and it only occurs when there has been a boom in the business cycle brought about by, once again, central banking manipulation of interest rates.

Of course, in our “collective” memory, the only thing we can associate deflation with is The Great Depression however, that memory when compared to our current deflationary bout is skewed by the differences between the two monetary systems; the one which existed prior to 1934 and then the one that now exist that came about in 1971. It should be obvious, but perhaps not, that a foundational difference in the monetary systems will have profound effects on both inflation and deflation along with economic movements and behaviors. In a way, the world was turned upside down in the 30s, not because of The Great Depression, but because of the actions taken by our government in concert with the Federal Reserve Banking System.

When FDR debased our currency through the confiscation of gold and the revaluation of the official price of gold some very interesting things had to take place, similarly when Nixon cut the ties of gold completely from the dollar some drastic changes needed to occur. I don’t think many understand just what had to take place and what was involved to completely transform the monetary system of this country during these two periods. Basically, everything involved with all the very complex relationships within the economy and the market dynamics of domestic economy and later the foreign economy were eliminated during these transformations. It is therefore, impossible to adequately compare any economic disruption prior to those events to those we are now experiencing. While superficial comparisons can be made, the comparisons end there. There is a completely different dynamic at work under a total fiat monetary system than was at word during The Great Depression or even prior to 1971. Indeed, that difference was witnessed during the latter part of the 1970s and into the 1980s when the economy began to experience something that, according to the Keynesian/Neo-Classical “Text-Book” Economists, was not expected nor did it fit into their econometric models. Stagflation was simply not possible under their economic ideology.

Remember, prior to that time there had never been a period when there was a downturn in economic growth while there was an inflationary monetary event. The key, of course, was that the Dollar was no longer tied, in any way, to the only anchor of stability it had ever been tied to and that was gold. Historic inflationary charts reveal a great deal about the effects, not only of sound money, but also of partial and total fiat money. Interestingly, the ability to inflate without the restraint of gold commodity is extremely evident from that singular point in our economic history: 1971. Since that time there has been a steady incline in the amount of fiat money that has been created and perhaps more interesting is the steady decline in the overall economic and social health of this country.

The degree at which our Dollar’s purchasing power has been diminished since 1971 is absolutely astounding; actually it should be alarming to all of us. The purpose of money is to act as a means of exchange and when the purchasing power of a currency is drastically debased there is not only an economic consequence, but also a socio-political consequence to such depreciation. When a drastic depreciation takes place over a few decades there is a corresponding decline in both the political and social economy.

When a currency, which is a means of exchange, loses its purchasing power it eventually loses its meaning as a means of exchange, confidence is lost and as that confidence in the money erodes so too does the confidence in the political structure occur.
I have had people say to me that people are making more money today then they ever have in our history that is true on the surface and it is perhaps one of the greatest deceptions of our time. It is not however, the number of Dollars or the face value of those Dollars that matter, it is the amount of goods and services that those Dollars can be exchanged for that provides the benefit. It is the Quality, not the Quantity of money that provides a social benefit.

Now, it is important to understand that inflation will eventually destroy the fiat monetary system and deflation will prolong the system’s life span. Inflation eats away at the purchase value of fiat money and deflation increases the purchase value of each fiat unit. Thus, as most of us know, inflation has eaten away at approximately 97% of the purchase value of the U.S. Federal Reserve Notes. It has been a type of taxation without any representation whatsoever; that in it would be enough to cause any one of our 18 Century ancestors to rise up in revolution, but we have been effectively duped by a very clever scheme to deprive this nation of our birthright.

Today, this and other countries find themselves in the situation of crisis because that is the belly of the fiat beast; there is a natural inclination toward fiscal abuses, not only on a governmental scale, but on a corporate and individual level as well. Everyone seems to be wondering just how this crisis came about, the answer is extremely easy: the fiat monetary system!

The world has been under the heavy thumb of the central bankers for the last 37 years in particular, prior to that they were restrained by a partial fiat monetary system that would only allow them to play in their cesspool up to their collective ankles. Since 1971 however, they have jumped head-first into the muck and mire of a total fiat system that has allowed them, along with their political comrades, to scrape up the dregs of a monetary system that will ultimately spell disaster, not only for the People of this country, but in the process even the central bankers will suffer as the monetary monster they created and upon which they depend, turns on them with a vengeance and consumes the works of their filthy hands.

Now, in a maddening dash toward the fiat abyss, the central bankers are embarking on a predictable path which will lead to ultimate destruction of the fiat monetary system, the only system they have, the only system they place their faith into and depend upon. Today, although hidden from our view, there is an absolute unprecedented depreciation of our Dollar taking place and few realize the fact that the “precious” fiat Federal Reserve Note, along with just about every other fiat note around the world, is being destroyed.

To give an example of just how skewed our economy is under a fiat system we should look at savings. Normally, under a sound monetary system a decrease in the savings rate will translate into a rise in interest rates, regulating credit accordingly, but not so under a fiat monetary system. Savings have been very low in this country, debt has been high and the FED artificially pressures rates downward. Everything in the man-made fiat monetary system is completely contrived and contrary to sound economics; it shows in more ways than we can imagine.

Now, Mises, in his wisdom, stated:
"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit (debt) expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit (debt) expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."

Now, that one statement holds a vast amount of information that is very pertinent for us today, for it maps out the only two routes available to the Federal Reserve and this government. Either the Federal Reserve will allow for the economic exhaustion to run its course, abandoning its easy-money-easy-credit fiat policies, or the currency will be destroyed by hyperinflation. The problem of course is that they fear deflation because it will lay their plans before the world, exposing their inner-workings and fraud for all to see; the other alternative they feel they can control, but the awakening will be rude and cold. They live under a grand illusion and perhaps they are as deluded as the majority of politicians and the people themselves, but they will simply not be able to avoid a reality that is about to destroy their system.

At the moment, the bond markets are draining capital away from the economy, but that will not remain the case for much longer. The FED is churning out liquidity in record amounts, primarily in the form of direct infusions instead of the routine fractional reserve system. The massive debt, both public and private, is proving to be more and more difficult to pay off and as interest rates continue to fall, the actual value of that debt increases. The new fiat world order is saturated with malinvestments, stagnate debt and dwindling profits. All the while, the Bond Market sucks productive capital away from sector after sector, creating its own set of problems for the FED analytically.

We simply don’t grasp just how distorted our economic world really is; it is difficult to understand just what had to take place in the natural order of things when our economy was completely divorced from gold money. Not only did that distort the economic order, but also the resulting monetary policies, along with the regulatory policies of the government itself, have created an economic environment that is surreal and fantastical in its mechanics. There has, through market manipulation and fraudulent monetary contortions, been a massive asset mispricing, not only here in the U.S., but around the world.

On top of all that, there is a looming monstrosity lurking on the books of the Bank of International Settlements, you know the Central Bank of Central Banks, and that monstrosity is a vast quagmire of debt derivatives that will soon begin to function as an enormous black-hole. Since there is little knowledge or transparency about these “debt” assets, no requirements of disclosure about what they are and where they are associated, then there is no possible way to prepare for an eventuality of derivative toxicity streaming into the world’s economic circulatory system. One thing is certain, the Federal Reserve, along with our Treasury, is no longer just the lender of last resort, it appears that they have been forced, by their own past actions, to become the buyer of last resort also. They have the “printing presses” full of paper and ink, ready for what comes their way.

One of the problems, of course, is that under a fiat monetary system there will always be an excess of fiat paper then there is a demand for it. That sounds strange, how can there be an excess of money in an economy? The nature of fiat is to run in excess of demand because it must rely upon quantity since it cannot rely upon quality. The economy we see today is exorbitantly inflated by the fiat system, so much so that few people understand the illusion that the quantity of money creates. That is one reason that so few people can wrap their heads around a return to gold money, they look at today’s economy and are magically hypnotized by the face amount of dollars involved and say there is not enough gold to do the job. However, every dollar of economy value is only valued around 3 Cents or less, it does make a huge difference. Even so, the monetary mechanism of gold money does not act the same as fiat money, nor does it require a constant supply to be effective since each unit operates as a means of exchange throughout the economy and is rarely stagnate.

Under a fiat system inflation is the normal stage of operations; it must be inflated to maintain the illusion of its effectiveness. When there is a contraction, or even a simple stall within the creation and expansion of fiat money there is a direct effect on the economy superstructure, as we are currently witnessing in this and other countries. While there are those who believe the underlying debt is a restraint upon the creation of money, the truth is that it only restrains a certain type of fiat money creation. We have been told, not only by Bernanke, but also by other central banking heads that they have an unlimited ability to create as much money as they feel they need to effect economic stimulation. What they don’t say is that an unlimited supply of fiat money has very definite consequences. They rarely admit that such an unlimited ability increasingly makes the purchase value of the currency worth less and less.

Another reason why the fiat monetary system must rely upon a continual increase in supply is that there must be some way for the central planners to compensate for the continual decrease in the purchase power of each monetary unit through inflation. Strange isn’t it? They debase the money through the increase of the money supply, but they have to increase the money supply to combat the effects of increasing the money supply and on and on and on and on they go down their yellow brick road as though they know where they are going. Their dilemma, of course, is that there is no way for them to play catch-up with the loss of purchasing power of the currency, not matter how much money they create the currency will always lose more value quicker than they can “print” it out.

The cows come home when the public begins to loose all confidence in the currency. This is particularly true when interest rates, which have been kept at artificially low levels, begin to bend to market pressures and the FED can no longer keep them down. What triggers the wide-spread lack of confidence in the currency is when the people realize that they money is increasingly worthless even when interest rates are beginning to rise, which would normally indicate a stronger value within the currency, but during a highly inflationary environment, the opposite happens. At that point the people begin to spend their increasingly worthless dollars as soon as they get them in their hands. The wild demand for money stops even though they’re seemingly an unlimited supply of money available. People and markets suddenly realize that all the money in the world cannot substitute for purchasing power of money. It is a strange occurrence and it happens the same way every time. It is almost an overnight epiphany that occurs.

You see, hyperinflation is not only a monetary event, but it is far more of a psychological event. During boom periods of economic fiat expansion, there a demand for money, the problem comes when a deflationary period enters the economic fiat landscape. At that point, as we have seen, the central bankers push the “presses” into overdrive, full steam ahead to avoid facing the consequences of correction associated with a fiat bust. It is during this period that the danger of hyperinflation evolves because the supply of money is rapidly increasing but the demand for that money is decreasing. Eventually, everyone begins to understand that no amount of fiat money can replace the loss of value associated with the money. At that point everyone suddenly gets a mind, they suddenly come to a realization about just how much of a fraud they have been victimized by over the years and they are no longer willing to play the game.

This great psychological event, as I said, always happens suddenly, so fast in fact that the government must respond by revaluing each monetary unit, seeking to exchange old fiat money with lower denominations with new fiat money complete with ever-increasing numbers of zeros on its face. The system, along with the central bank and government, is effectively destroyed. It is all crippled, stripped of its power to enforce not only legal tender laws, but also all laws. The government is effectively neutralized by a hyperinflationary event and the fiat monetary system is dealt a final deathblow from which it simply cannot recover because it cannot regain the confidence of either the people or the market.

A deflationary depression can be devastating to a country with massive layoffs, bankruptcies, defaults and business closures, but the money is never destroyed through deflation that is not the case with hyperinflation. Deflationary will prolong the fiat monetary system, almost cleaning the system of excesses but hyperinflation will absolutely destroy everything that is even remotely associated with the currency. A deflationary depression will simply allow the Federal Reserve to continue its fiat shenanigans; hyperinflation will destroy the Federal Reserve, the fractional reserve banking system and the political machine that supports its criminal activity.

We have already been told, time and again, that the Federal Reserve will not allow a long deep deflationary event to occur; the other side of that coin is that their options will include, as we are now seeing, a drastic inflationary push of fiat economic instruments. Remember, our Dollar has already been debased by 97% or more, it will not take much to tip the scale of inflation where the people’s psychology is triggered and they cease any demand for the massive amounts of fiat money coming into the system.

In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance,
Republicae

The Destructive Measure of Fiat Inflation

2008-11-05T16:05:00.004-05:00

Inflation is a peculiar thing particularly since it is not necessarily innately built into an economy. Continual inflation is an act of intervention into normal monetary mechanics, unlike supply/demand inflation; continual inflation is implemented by a very narrow operation of expanding monetary creation, particularly that of the fiat monetary supply.

It has been relatively easy for this government and the Federal Reserve to hide the inflationary monetary policies from the public for decades behind the idea that it is simply a supply and demand issue increasing the price of goods and services in this country, but that ruse is rapidly coming to an end as more of the population is becoming educated to the actual causes of our continual inflationary push. Of course, there are other factors that can be manipulated to contribute to the ruse of inflation, such as the rising costs associated with raw materials and labor.

Since 1971, we have seen a continual rise in prices; year after year there has been a depreciation of the purchasing power of our dollar. Part of the ruse is that there appears to be much more money floating around, and indeed there is along with more people earning more dollars each year and thus there appears to be a great deal more wealth in our country. The problem of course is not the number of dollars within an economy, but the actual purchasing power of each dollar that determines wealth.

Under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, one of the primary objectives listed in that Act is price stability, but what really is price stability and who can appropriately determine a stable level of price. As we have seen, repeatedly, the FED attempts to determine price through its policies by seeking to balance economic growth on a razor's edge; it is an impossible feat as we have seen over the years. So, what is price anyway? In a free-market price is really determined by equilibrium between those who produce the goods and those who consume the goods. In other words, the market sets the price of goods and services under a free and unencumbered market economy; the same is true of interest rates in a free market economy.

There are extremely crucial elements within free market economies, which cannot be duplicated although they can be distorted. Not only are there numerous variables within a free-market economy, but also there are numerous variables of variables that simply cannot be adequately determined, measured or predicted. In terms of pricing, one thing in particular either compels or restrains price and that is the purchasing power of each dollar within economic circulation at any given moment.

This is particularly true in a fiat monetary economy since continual inflationary pressures brought about by government or central banking intervention into monetary mechanics always plague such systems. Thus, if we were to take an overall view of pricing throughout the entire economy under a fiat monetary system, we would see a direct correlation between the total monetary stock within that economy and how pricing if effected by that supply. Since the Federal Reserve has a very limited pallet from which to work, the primary tool that it has used over the last decade has been monetary expansion. It appears that in the collective mind of the FED that it believes that a continual increase in pricing is essential for economic growth and thus it appears that inflationary pricing is the same, in their collective mind, as stable pricing.

As we have seen through the years, this government and the FED cannot bear the thought of price declines and will do everything they can to assure that there is absolutely little or no deflationary pressure within the economy. This however, is a very dangerous road to travel upon, as we have seen of late. Eventually, when the artificially created booms begin to deflation the FED must resort to extraordinary measures, once again, as we have seen in this latest fiat fiasco.

It is essential to understand that under normal circumstances, within a free-market economy, prices are determined as a reciprocal quantity of the supply of goods and services then directly by the demand of consumers for those goods and services. As we have seen within our economy, there is an overwhelming supply of both goods and services, which, under normal free-market forces would mean a steady decline in pricing. In some instances, such as computers, we have seen a drop in pricing, that however appears to be the result of technology rather than an actual supply/demand issue. So, if there is such a huge supply of goods and services within an economy such as ours where is the inflationary push coming from? Obviously, it must be coming from the demand side and the primary source for all demand-side inflation is the increased supply of money and therefore the depreciated purchase value of each dollar in circulation.

Since we have determined that the source of our chronic inflation, particularly over the last 37 years, has been the steady increase in the monetary supply then it is important to understand who controls that supply. As we know, the FED controls the supply, has, over nearly four decades, increased that supply enormously, and has done so not necessarily due to a growing demand for money but as a political expediency to fuel a rapidly growing federal government and maintain its political agendas and policies on the domestic front and around the world.

We should understand that government has always sought to control money because with that control breeds a power that rivals any level of military might. When a government can control not only the creation of the money supply, but the means in which that money is distributed within the economy then there is a huge degree of power shifted away from the people and the markets. At one time, a man's money was his private property and an asset that was literally beyond the control of government and government hates any form of money beyond its reach or control. The more control over money the government can retain the more control over the people it can retain. Therefore, the government has always sought to bring about a complete control, a complete monopoly of money in order to finance what it considers its interests along with its interventionist adventures; but just as importantly, to maintain social control over the population of citizens.

Thus, as we know, our government has implemented a central banking system that is completely politically motivated in order to achieve this degree of control. In a very real sense, this great power has been placed into the hands of a rather small group of people that are in charge of the creation and control over the money that once belonged to the people. It should not be a surprise to anyone that there is a very good reason behind this fact; one is that under a fiat monetary system the government can easily avoid the need for over-taxation of the population to keep them placated. Another huge advantage of a fiat monetary system is that it can be easily manipulated to provide a vast illusion of wealth through the extension of debt.

An equal consideration is that under such a fiat monetary monopoly, the leadership of the country can easily create any amount of money needed for its own expansive functions, spending without much restraint and lending or giving it always to ensure the sometimes-precarious loyalty of the allies it attempts to buy favors. Of course, this was not nearly as easy under a sound monetary system that required much more responsibility and accountability. While gold and silver money proved to be the bane of the "ruling class", the printing press has proven to be its best friend. Once the dollar was defined as a measure of gold, today it is defined as a note of increasingly questionable value. So, the transformation of the dollar from a demand note representing an actual redeemable value of real money to a debt note was easily completed without much fanfare or public notice. It is truly an amazing fact just how complacent the people of this country have become, for once revolutions would have been fought to retain the monetary integrity of a country.

Instead of being restrained by common-sense budgets under a real sound monetary system, the government was now free to stamp its "seal of approval" on pieces of paper and call it money with virtually no real costs associated with its creation. While the consequences of such maneuvers are not immediately visible, eventually, due to the nature of fiat money and the gluttony of governments, the consequences of monetary depreciation will wreak havoc on all fronts including economic, social and political. This government will "print" as much money as it can possibly get away with until the consequences of its actions catch up to its irresponsible actions. Political expediency has trumped common-sense reality in this country for decades, but that too will end as the consequences of its actions become blatantly apparent under immense inflationary pressures.

Since money only performs its ideal utility at the pinnacle of its purchasing power and inflation is a process of depreciation, then there comes a point when people begin to realize that the utility of their money is no longer as functional as it once was at a previous time. As the government, through the agency of the Federal Reserve, increasingly depreciates the purchase value of each dollar through inflation of the money supply, people reach a point where they seek to convert their cash into other tangible assets as quick as possible to retain some degree of value. Additionally, there comes a time within the market itself that begins to demonstrate that the purchasing power of each dollar has been debased to the point that it is no longer a reliable measure of exchange. During the final stages of an inflationary push leading into a hyperinflationary event, there will be a rapid increase in the purchasing of goods due to the fact that more and more people will lose the confidence in the currency and seek to exchange it as fast as possible for some asset in which they feel a degree of security.

The monetary history of the last century has seen the systematic dismantling of all types of restraints that checked the power and scope of our government. With the advent of the Federal Reserve Act, the leash was removed from the government's neck and it was free to roam in just about any direction it deemed necessary in order to accomplish its goals and secure its interests. By 1933, the all-out assault on sound monetary policy had begun and the actual restraints of monetary inflation were eroded by gradually erasing the gold barrier from the fiat dollar and creating the impression that the paper Federal Reserve Note was the actual money instead of the gold that once backed those notes completely. By the 1960s the last vestiges of sound money were eliminated from the domestic monetary system and, of course, by 1971 all ties were successfully broken between gold and the U.S. Dollar. The actions taken in 1971 finally released the constricting bonds of gold on the fiat monetary system and thus ushered in an international push toward a relatively uniform fiat mechanism as the U.S. effectively declared it would no longer pay its foreign creditors and trading partners. Essentially, the U.S. Government once again reneged on its obligations in a similar fashion as it did under the Administration of FDR. So much for the "Full Faith and Credit of the United States"!

Though few seem to realize it, the fact is that there is a defined limitation upon the Fiat Monetary System and that limitation is based in the inflationary deterioration of the purchase value of the money itself. Even under a process of controlled monetary expansion, the government will always push such a system to the extreme limits of its efficiency. The degree of this limitation is easily measured by the level of degradation of the currency itself, from the peak of its purchasing power to the point where the money has been depreciated to such a low level of exchange that it no longer functions within an economic matrix. At that point, of course, the currency collapses and all that is dependent upon that currency collapses.

It should be obvious that the government, without reservation, will always abuse the powers of inflationary fiat creation and in turn it will always be forced to intervene because of the economic consequences of such inflationary policies.

In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance,
Republicae

Crimes of The Fabian Socialists

2008-11-05T16:03:00.004-05:00

There are an unimaginable number of "conspiracy theories" regarding the New World Order, some with merit, most are simply illogical and without merit. I will not delve into the initial beginning of this "New World Order", but I begin at a pertinent point in its history that will, hopefully, explain just what they plans have been, how those plans have been implemented and how they will ultimately be defeated by their own plans.

It is vital to understand that the New World Order is inextricably tied to the Fabian Socialists which formed in England during the later part of the 1800s and their intricate plans for a global fascist-socialistic society. In fact, there is no New World Order outside of the Fabian Socialist agenda. It should be remembered that the Fabian Socialists were equally accepted in both the Nazi/Fascist and the Communist/Marxist/Leninist/Maoist/Trotskite ideologies. The Fabians have been, throughout their history, political and social chameleons who have, through stealth and deception, changed their outer skin to infiltrate every political, social and educational institution around the world, particularly in Great Britain and the United States. Speaking of chameleons, the primary symbol of the Fabians is a "wolf wrapped in a sheep's skin".

The Fabians, like all socialists, are completely dedicated to the centralization of all power, in all aspects of society and government. Their primary push as been to advance the idea that the power of government, The State, is the center of society. Fabians are not above calling themselves anti-socialist, conservatives, liberals, moderates, or any other name in order to achieve their goals of centralization. They are not above joining any group that can be used to influence official and public opinion to achieve their goals and indeed, they have succeeded over the decades to do just that. The rise of The State, its well-being and the gradual increase in its power is of primary importance to the Fabians over any and all considerations for the individual. Their goal has been to wean the individual away from self-dependence and responsibility toward a dependency on The State and a sense of responsibility toward the "common good".

Their "silent revolution" undermines a nation from within, deep within the bowels of the society in order accommodate a gradual, incremental transformation into a socialist society. One of the famous Fabians was George Bernard Shaw, the playwright, he stated clearly the techniques the Fabians used: "Our propaganda is one of permeating - we urged our members to join the Liberal and Radical Associations in their district, or, if they preferred it, the Conservative Associations - we permeated the party organizations and pulled all the strings we could lay our hands on with the utmost adroitness and energy, and we succeeded so well that in 1888 we gained the solid advantage of a Progressive majority full of ideas that would never have come into their heads had not the Fabians put them there."

In 1889, Sidney Webb, another Fabian said:
"The Fabian Society occupies a different sphere as a Socialist Society from that of the two larger bodies. It includes members of all the other organizations, with a number of active workers chiefly of the middle class, and 'literary proletariat'. . . . The Society exercises a considerable influence, more real than apparent, by the personal participation of its members in nearly all reform movements, as well as by their work at the Universities and in the fields of journalism and the teaching of Political Economy. It is not, however, a numerous body, and makes no attempt to increase its numbers beyond a convenient limit."

In his book The New Despotism, Lord Hewart, written in 1929, revealed the serious nature of the Fabians involvement in the British government: "A mass of evidence establishes the fact that there is in existence a persistent and well-contrived system, intending to produce, and in practice producing, a despotic power which at one and the same time places Government departments beyond the sovereignty of Parliament and beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts."

It is evident that the expansion of the Fabian Socialist Plan has been successfully extended to the United States with the primary push during the Administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 30s and 40s. Needless to say, the Fabians had a direct influence on Woodrow Wilson and the creation of several pieces of legislation, including the Federal Reserve Act, as well as the 16th and 17th Amendments; all of which set the stage for every component for the future implementation of the Fabian Plan. The primary influence on Wilson was Colonel Edward Mandell House, the Fabian who was influential in the founding of the Council on Foreign Relations along with the bankers: J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Bernard Baruch, Otto Kahn, Jacob Schiff and Paul Warburg. As we know, House was also heavily involved with the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Round Table Group and the forerunner of the United Nations, the League of Nations. All, each and every one of these institutions, including any ancillary organizations, is completely Fabian in concept, ideology and agenda.

"The crisis [the Great Depression] discovered a great man in Franklin Roosevelt...None too soon he has carried America forward to the second stage of democratic realization. His New Deal involves such collective controls of the national business that it would be absurd to call it anything but socialism, were it not for a prejudice lingering on from the old individualist days against that word...Both Roosevelt and Stalin were attempting to produce a huge, modern, scientifically organized, socialist state, the one out of a warning crisis and the other out of a chaos..." H.G. Wells The Fate of Man 1939

Now, another extremely important point of understanding of the Fabian Socialist can be found in a book by Colonel House called Philip Dru: Administrator. In this book Colonel House describes the political agenda of the Fabians in the implementation of the New World Order under the Administration of the Fabian Socialists. It is a very scary scenario and the strategies found in this book have been enacted, step by step, stage by stage, ever since it was written. Within it can be found the plan of having a small, select group of powerful insiders causing a depression which compels the country to elect a man who just happens to talk to the people in what is called "fireside chats" in which this newly elected president will introduce and launch a plan called "The New Era".[now remember this book was written in 1912] From that point, these insiders [Fabians]control the government, control the banks and corporations, weaken the country to the point that there is a very real chance of society splitting in civil war, at which point a dictatorship is imposed on the justification of keeping the country together. The character in the book that assumes dictatorial power is named Philip Dru, the Administrator.

There is absolutely no doubt that the implementation of the New Deal was nothing more than that of the Fabian Socialist Plan. The Fabian Political and Economic Planning Committee proved indispensable in the formation of the New Deal, in fact if you read what the New Deal accomplished and compare it to the Fabian P.E.P. they are almost indistinguishable from each other. A portion of the Fabian P.E.P. stated: "The individualistic manufacturer and farmer will be forced by events to submit to far-reaching changes in outlook and methods. What is required, if with only a view to equitable treatment of individuals, is transfer of ownership of large blocks of land - not necessarily of all the land in the country, but certainly a large proportion of it - into the hands of the proposed statutory corporations and public utility bodies and of land trusts."

Another principal instrument used in the New Deal creation was the monetary and economic policies proposed by John Maynard Keynes and the Marxist Dexter White. White, of course, played a primary role in the development of the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1944 and the establishment of the IMF. In fact, White was later appointed the Director of the IMF by President Truman.

The great American Patriot John T. Flynn stated in his book entitled The Road Ahead that there was a "creeping revolution" taking place in the United States and made a clear connection between Fascism and Fabian Socialism when he said: ". . . the line between Fascism and Fabian Socialism is very thin. Fabian Socialism is the dream. Fascism is Fabian Socialism plus the inevitable dictator."

The Fabian Socialist have intentionally presented their ideology within a very socially acceptable package; humanitarian in appearance and approach, its actual purpose is complete, absolute power over society as administered through an iron fist covered in a kid-skin glove.

John Maynard Keynes promoted his services as a capitalist economist, but the reality of his politics and his economics were far from capitalistic. One Fabian Socialist by the name of John Strachey was very clear about the true intentions of Keynesian Economics and monetary policy. He proposed Keynesian policies as "an indispensable step in the right direction. The fact that the loss of objectivity, and the intrinsic value of the currency which is involved (i.e., inflation) will sooner or later make necessary, on pain of ever-increasing dislocation, a growing degree of social control . . . for the partial character of the policy will itself lead on to further measures. The very fact that no stability, no permanently workable solution can be found within the limits of this policy will ensure that once a community has been driven by events to tackle its problems, in this way, it cannot halt at the first stage, but must of necessity push on to more thorough going measures of re-organization."

Keynes stated: "Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become 'profiteers,' who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery."

Sounds like a familiar process doesn't it? The fact is that the Fabians have been in, in one degree or another, control of this country since at least the later part of the 1800s, some may say since 1860 with the nationalist putsch by Lincoln [who was influenced by Marxists from the failed revolution of 1848] and have continued to press their agenda into a Socialist society.

Perhaps one of the most important points to understand is the purpose of the central banking system and the fiat monetary system to the Fabian Socialist New World Order Plan. As explained by H.G. Wells, in his 1930 book entitled The New World Order:

"we grasp this not very obscure truth that there can be, and are, different sorts of money dependent on the economic usages or system inoperable, which are not really interchangeable, then it becomes plain that a collectivist world order, whose fundamental law is such a Declaration of Rights as we have sketched, will have to carry on its main, its primary operations at least with a new world money, a specially contrived money, differing in its nature from any sort of money conventions that have hitherto served human needs. It will be issued against the total purchasable output of the community in return for the workers' services to the community."

H.G. Wells described that as a part, one of the primary parts of the Fabian New World Order's Plan was the contrivance of a monetary system that would be issued, through a central banking system, against the total productive output of the society exchangeable in return for labor. The description is striking because what it denotes is a monetary system where there is no real value to the money itself, in other words a fiat currency, but the "value" would be the production of labor. Now, if you put this together with the quotes from Keynes, you will quickly see that the key to their plan was a highly centralized government with a highly centralized banking system issuing a monetary unit, which through the instrument of inflation, would be reduced from an actual value to a value based solely upon the exchange of labor. This was a truly socialistic concept, that inflation would be used to transform the sound monetary system of the United States into a socialistic monetary system where the exchange rate is the actual labor of the population. Today, that is what we have, our money has no value, but it is exchanged based upon labor.

I realize that many think this current economic down-turn is just the New World Order simply playing the next stage in their plans to impose a complete socialistic society during this latest economic crisis, but in my research I see a very different story. Based on the Fabian Socialist Political and Economic Planning Committee, the New World Order has made no other plans for another monetary system except the Fiat Monetary System and Central Banking System that are now in place and which are now in crisis. I am of the opinion that the New World Order is in trouble, the elite is in trouble because the system that they have spent at least the last 95 years investing all of their power, their time, their resources and intellect in is rapidly approaching a period of time when it will completely collapse. For decades they have pressed their plans, all based on a socialistic vision of creating little more than a feudal system of peonage where the people make up the productive base of their wealth through a system of confiscation and transference from the people themselves into the coffers of the Elite Administrators. Their Socialist Empire is completely built upon and dependent on the continuation of this system; the only system left to them would be a system of complete slavery and that is untenable and totally non-conducive to their plans of Socialism because it would not allow for the continued productive transfer of wealth as the current system allows.

So, as much as these Fabian Elites have put into this system, as much as they seemed to think they could continue the control of the system and extend it globally, they appear to have deluded themselves into thinking that an economic system built solely upon the creation and extension of debt was sustainable indefinitely. The Debt Standard of Fiat Money, based upon labor exchange and debt expansion will collapse, it is a mathematical impossibility for it to continue and with that collapse the Fabian Elite will lose not only their ability to maintain their power, but they will lose their wealth and position in our country and others. Once the collapse of the monetary and economic systems occur, they will have no options left to them, there will be nothing they can do to salvage the system.

There can be no doubt that during this time of collapse the Fabian Socialists will show their true nature, the heart of which is brutal disregard of the individual. They will attempt to put a death grip on society, squeezing as much life as they can from it and will do so in the most extreme ways imaginable. We must however, never relent or retreat from our principles, from our goal of Liberty and Freedom, even when the Fabian New World Order Thugs begin their final oppressive push to retain their power and wealth.

There will be a period of chaos, during this period we must consider the Elite as absolute enemies of the People, of Liberty and Freedom. During that period we must consider such criminals the legitimate focus for the People's Justice. I personally see no other options but the total and absolute elimination of the sources of this Fabian Socialist plague from our land. Until this land is purged from the influence of this Fabian Socialist Ideology the Constitutional Republic will not be safe for Liberty and Freedom, nor will prosperity ever return as long as they remain a viable force.

Now, I leave you with these horrible thoughts from one of the Fabian Traitors, David Rockefeller: "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance,
Republicae

The FED Will Inflate

2008-11-05T16:02:00.005-05:00

It is important to realize a few things when comparing the deflationary depression of the 1930s, in fact any deflationary depression prior to 1971 and the events that are occurring presently. The fact is the complete financial and economic institutional structure is 180 degrees from what it was during those periods, the entire dynamics of the economic substrate is completely different and the monetary system is now very different then it was during those previous deflationary depressions. All of these factors are, it seems, rarely taken into consideration by those who promote the idea that we are heading into an imminent deflationary period leading to a depression that will be equally as deflationary. While I believe that we will experience a deflationary mixture within the economy, the overall trend will be inflationary. What appears to be happening in many instances is that people look at certain sectors within the economy and point to depressed pricing structures developing and while that is true, such deflation does not preclude an over all trend toward an inflationary event or worse.

One of the interesting notions that are making its round once again is that during The Great Depression the Federal Reserve was not able to inflate during the crisis because prices were simply deflating much more rapid than the FED could counteract. While that is true to a degree during that period we must remember that there have been some very drastic transformations during the last 40 years in both the institutional and monetary framework of the Central Banking process, perhaps the most striking one is that during the 1930s, the monetary system was still on a gold-backed, partially fiat system, today that is no longer the case. Remember, money back by gold poses a very restrictive and narrow means of operation for any Central Bank, that's the main reason so many Central Planners hate gold.

The FED has long been freed from the restrains that gold money placed upon it, especially the restrains it confronted during the deflationary Great Depression. It was restrained from inflating during that period because of the fundamental foundation of the monetary system of that period. There are no longer any such restrains that limit the ability of the FED to inflate to combat any deflationary pressure it sees in the economy. While I understand that those who see a deflationary depression on the horizon are coming from, the claim that because there has been excessive credit creation and therefore excessive debt, including massive defaults in the economy that the FED has reached a point in which they have effectively lost control over the money supply and that deflation is increasing faster than the FED so that it can now only "push the string" can inflate is erroneous. While it appears that there is indeed areas within the economy that will suffer from deflation, the response will be an unrestrained push by the FED to inflate on a massive scale, one that we are already beginning to witness.

Even if the banks cannot stimulate new loans, and therefore new bank-money [money created through the fractional reserve system], the FED, as we are beginning to see, will directly infuse and inflate liquidity into the system and take up the slack within the commercial and investment banking systems, side-stepping, as it were, the fractional reserve system of banking for a direct system of monetary inflation. Even many of the actions taken recently by the FED, the Treasury and the Central Banks of the world are all inflationary to the extreme; even the rise of the FDIC insurance limits on accounts is an inflationary measure that will eventually work its way into the general economy.

For decades the American Public has been told and reassured that the U.S. Banking System is safe, that the "Full Faith of the Government of the United States" backed not only the obligations of the government itself, but also insured depositors against overwhelming loss. The American People are already being rudely awakened, the scales are falling off of their eyes, or I should say that the scales are being ripped off of their eyes en-masse about the actual risk associated with this fraudulent fractional banking and fiat monetary system. They don't understand it fully yet, but the faade is being ripped away by circumstances.

The continuation of bank failures will, if not stemmed by the FED, prove to be massively deflationary, but there is simply no way that the FED will allow an escalation of bank failure without first stepping in with yet another massive influx of Fiat Liquidity. The bailouts are far from over folks, and with those massive bailouts come massive and un-hindered inflation of the money supply. The problem is that by that time the confidence of the People in this phony system will have been cleansed away and will not easily be restored.

Perhaps few have realized it, but there has actually been a global permanent monetary crisis for decades, a balancing act on the edge of a razor blade between deflation and inflation, stability and instability. It is a system that has an inherent flaw within its very nature and we are forced by those playing this balancing act to endure this system of fluctuating rates that are simply used to manipulate wealth creation for those who are already wealthy, to increase the power of those politicians and central bankers who already have power. It is evident that those in our government are woefully ignorant of just what has been happening, what is happening and what will happen to this monetary system and the resulting economic and social disaster that will eventually express itself in the collapse of the entire global monetary system. We are however, on the very edge of a fundamental shift, one that can only have an eye-opening outcome. This shell-game that has been played, whether by actual intent or pure ignorance, is coming to an end.

John Maynard Keynes, the father of our Fiat Monetary System, pressed for an international paper unit that would fluctuate through an independent fiat monetary system around the world, well folks that is exactly what was implemented in 1971 when this country finally cut all ties between the currency and gold. You see, we have been operating under a global currency since 1971, you don't have to wait for one to come, it has been here and it is called Total Fiat Money. While there was some talk by both the Fabian Socialist Keynes and the Communist Dexter White to use a unified paper currency called the "bancor" or the "unita", it was concluded that the same thing could be achieved much easier is every country retained their "own" currency as long as each currency was Total Fiat so they could basically pyramid the expansion of the national currencies in at system that allowed total control over the economy and the global societies. So, we have a world currency whether we know it or recognize it or not and have had one for at least the last 37 years.

In this way, the Central Banks of the world could inflate together, create a massive Feudal System of Peonage on a global scale and maintain both political and social controls over the various populations of the world without very much restrain or limitations. The problem, of course, is that they appear to actually believe in the system that they created for these purposes. It appears that they believe so much that they don't realize that the system they have placed so much of their faith and future into is one that is inherently flawed and will self-terminate. Fortunately, even with the global monetary system they created, they have not been able to wipe away the identity of individual countries, nor will they ever be able to do so, it is simply too strong within the hearts of people around the world. If anything, we are seeing a move for more independence within various peoples of the world, not less. The banking and political powers of the earth are now so tied into a system that is not only unstable, but is rapidly becoming an incoherent mess in their hands.

T
In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance,
Republicae

America's Irreversible State of Collapse

2008-08-11T22:28:00.005-04:00

There was a time in this country when those who advocated a Fiat Monetary Standard were considered certifiable crackpots, monetary quacks and dangerous interventionists set on domination of both the political and economic processes in this country, the roles have been reversed and those who advocate sound money are assigned such epitaphs of derision. Fortunately, that will change and at this point in time, change rather rapidly as the true nature and inherent problems of fiat money become evident to the people themselves.

At one time, Classical Liberalism promoted the ideals found within the principles of a sound monetary unit that not only provided stability economically, but also provided for the spread of real prosperity and liberty. The cornerstone of Classical Liberalism was private property rights and the cornerstone of all private property rights was, and is sound money, money that is actual real property, solely owned by the individual who labored either by the sweat of his brow or the sharpness of his creative mind. Such money was not owned or controlled in any significant way by government except in trust through the regulation and verification of the fineness of coinage in purity, weight and measure. Otherwise, money was the property of the individual, or legal corporation, just as any other property of which legal title may be held.

Along with the ideal of private property rights, Classical Liberalism, which could just as easily be called Jeffersonian Liberalism, promoted a confidence in the market economy, as free as possible from all interventions, especially from the government. They held, and still hold that private property rights, in all aspects, provides for the best means of production and distribution of prosperity within society with a system of economic organization organic in both concept and operation. It was, and is, the best system to secure the broadest means of prosperity and individual protection within a society for it assigns the individual consumer the power to choose which producers provide the best quality at the lowest possible price for the consumer's needs and desires. The principles of sound money and free, unencumbered markets were just some of the foundation stones that help create this wonderful and I might add, successful experiment in the broadest spectrum of individual freedom and liberty the world had experienced: These united States of America under an mutually agreed Constitutional Compact between the people and their government.

The Founders of our country realized that the main challenge facing such a liberal system of government and society was how to control the only real danger that would ever face the country, the government itself. The goal of the Founders was to institute a government so cumbersome, so divided in function and authority that all power would be distributed between the general government and the independent State Republics; the best description could be called a Republic of Republics, functioning in a cooperative compact. Then, of course, they implemented further divisions within the general government itself, once again dividing function and authority to ensure that power could not easily be concentrated or consolidated.

In essence, the general federal government was simply a reflection of the will of the people through the agency of their respective State Republics. So, the main problem, in the minds of the Founders, was how to prevent those who are entrusted to govern by consent from becoming despots, endangering and enslaving the citizenry in their stewardship. The layers of defense for individual liberty was obviously the primary goal in the institution of our system of governments and the focus of each layer of defense was the broadest application of individual freedom and liberty possible within such a system. What an absolute shame that we have allowed ourselves and our country to devolve far from such a very workable, very efficient ideal.

Today, there are few who seem to realize or understand that within all the defenses for individual freedom and liberty laid out by the Founders, was the principle of sound money. It is absolutely impossible to understand the full meaning and import of sound money without understanding that one of the primary purposes of sound money is the protection of individual freedoms and liberty, private property rights, as well as a protection against government intrusion. Sound money is politically and ideologically in the same strata as our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, and it is just as important to our freedom and liberty. It was, and should be considered, the most essential restraint upon arbitrary government expansion and the potential for unbridled consolidation of power.

The principle of Sound money has a dual purpose, one positive, one negative; in the positive aspect it provided for the greatest degree of individual freedom and liberty while providing for the broadest spectrum of free market choices. On the negative side, its aspect was one of governmental restraint, an abutment of reckless expansion, potentially dangerous debt aggregation and of course eventual despotism. In such a system, only actual coinage was to be considered loose legal-tender, all tokens, scripts and types of "paper-money" were to only represent the real money and only served as fiduciary mediums, which upon demand of the holder, were completely redeemable in lawful real money. "Real money", it definitely has a wonderful ring to it, doesn't it?

Today, we are so far-removed from the concepts of sound money that it is totally foreign to our understanding; we have been convinced that the only monetary system that is acceptable or applicable is the one we current have imposed upon us and that is the fiat monetary system. Sound money is an alien concept, so much so that we don't realize just what we are missing, it doesn't enter our minds, for the most part we are totally unaware of the benefits of a sound monetary system. Of course, a fiat monetary system requires ignorance, equalized with confidence, in the general population to function properly, without widespread ignorance or confidence, the system fails, as we will see.

The fiat system not only relies upon widespread ignorance and misplaced confidence, but it also relies heavily upon government intervention and regulation. A sound money system, on the other hand, doesn't rely upon such numerous variables in order to function; actually it is extremely simply and straightforward in both functionality and application. A sound money system can easily operate independently of all government policies and the pressures of political intrigues, including very divisive party politics. Such a system also helps to prevent government officials, and representative assemblies, from using various tricks to elude their budgetary and fiscal responsibilities to the people and the country.

Since the rather subversive introduction of the fiat monetary system in this country, there has been little room for the consideration of a sound monetary system. The proponents of the fiat system have for the most part, effectively exiled it from economics and serious monetary studies for good reason, for it poses the greatest danger to the fiat system and those who enormously benefit from that system. The various proponents and schools of economic thought have yet to consider the precarious position they are in because they have failed, utterly failed to contemplate that all their theories are based upon a monetary system inherently doomed to failure. Such a foundational flaw will always ultimately distort all conclusions associated with it, especially when the flaw is not considered to exist. Today, our country is fraught with what could only be considered "Crypto-Despots", eager to maintain their position as well as their power, the prime impetus of which has been the introduction of a system of fiat money for it provides them with medium of control over society that they crave.

So, there are few questions asked and the questions that arise are based upon incomplete assumptions because the foundational structure of the economy is completely based upon a system that contains two divergent fault lines, which will, in time converge in disaster. The first fault line consist of the inherent terminal life span of all fiat monetary systems due to the systemic inflationary pressure, the second fault line consist of requirement of absolute widespread public confidence in fiat money itself.

Eventually, these two fault lines converge and the system collapses. Such collapses are not preventable any more than the system itself is sustainable without massive government and central banking interventions. The system lends itself to those who require the benefits of inflationism, this trait, of course, is welcomed and enhanced by both government and central bankers who are all too eager to utilize such a trait to their best advantage. What need is there to operate within budgets, to maintain expenditures by within tax revenues since, according the a former Chairman of the Federal Reserve of New York: "taxes for revenue are obsolete", and indeed they are obsolete within a fiat monetary system. I have found that the full import of that statement has yet to be realized, especially within the minds of the majority of economists and their feeble schools of economic theory fashioned around the fiat monetary system, a system that is inherently flawed.

Eventually, of course, the people, the economists and the politicians will become painfully aware of just how flawed the fiat monetary system really is as the very harsh reality rises into view, affecting everything and everyone within this country. Like all fiat monetary systems, ours is destined to go through the same stages of failure as all others before it, and our economy will, at that moment, collapse under the weight of massive insolvent debt, upon which the system is created.

Inflation is an easy tool in the hands of the government as long as they can maintain it at gradual incremental increases over long periods of time, but the moment a rapid increase occurs, the ruse becomes far more difficult to maintain. In the first stage, the people will begin to witness the rapid increase in prices for both goods and services. While at that point they simply believe the government when it states that commodity prices are rising for various reasons; the government of course, always has a plethora of reasons on hand to justify such price increases, all in the hope of maintaining the charade.

At this stage, there will be a few people who actually realize just what is going on in the economy, but unfortunately the majority will remain true to their conditioning and while they may gripe, will not question the true cause of their financial pain or the culprit behind it. The majority will continue living their daily routines as though the inconveniences of higher prices will be a passing phenomena, continuing to misplace their trust in a government that was in on the damnable ruse from the beginning as it shifts all blame to something or someone other than itself.

While, at this stage, people may wish to make certain purchases, they think that prices will eventually retreat so they put off the purchases in the short-term until a later date. This common attitude is relatively short lived because as prices continue to rise, at unprecedented levels over longer, consistent periods of time, people will begin to think that because prices are so high that they will then put off a purchase for a year or two, perhaps then prices will once again subside to more normal and manageable levels for their income. The last stage abruptly hits and the entire system then faces catastrophic collapse when the people begin to think that they had better make a purchase, any purchase immediately because they realize that the purchasing power of their fiat money is rapidly loosing its value of exchange.

So, the people, in a panic, will withdraw, if they are allowed, their bank deposits, cash in their stocks, redeem any bonds for cash to exchange for commodities or merchandise they feel will retain value even if they have no real needs for the commodities or merchandise they are buying. As the panic spreads, shortages being to take shape, manufacturing slows to a halt, unemployment skyrockets, and public services breakdown and in the last stages chaos ensues. The government seeks to assert itself, but to no avail for even the government under these circumstances, in this present age will prove to be as impotent as the fiat money they so ardently promoted, to solve the problems faced by the country and the people.

While it is easy to see the conclusion of such a system as a failure, the truth of the matter is that entire system, and the polices created to sustain it, were failures from the beginning. The purpose of the system is not, nor has it ever been throughout history, for the benefit of the people; its sole purpose is to provide the government with unlimited, unrestrained finance and the central bankers with an incredible profit machine without much oversight or regulation to impede their government authorized monopoly.

So, the system of government and central banking fiat money, dependent upon intentional deception of the population to remain viable comes to an abrupt end, it is no longer a manageable system of exchange, nor will it provide the government with a free financial reign. There are no solutions to the problems inherent within our government's fiat monetary regime even though the government economists continue to heap unabashed praise on both the system and the polices required to maintain it, that will become more and more difficult as the system reaches its terminal point.

Historically, fiat inflation was realistically deemed extremely dangerous to the economic, social and political safety of a country, but as usual, the temptation for the unleashed power and the ability to use the fiat system to convert the labor of a population to unlimited wealth for those in charge of the money has always proven far too great to resist. Of course, the campaign to demonize sound money has been unrelenting, primarily from those who benefit the most from the fiat monetary system, and those who have been duped into believing it was the source of all economic troubles prior to the advent of the Federal Reserve System, of course, it wasn't. Those pro-inflationist, those fiat-philanderers have vowed to forever prevent sound money from raising its head in this and other countries again, but their faith will be shaken soon enough.

In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance,
Republicae

The Slow Creeping Vine Of Economic Depression

2008-07-19T15:00:00.007-04:00

“The sole fact that credit is today the normal and proper expression of value and of exchange has introduced an element of extreme instability into all contemporary economic systems. Modern economic systems appear to be balanced on a knife’s edge as it were; the tiniest excess or deficiency of national credit can tip the balance in one direction or the other. This system is minutely adjusted, so to speak, to reflect the smallest increment in weight which it can just support, and that is why it is so extremely sensitive.” –Karl Lamprecht

We have had decades of economic paving in this country, the road has been paved with what amounts too little more than “bills of credit”. With each manipulated “boom”, there has also come a very predictable “bust”; since each “boom” is completely financed by the creation of debt, these “booms” are, for the most part, economically superficial. These “booms” seem to make people think they are “wealthier” and act as though debt is wealth, when in reality it is just the opposite and sooner or later that reality makes itself known.

Since the 30s, the government, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve, has increasingly narrowed the “sweet-spot” of economic viability. Historically, every depressionary trough was preceded by a panic, which usually included bank-runs and failures. A very interesting fact about “depressions” is that the word itself has been defined out of existence, conveniently replaced with less-foreboding sounding words. Today, even the word “recession”, now nothing more then “depression’s replacement” has been politically relegated to the closet. Eventually, economic law will overwhelm the illusion that has been carefully crafted at the hands of the political handlers, the bureaucratic managers and the central bank economic planners. Their attempts at a very particular social and political plan is failing far more rapidly then they realize; the problem, of course, is that the rest of us will pay the price for their manipulation of our society through their central economic planning and excessive debt creation. As I have stated, they can simply repeat the mistakes of the past, they have nothing else in their bag of tricks, eventually nothing they try will shift the downward economic spiral they helped create.

The current Fiat System is about to demand reality and that reality is about to come in the way of interest rates. This country, the government and indeed, the Federal Reserve has yet to see that this demand is on the way and are doing everything to avoid such rate increases, but it is pressing against the artificial barriers that have kept massive rate increases at bay, but the fragile economic damn grows weaker and weaker. Eventually, even the powers that be will not be able to restrain the forces that press against the rate process in this country. The combination of an extremely sensitive economy, high levels of risk in the throws of decay, the artificial rate racket is about to come to an end.

There is though, one huge problem; this reality will wreak havoc in an already sensitive Fiat economy. There has been a sign that few seem to be aware of and that sign is the decreasing margin of tolerance this economy has between the low levels and the highs it can manage while remaining viable. At one time the economy could tolerate higher rates without convulsing however, as we have seen, that is no longer the case. With each “boom” and “bust” the level of tolerance has narrowed substantially to the point that even minor increases become reactionary.

Our “money” supply is being inflated at a precipitous rate and eventually, and we won’t have to wait long, that monetary expansion will, it must be mirrored in interest rates. They, the government and the Fed, are, of course, attempting to keep money cheap, pumping it out in hopes that they can avoid massive business and individual economic failure. However, the eventualities of reality, a reality that none want to think about, will forcefully, even violently push through the illusionary blissful world of the fiat economy.

The Fed, and its government darlings, has attempted to suppress the forces that naturally bear down on a fiat economy by keeping rates as low as possible, all in the hopes of preventing widespread economic insolvency, but since they will eventually have no other options left to them, the reality will exert itself and the very thing they have sought to avoid by keeping rates low will happen as rates catapult to the point that the economy falters. The fiat economy will be placed on the harshest anvil of reality it has ever been subjected to…think Great Depression ten fold.

There were however, a few saving characteristics of The Great Depression that our contemporary society lacks. First, economic resiliency has been removed from our society, the manufacturing base has been effectively decimated and the people of this country are wholly unprepared for such distress, particularly those in urban areas. Additionally, in all likelihood, this next Depression era, will be conflated with hyperinflation rather than deflationary as was The Great Depression. The amazing thing about the Great Depression was its slow creep, like a vine, it slowly spread across the country. This current recession will prove to be just the beginning of a far larger, far deeper depressionary creep.

As much as the government tries, it’s attempts to “cure” the economic woes that it helped create will only make things worse. Politicians are quick to deflect blame, but the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of those power-twisters in Washington, D.C. This country and its people will face a period that few people can even conceive at this point.

In Liberty,
Republicae

Statism: The Bankrupt Ideology

2008-05-11T21:08:00.014-04:00

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."--James Madison

Of course, that is exactly what has happened in this country, we have allowed a certain political ideology, composed of members of both the left and the right, to infect it with particular brand of Statism that is little more than a hybrid of Nationalism mixed with Socialism and a hint of Marxism.

So, what happened to the Constitutional Republic, why, as Statist claim, didn't the Constitution remain viable and continue to work if it were such a sublime document as touted by those, like myself, as the ultimate political form for the advancement of society and the individuals who make it up?

What Statist fail, utterly fail to realize or admit, is that this country and its government has fallen to the Statist. Nationalization and Centralization began in earnest during the reign of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln and his cadre of Radical Republicans, Hamiltonians and Nationalist set the stage for the growth and expansion of the State. After Lincoln, the Reconstruction Act of 1867 began the consolidation of the corrupt State ideology.

With the election of James Garfield, the Statist believed that they had finally buried the Ideals of Jefferson. The Sentinel said it best: ""Garfield's rule will be the transitory period between State Sovereignty and National Sovereignty. The United States Senate will give way to a National Senate. State Constitutions and the United States Senate are relics of State Sovereignty and implements of treason. Garfield's Presidency will be the Regency of Stalwartism; after that-REX."

REX was a particularly interesting word to use; it described the ideal of creating the State Oligarchy, a Nationalist Central Government as the dominate political and social power within this country through the elimination of the Constitutional Republic. Indeed, the State has succeeded to a large degree in creating its all-encompassing political machine.

On July 3, 1881, Mr. Garfield himself stated: "The influence of Jefferson's Democratic principles is rapidly waning, while the principles of Hamilton are rapidly increasing. Power has been gravitating toward the Central Government."

These Radical Nationalist, these Hamiltonian Statist wrenched power from the former Constitutional Republic through hook and crook, through blunt force and continued through the 1800s to the present to forcefully wield the Nationalist Brand upon this country, dragging it through periods of interventionism both at home and abroad. The example of just how necessary war is to the Statist can be found in the Presidency of the Nationalist McKinley, who was the first to use the Statist instrument of interventionism, on a massive scale, to accomplish the growth of the State Empire with his "fine little war". So, for the last 110 years the policy of interventionism has ted the ideology of the State, it has also proven to be ted with failure.

If such a doctrine were effective then we would live in and witness a far more peaceful world and have far more security within our own country. But under the guise of national-interest/national-defense, and that is all it is, a guise, interventionism is nothing more than the life-blood of the State. The waste of war is absolutely necessary to the State, for it allows the unquestioned expansion of its power and authority. Peace is the enemy of the State, that fact has always been the case. Peace, unlike war, does not allow the State to function as it pleases; peace inhibits the State from the power of imposition and coercion. The State calls it "foreign policy", but in reality it is simply a medium to enforce its ideals, its ideology and its attributes on both the foreign and domestic fronts. The State has manipulated, as it always has, the use of the term "defense" simply to justify interventionism and imperialism abroad and a specific social construct at home. No matter what the reason behind war, the State will always justify the reasons for war, whether justified or not. The only just war, by nature, is one that completely defensive.

To the State, war is an essential system for its own existence and the stable internal structure of politics by which it can legitimatize its right to rule. Without the existence of an external threat, the war system loses its meaning and the necessity of the Massive State Machine can no longer be validated in the minds of the People.

Peace and Prosperity can never accomplish the goals of servitude; only waste and destruction can make servitude possible on a scale that will suit the needs of the Statists. Peace and Prosperity are necessary to create a system that is anathema to that which The State seeks, Peace and Prosperity creates an atmosphere where the Individual can thrive in Liberty to fulfill the ultimate goal of the Natural Rights of Man.

Another essential ingredient for the Statist to accomplish their goal for the State is the Centralization of the economy. These Statist elements have increased the depth and breadth of the reach of the State; its growth depended on a particular monetary system that has always played an important role in every Statist regime in history that system is Money by Government Decree or Fiat. 1913 saw a huge leap forward for the supporters of the State with the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments, as well as the formation of the Federal Reserve Act.

For at least the last 75 years, the economy has undergone a complete transformation into one of the most centrally planned economies in the world. Of course, this began much earlier; in fact the Statist began increasing the ideals of Corporatism in the late 1800s. While many call that period one of "laissez-faire", the fact is the period was not that of a free-market, but one in which big business found a very comfortable and very profitable bed partner with the fledgling Statist government. The big Bankers of the day were held in particular esteem by the Statist and realized their prize with yet another attempt at a "National Bank", this time it was a complete success for the Statist and yet a continuing disaster for the People of this country.

The problem with the Statist Monetary System is that it, and therefore the entire State Machine, is built upon a system that has an inherent terminal life span. Fortunately, when the Monetary System Collapses under the weight of its irreversible debt, so too will the State, in all its corrupt power and glory, collapse. Ah, on that day, after duly being tried for their Treason, the Central Bankers and their Statist will dangle, as they themselves, hanging from the Liberty Tree to the delight of all Constitutionalists.

The Statist reveled in the election and Administration of FDR, for it consolidated the power of the State to a degree that had never been possible prior to that point in history. The State was able, within a few short years, to contrive a massive increase of novel and intrusive programs and agencies to accomplish its goal. Many of those same programs remain albatrosses upon the future well being of this country.

Yes, the New Deal, what didn't it do? Very little for the common man, but what a jackpot for Statism. FDR and many within his Administration thought highly of Mussolini and the Cooperative System under Italian m. In fact, if you read the papers of both FDR and his advisors, like Rexford Tugwell, and you will find them advocating almost the exact same system as Mussolini, with m's Public Works Projects, Corporatism, organization of trade and industrial groups under direct government supervision. There were those in his Administration who admired Stalin and the Stalinist of State, thankfully few of those ideals influenced the direction FDR took this country, the Mussolini was bad enough.

Similar to Mussolini's tax program, the New Deal was financed by tripling various federal taxes and the creation of taxes on just about everything you can imagine, most of the consumer goods taxed during the New Deal were everyday consumer items used by the common working man. These excise taxes hit the poor and the working class harder than anyone else because it included taxation on things like cigarettes, matches, margarine, fruit juices, telephone calls, movie tickets, playing cards, dice, electricity, radios, soft drinks, cars, tires, even tires on wheel chairs.

The New Deal was a bad deal for those who had to finance it, mainly the ones it was suppose to help, in fact these taxes exceeded all personal income taxes and corporate taxes until the beginning of WWII and those taxes fell, according to the Treasury Department at the time, "disproportionately on the less affluent."

While it is true that FDR started many relief programs under the National Industrial Recovery Act (1933), The Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933), National Labor Relations Act (1935), the statistics of the day indicate that those programs fostered a steady unemployment rate of 17%. In fact, these programs forced industries to cut back production and forced wages above what the market could bear and made it very difficult for employers to hire people, especially those who were unskilled. It was estimated that over a half a million African Americans lost their jobs because of the NIRA (1933). Tenant farmers were hit the hardest by the Agricultural Adjustment Act, forcing many off the land and the land owners to leave the fields bare and unproductive. The National Labor Act actually led to as workers went on strike as compulsory unionization created mass layoffs. All of these things actually precipitated a second financial crisis in 1938 that almost brought this nation to its knees again.

Of course, we rarely hear of the WPA strikes, we rarely hear about the fact that FDR vastly increased WPA jobs right before he won his second term only to lay off those same 400,000 workers immediately after the election.

If you look at how the New Deal was financed and who financed it you will soon learn that not only didn't it do what most people think it did, but also it increased the suffering of far more than it helped. The "little man" had far less because of the heavy taxation pressed upon him by the New Deal, less to spend on food, essential items, clothes, shoes, fuel and other necessities of life. Also, something else is overlooked, because the vast majority of funds came from taxation, there was actually little economic stimulation from real business concerns that would have had an effect on the economy.

Also, a fact that few people ever consider when speaking about the New Deal, is that the majority of the funds were siphoned off of and away from of the poorest States, those found in the South, once again the Statist of the North taxed the South in a similar way that brought about the War for Southern Independence. So, once more all those funds were drained from the South and pumped into massive projects in the East and the West. It is a strange fact when you begin to look at the political implications of those actions by the Administration of FDR.

Oh, but what about the Tennessee Valley Authority (a government corporation), didn't it bring electricity to the South? Sure it did and it did so at a very high cost to the people of the area, especially the thousands upon thousands of people expelled from their land, many of whom were very poor sharecroppers who didn't own the land and received no compensation from the government for robbing them of their lives and livelihoods. Ah, but the State could not be opposed from achieving its goal and its push for modernization of the State Machine.

At the time that the people needed help the most with the cost of goods and services was the very time that they received it the least. They were forced to pay higher than normal prices especially after FDR implemented the Anti-Chain Store Act (1936) and the Retail Price Maintenance Act (1937); these essentially banned the discounting of all goods, especially household goods and food. We rarely hear that the Agricultural Adjustment Administration ordered farmers to destroy crops, kill livestock in order to increase prices, which in turn made if very difficult for the workingman to put food on his family's table.

Granted, the WPA and the CCC workers did some wonderful things, but the picture that is painted by those up hold the New Deal up as the salvation of this country during the Great Depression never, ever seem to want to reveal the entire story because it is not in their political interest to see such facts and face them while upholding their ideology.

We never hear that FDR feared a massive revolt among the American People or that he considered imposing a dictatorship similar to one of his favor t Mr. Mussolini. FDR d independent organized labor and he looked the other way as "industrial big wigs" used strong-armed tactics, using armed strike-busters and even city police departments to break up many of the violent strikes between 1933 and 1937. Oh yeah, FDR was for the common man all right as long as the common man lined up with FDR's programs.

The New Deal left out two main sectors of the population: blacks and women. Blacks in particular were excluded from labor laws, the GI Bill, Social Security, educational programs, home ownership programs and anything to do with small businesses. FDR exempted several groups of farm labor and domestic help from all labor protection, unemployment insurance and SSI. FDR also refused to pass or consider legislation that would have desegregated the Armed Force, anti-lynching laws, or abolishing the poll tax.

Read about the shameful Bracero Programs if you want to see the real deal about the New Deal. Basically, it allowed the legalized enslavement of guest workers by big farmers in the Southwest. Don't forget the Japanese Americans eithernothing like Concentration Camp justice to show the real deal behind FDR and his peculiar form of Statism.

The New Deal did little for over a hundred thousand homeless women and children who were forced to roam the city streets begging for food and it did nothing for almost 4 million unemployed women. If a woman was divorced, or single or widowed, they were hopelessly pushed aside in this marvel called the New Deal. It was not until almost a decade later that women actually was given some assistance under a limited program and then only a small percentage was allowed to work under the WPA leaving almost 3 million unemployed and another 2 million were only allowed part-time work that was barely enough to live on.

At the end of eight years, FDR was frantic about still having over 8 Million men and several Million women unemployed, many homeless and that left only one thing to do: allow, prompt, or prod a crisis to infuse the economy with capitalwhat better way to do that then a war. Indeed, this technique by the warmongers has been used very successfully before and since, most recently was the use of the Iraq War to pump capital into the economy after 9/11, unfortunately they misjudged the amount of Fiat would need to be borrowed to execute the war, the first war to be completely finance through borrowing.

Concerning SSI, the man who actually coined the term Social Security, Abraham Epstein, cried out against it and he was one of the strongest liberal reform proponents of the time. He said that the SSI bill would "transfers the entire burdento the backs of the young workers and their employers Since industry will make every effort to pass on its levy to the consumers, it means that the young employeesin their dual role of workers and consumerswill bear the major costNo other nation has ever put into operation a plan of this nature without government contributions derived from the higher-income groupsin placing the entire burden of insecurity upon the workers and industry, to the exclusion of the well-to-do in the nation, the present social-security bill violates the most essential modern principles of social insurance." An example of Statism at its best, I must say.

Today, the poor and the working class are still paying for the New Deal Statism. Corporatism that found its friend during the New Deal now reigns over a massive working class of producers. Workers who labor to receive dollars debased of value, poor who must submit to the authority of the government's restrictions on the benefits they receive. Today we have a heavily planned economy, thanks primarily to the New Deal that is now suffering under its own weight. The entire system is crumbling, inherently terminal and yet we continue to believe the promises of politicians who have not only benefited from the system, but also have been induced into many of their political opinions solely based upon the monetary system that controls them. When we fail to understand, when we fail to pull back the curtain we can only continue to believe that the "little elite man" pulling the levers behind that curtain is the Great and Powerful OZ.

The major problem with Statists is that they completely buy into their own political superstitions and myths about The State. Statist believe in liberty, but it is not the Liberty of the Individual, but the liberty of the State and it only accepts the individual as long as the interests of the individual coincide with those of the State. The State becomes all to the Statist and the only expression of the individual is within the State, which in order to be totally successful must become all embracing to the point that it a self-perpetuating myth imbued with the ideal of the multiple unity of State Authority. The problem with the myth that the ordinary Statist fail to see is that if you are not in the upper echelon of the State Oligarchy, then you are nothing but a peon, a cog in a system that demands both creative and intellectual conformity to maintain its control and its ability to coerce through compulsion and fear. It is interesting to find that those who proclaim their stance for Statism, from all appearances, are simply oblivious to the obvious regarding their own fate as little more than supporters, but not leaders of the State. They fail to see the philosophical futility of their particular position, what a sad mental state indeed.

An interesting quote from La Botie tells the story of how the power of the State or tyranny retains generational control over the population: "It is true that in the beginning men submit under constraint and by force; but those who come after them obey without regret and perform willingly what their predecessors had done because they had to. This is why men born under the yoke and then nourished and reared in slavery are content, without further effort, to live in their native circumstance, unaware of any other state or right, and considering as quite natural the condition into which they are bornthe powerful influence of custom is in no respect more compelling than in this, namely, habituation to subjection."

Today, the people of this country, for the most part, live in a type of ignorant bliss following the dictates of the State, unaware of their own situation as they blindly bask the State's perpetual servings of political pablum. The electoral process in this country readily fits the needs and fulfills the goals of a Statist System. It is, by any real standard, little more than insipid intellectual fare filled with all the elements of entertainment that is devoid of serious questions demanding serious solutions to the very problems that the State itself has caused over the decades. There is nothing more than a comfortable commonality with the vast majority of candidates presented by the entrenchment political parties, each fulfilling their own part in maintaining the status quo of State ideology.

Again, La Botie states the need of the State to promote entertaining diversions for the People: " Plays, farces, spectacles, gladiators, strange beast, medals, pictures, and other such opiates, there were for ancient peoples the bait toward slavery, the price of their liberty, the instruments of tyranny. By these practices and enticements the ancient dictators so successfully lulled their subjects under the yoke, that the stupefied peoples, fascinated by the pastimes and vain pleasures flashed before their eyes, learned subservience as naively, but not so creditably, as little children learn to read by looking at bright picture books."

Amazing isn't it? La Botie knew all the tricks of the Statist trade, even in 1500s. He went on to say: "they never undertake an unjust policy, even one of some importance, without prefacing it with some pretty speech concerning public welfare and common good." Statist constantly reinforce their ideological propaganda through an almost deliberate mystification and adept misdirection.

It is a doctrine that must rely upon a particular type of creative and intellectual bankruptcy melded together to benefit the State and only the State. The Statist System, by nature, is extremely stratified into two very distinct classes made up of those who rule and those who do not question its rule. Statism is the unthinking man's ideology for it requires the unquestioning dedication to the ideals of the State and the dictates of its leadership. It requires a certain passive obedience that binds the population en masse to surrender their freedom of will, their freedom of action in subordination to the will of the State. There is, after all, a certain poverty of philosophy within the ideology of Statism, this poverty is out of necessity as much as it is inherent in the nature of Statism itself. The best environ for the Statist is one of ignorance among the masses and an unquestioning allegiance to a source of power for guidance and direction.

A quote from Tolstoy on Statist Oligarchy: "The situation of the oppressed should not be compared to the constraint used directly by the stronger on the weaker, or by the greater number on the smaller. Here, indeed it is the minority who oppresses the majority, thanks to a lie established ages ago by clever people, in virtue of which men despoil each other."

To the Statist, the State becomes the expression of all personality and seeks to make the State an inward standard and rule of conduct for all, it is, in a word a pure dogmatic doctrine that requires adherence through faith, faith in the State and the State alone. It is difficult to understand how so many can fall for such an ideology, to submit and suffer themselves to the authority and power of a few who usually possess no more competence or wisdom than anyone else. Statism usually highlights the incompetence of those within power more than any other political system, simply because the entire system relies upon and focuses on the leadership of the system. Usually, the leadership of such a system must continue to press into service more and more novel programs, new agencies, more legislation in response to the exponential growth in problematic issues caused by other programs, agencies, and legislations of the State.

The results of this political and social malignancy of Statism is evident as you view the current state of affairs within this government as the Statist Ideology metastasizes throughout our highly centralized and nationalized government with outcroppings of inefficiency, dysfunctional agencies, and waste on a scale that pales any disaster in comparison. For Statist who decry the ideals of the Constitutional Republic, they ignore the fact that for the last century and a half we have not seen a Constitutional Republic operating in this country, we have seen nothing but the steady expansion of the Nationalist ideology of the State. The results of such Statism tes our daily lives, programs upon programs, agencies heaped upon agencies, codes, legislations, acts and regulations all point to the State as a defunct political system void of anything that can be equated with success and efficiency. Look around, you will see the sum total of 147 years of Statism at its best and it is a of failure upon failure.

Statism, as it always has been, is an infection, it is parasitic and it can only sustain itself through siphoning off financial, political and social resources from the people they seek to rule. All Statist Ideologies implode upon themselves, they all outgrow their ability to be efficient and functional.

So, to those Statist, take a good look around, look at our country, look at the massive mountain of incoherent legislative and bureaucratic regulations, taxations, fees, licenses, and regulations. Not surprisingly, the Statist always find need for more, they always clamor for more bureaucracy and legislation, in so many instances, the mounts of bureaucratic mumblings are usually little more contradictions to the previous mounds of legislation created at the behest of the State. The State and its Statist supporters allow such blindness to influence their desires and their actions that they fail to see their failures.

Welcome to the Nationalist State of America!

It is, in my estimation, time to once again return to the common-sense sanity of a Constitutional Republic.

In Liberty,
Republicae

Rights Retained By The People

2008-05-11T21:07:00.005-04:00

"All Power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either." Thomas Paine

As Thomas Paine said, time does not alter either the nature or the quality of the principles behind power. Either that power is delegated from a superior source of Sovereignty or it is assumed and therefore usurped. Now, the question of Sovereignty is perhaps one of the most important questions concerning the degree and quality of Liberty within this country. Only a Sovereign Source can delegate power and authority; likewise, only a Subordinate Source can receive those delegated powers and authority to act upon them.

It then becomes quite obvious in the following words within the Declaration of Independence where all Sovereignty emanates: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" Those peculiar words were to declare the independence of the colonies from Britain. Additionally, once the War for American Independence was won, Great Britain recognized each State, by name, as being Sovereign and Independent States. This same phraseology was then used in the Articles of Confederation in the description of the States.

When these same States, by the consent of their Citizens, through Convention ratified the Constitution they did so in the same Sovereign Status as they did when they Declared their Independence to form a Revolutionary government and then formulated a Confederation through Consent and Compact; as the need arose they then entered into a Compact between themselves to form the Sovereign States in Union. They, through Consent, retained the same style throughout every stage of political formation. Each government, both the government of the Several States and the general government of the States or the federal government, were delegated powers and authority derived from the Consent of the People Sovereign.

The facts are well-established and the provision within the Constitution is too explicit to deduct any other opinion except that the States retained their Sovereign Status through the delegated authority and powers of the People through their Consent. So, even after the Ratification of the Constitution, the independent, distinct and sovereign character by which they both formed and ratified that Compact was never divested from the States, nor the People. The People are the Prima Materia Imperium from which all Powers and Authority stems within this country and within both the State and the federal governments, it can not originate in either government since they are both ordained and established by the People. Remember, a thing created can never be greater then the one who created it, the act of creation is the superior act.

Each government is the natural extension of the governed since each government, whether State or general, partakes in the character of the source which formed it to act as an Agent on the behalf of those who gave Consent; thereby delegating authority and power to act in their best interests. Since Sovereignty is the source of all delegated powers and authority, the primary benefactor of such power and authority will be the States in which the Sovereign People reside, from there the States, acting as Agents of the People will properly delegate and grant a degree of authority and powers to the general or federal government to act in a limited capacity on behalf of the States united as a political community for the Sole Benefit of their Citizens.

The federal government has no powers or authority that emanates inherently from itself, despite its claim to the contrary, but must rely solely upon the delegation of those powers and that authority from the Sovereignty of the People of the Several States. The federal government is a reflection of the States united through the Voluntary Compact of Union, otherwise known as the Constitution.

The allegiance of the People therefore, will naturally be toward their respective States since it is the Several States that make up the Voluntary Union of States which reflects those States through the usage of Three Distinct and Separate Branches. Each of those Branches are also totally dependent on the Concurrent Consent of the States and the People in their Sovereign Character as each Branch depends on the Delegation of Their Power and Authority to act.

So, the States were Ordained to act through the powers and authority delegated to them by the Sovereign People of each State, in turn the federal government was Ordained by the States to act both on the behalf of the States and in turn the People Sovereign. The government of the United States is not now, nor has it ever been singular, but reflects the Several States by their Concurrent Consent as Ordained and Granted by the People.

The Preamble of the Constitution defines the reasons for the Ordination of the government and those reasons are clearly enumerated as very specific objects: "to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." So, it was the Several States, or the People that make up the Several States, that Ordained the government through the Ratification of the Constitution between them; this Act of Concurrent Consent and Ratification did not place the federal government over the States or the People, the Several States, and thus the People only delegated a degree of authority and power to it in order for it to fulfill the specific enumerated objects previously stated.

It is obvious therefore, or at least it should be, that the one to whom authority and power is delegated is not, nor can it be higher then the one delegating that power and authority. The Authority that ordains and establishes must therefore, be higher than that which is ordained and established. This should be common sense, unfortunately the assumption of powers not only usurps common sense, but power as well.

The 10th Amendment states clearly that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, by the Compact between the Several States vested a degree of power and authority to the general or federal government. It split this power and authority between Three Branches, distinct in purpose and operations. The 10th Amendment then continues to say that those powers that are not delegated to the federal government and that are not prohibited by it [the Constitution] are reserved to the States or to the People. This is not a limitation upon either the States or the People, but solely upon the federal government of these United States. It is also apparent that there are powers and authority that the People did not delegate to either the States or the federal government, but that are completely retained by them alone.

This is the bar, the measurement of all government action and legislation. There can be no action or legislation that infringes upon the Retained Rights, the Retained Authority and Power of the People. Although Congress and even the State Legislatures tend to present and pass legislation that does not conform to the principle that the People retain these Sovereign Characteristics, the proper and legal measure of all legislation is if that legislation contradicts those Rights Reserved and Retained by the People and the People alone. There are, in additional to those Rights enumerated within the Constitution, Rights, Power and Authority Retained by the People which are not mentioned, not enumerated within the Constitutional Compact.

Additionally, even the Supreme Court of these United States should, by the act of the Sovereign Source of its own delegated powers, always consider the measure of all opinions based not on an allowable degree of Rights due the People, but solely limiting the assumption of powers by the government itself. The Supreme Court only holds the degree of supremacy as it is delegated to it and no more.

Through the Compact between the Several States, the People ordained and established a government of the People, by the People and solely for benefit of the People. This government was formed and intended to operate as a federal, in contradistinction of a national government. In a national government all other Constitutions and governments, such as those of the States would be superceded and absorbed, but that was never the case, nor is it the case even though for decades that has been the primary focus of certain elements within the federal government and both of the ruling political parties. The Several States are the expression of the People's Sovereignty, as is the federal government the expression of the People's Will through the Several States in Union. Each of the Several States, by Concurrent Consent of the People, ratified this Voluntary and Reflective Union but retained all Sovereignty and Power to alter, abolish or, if necessary, to leave that Voluntary Union.

Likewise, the Executive and the Legislative Branches are only allowed a degree of authority and power as it is delegated to them to perform a very specific and narrow set of obligations to the People. Any actions or Legislation beyond those specific and narrow set of obligations and all Three Branches only assume power, or usurp it from the People.

Of course, through the decades the 10th Amendment, like the 9th has been ignored to the point of being effectively neutralized. There are no divided powers, no divided authority, no divided sovereignty; it all rest within the People and is only delegated to the Several States and to the federal government. The Several States and the federal government hold Authority and Power only in Delegated Trust; with that Trust comes all the Responsibility and Duty enumerated within the Compact between the Several States agreed by Concurrent Consent of the People of those Several States.

Since all Power and Authority is either Delegated through legal Consent or Assumed and thereby Usurped illegally, where does that leave us in our opinion of this current government? What respect or loyalty do We legally have to a government who has illegally Assumed and Usurped its Authority and Power from the People of these Several States united?

In Liberty,
Republicae

Blog Information Profile for Republicae

Freedom Contingent Upon Compliance Is Not Freedom!

2008-05-11T21:05:00.007-04:00

It is imperative to understand that this country is formed solely upon the Sovereignty of the People themselves and that in that Sovereignty, they have, out of both necessity and desire, come together to form communities of governments to act both on their behalf and upon their Consent. This Sovereignty finds its expression, and has done so, in the governments of the Several States, which in turn, have reflected their Will in the formation of a federation of States called the United States.

The Several States, in the purist expression of the People's Sovereignty have formed, established and delegated the government federal. The Rights of the People are embedded in the Rights of the States, you cannot have one without the other, nor can you have a delegation of authority and power without such Rights, both Reserved and Delegated. It is the Delegated Trust, from the People through the medium of their Respective States to the federal government, which pronounced and delineates the Sovereignty of the People themselves.

Delegated powers must always subordinate to those Reserved by both the States and the People. The powers Reserved by the People and thereby the States, which represent them, have the complete power to Amend the federal government by Constitutional Convention with three-fourths Concurrent Majority voting in assent. This power speaks to the sole Sovereignty of the People through the medium of the States in which they resided and hold their Citizenship. The subordinate federal government is simply the reflection of the States and thereby the People.

In its formation, the federal government is simply a reflection of the compact between the States, who by Consent of the People, did ratify that compact between them. The Constitution was not formed by the federal government but the federal government by the Constitution. This Constitution was merely a compact of agreement between the Several States acting upon the Consent and Will of the People who resided in those States. As such, this compact, with its specified provisions and divisions of authority and power, was and is subject to the continued Consent and Will of the People through their respective mediums of government, the States.

There is, in the essence of primacy, no such thing as States Rights outside of the delegation of both authority and power to the Several States by the People of those States. Likewise, there is no Sovereignty in either the Several States or the federal government outside of the Delegation, in Trust, of such authorities and powers by the People themselves as expressed in the Compact between the Several States, reflected in the federal government. The Constitution was not, nor is it today, an agreement between the Several States and the federal government since the federal government has no inherent powers or authority within itself. The Constitution solely an agreement between the People, through the medium of the Several States, and themselves.

The Constitutions of the Several States preceded both the formation of the Constitution and federal government so too, do they precede it in both execution and authority. The language of the Constitution cannot be stronger in the delineation of delegated authority and power emanating from the States, by the Consent of the People themselves to the federal government. As such, this agreement, ratified between the Several States, solely upon the Consent of the People, seeks to guards the Reserved Powers of the People, thus the Several States, against the government as a whole and against all its departments, officers and any mode that might be devised which would impair such construction thereby impeding the Reserved Powers of the States, respectively, which solely reflect the Rights of the People. It was this intention, clearly enumerated, to place the Reserved Powers of the States, and thus the People, beyond the possible interference and control of the federal government of the United States.

It was also clearly stated that, in consideration of these Reserved and Delegated Powers, that the Right of the Separate Governments of the Several States was complete and contained within themselves to protect their own Powers and Authorities as Consented to by the People to represent them respectively in each of their respective States. As to the federal government, the provisions of this Compact between the States, through the Consent of the People, was to allow for the protection of those Delegated Powers to the federal government as long as the federal government, thus the majority of the States, continued adherence to the provisions agreed upon by the Constitution.

To speak to the Delegation of Powers to the federal government, the Constitutional Convention was very deliberate in both content and expression, especially in the inclusions of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. One of the more interesting facts is that the final version of the 10th Amendment was far more expansion as it was originally proposed which was worded in a far more restrictive verse: "That each State in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, by the Constitution, delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the federal government."

Of course, in the Resolutions of Ratification by the Several States, the meaning of both the 9th and 10th Amendments is clearly expounded. These Resolutions express the exact nature and character of what was taking place as they Ratified the agreement between them called the Constitution of the United States. This agreement did not place any Power or Authority within the grasp of the federal government as inherent, but only as Delegated in Trust. That Trust only extended to, and was expressed by the continuation of maintenance of the provisions of that agreement; upon violation of such provisions it was expressly expounded that such violations would effectively nullify and render void the agreement itself, thereby rendering the Several States to their original form as separate governments without an agreement forming a federal government between them to reflect certain preset and limited requirements.

In these Delegate Powers, the People, through the medium of the Several States, have given or granted an agency of execution of such Delegated Powers to act on behalf of the People themselves; thus performing certain duties, restricted by Compact, that are intimately connected with the Principle Power of the People themselves. Without such agency, all ability to act upon these Delegated Powers would be nugatory therefore, such powers are delineated in a structure of government broken into various Branches, each set with particular limited powers and overlapping powers crafted to both execute and check the powers of each Branch. So too, in the creation of a multi-layered government structure, the Several States play an indispensable role in maintaining balance within the system and in the protection of their Citizens.

Now, to reiterate the scope of the Powers of the Several States and thus the People themselves who delegate such Powers to the States we need look no further, of course, than the Constitution. In support of this opinion the Constitution is of extreme clarity, it relies upon, in the first place, on the 2nd Section of the 6th Article, which provides the following: " This Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land: and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." It is apparent in this clause that there is a very definite supremacy associated with the mechanics of the government of the United States except when such supremacy contradicts or infringes upon the laws or Constitutions of the Several States. This is a delineation of the various levels of Power and Authority that has been duly delegated to each stratus of government, from those of the States themselves, then to those that the federal government reflects in both application and scope of such powers and authorities thus delegated.

It is, or should be sufficient to see that such a statement is declaratory in both nature and character and that there are no powers or authorities vested in the federal government by the Constitution that extend beyond those enumerated in the Delegated Trust placed into the mechanics of the federal government as it reflects the Will of the People as expressed through their Respective States. The layers of supremacy results from the relationship that was formed between the Several States in agreement to form the federal government and within the very specified limits placed upon the federal government by the States in Convention. The reach of the federal government does not extend beyond the Delegated Trust of powers and authority, all others being Reserved to the States and to the People of the States. Beyond these enumerated and thus Delegated Powers, the Constitution is completely destitute of all authority. In other words, without the Delegation of these very limited powers by the States, acting upon the Consent of the People themselves, all execution of any power or authority by the federal government any operations outside such of Delegated powers is mere assumption and therefore illegal.

It is interesting to see just what the Delegates of the Constitution Convention rejected when they dismissed certain "articles", and it is this dismissal that speak volumes about what was and was not intended in the construction of Constitutional Order, thus the various delegation of powers to the States and the federal government. As reported by Committee, the following words were proposed and then rejected: "The acts of the legislature of the United States, made in pursuance of this Constitution, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the Several States, and of their Citizens and inhabitants; and the Judges of the Several States shall be bound thereby, in their decisions; any thing in the Constitutions or laws of the Several States to the contrary notwithstanding." As we can see, there is a very distinct difference between what was proposed and what was approved for final ratification by the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The above, as opposed to the prior approved version, clearly demonstrates the designation of supremacy over the mechanics of the federal government by the Constitutions and laws of the Several States.

Thus such limitations on the scope of supremacy of the federal government, in all its operations and powers, were marked with such distinction and clarity that there should be no need to elucidate, but obviously that is not the case. These limitations are clarified, not only in degree, but also in extent. It is within these limitations duly imposed upon the government by the authority of the Constitution, as agreed in Compact by the Several States in Convention, that the proper operation of government can be achieved and assure the protection of the Will and Rights of the People. To assume that the government can carry its own supremacy beyond such limitations, thus extending its own authority over the Reserved Powers of the Several States, in any shape, channel or form, would essentially destroy the entire system of the Republic by consolidating all its power in the hands of the government without regard to the Will of the People.

Thus we have seen that there has, through the decades, been a rapid expansion of the reach of the authority and powers that the federal government has assumed. This assumption is nothing more than usurpation, illegal under the Compact between the Several States as Ratified and, as we see, very detrimental to the Rights of the People. Even within the governments of the Several States, authority and power has been usurped from the People who retain Rights that are not even enumerated within the Constitution itself. We have been effectively taught that the Rights stated within the document of the Constitution are the only Rights We the People have, but that is untrue. There are Rights that were never Delegated to either the States or the federal government, not only were such Rights never Delegated they were not even enumerated; yet we make no claim upon them.

Congress and indeed the State Legislatures have both extended themselves and the scope of their power beyond that which was delegated. Our times have seen a myriad of novelty legislation emanating from both bodies however, this does not mean that such legislation is legal in the Constitution sense, it merely denotes that both legislative bodies have made an assumption of powers and authorities beyond those delegated to them. The law, whether on the level of the federal government or the State, must also be as proper as it is necessary. Without those two standards of character, then the law is without competency and should be considered void of demand.

The law therefore must yield that which is both proper and necessary, under such delegated powers, to be executed legally. We must realize, and therefore press upon all government, that is it, both our Right and therefore our Power to establish and ordain our government. Indeed, we have, ordained and established our State governments through their State Constitutions; from that origin, the States, by our Consent and through such Powers and Authority Delegated in Trust, did ordain and establish the federal government upon our behalf and for our sole benefit. We did so, in such ordination and establishment, form separate State Constitutions and thereby State governments, each created by itself and for itself without any concert or agreement with any of the other States; afterwards, in our Sovereignty, we did ordain and establish the federal government to be a reflection of the States to perform very specific functions within a very limited scope of delegated power.

Unlike the ordination and establishment of the governments of the Several States, the planning, ordination and execution of the federal government was done in concert and agreement between the Several States. It is this very same Power and Authority, through the Conventions of the Several States that did ordain and establish a federal government. This Supreme Power, as declared by the 10th Amendment, still resides within the People themselves and is solely Reserved by the People of the Respective States. I dare say that while there are those who would claim that such Power has been extinguished, they either fail to understand or refuse to assent to the Authority that still resides within the People themselves and if they hold such views then they only continue to allow for the assumption of power by the federal government.

This is the Right of the People, to Retain and Reserve those Powers and Authorities unto themselves and to exercise such Rights even when the various departments of government act to the contrary. Although there are those who would, through such assumption, lay claim to power and authority through the government, in both its infringements and abuses over Constitutional Order; there must come a time when We the People realize, and therefore exercise, the fact that Sovereignty resides in the People and not in government. When government, at any level, relinquishes its loyalty to the Constitution, the People themselves are released from all allegiance to the government for it is impossible for the People to remain loyal to an un-loyal, and therefore illegal government.

It must be logical to adhere to the principle that, so far as the federal government is concerned, that the People of the Several States can act in the very same way, in the same capacity, in which they did ordain and establish the federal government by Constitution, can, by the same united and concurrent voice, change, abolish or establish another government in its place, as well as completely dissolve the Union altogether. The Power to ordain and establish must also, by the very nature of such Power, have the Authority and Ability to dissolve the agreement that they entered into by Concurrent Consent. This, both the act of creation and dissolution, is an example of the high Sovereignty of the People. If this is not the case then all our Rights are contingent upon the whims of the government and our compliance to its will regardless of our desires or Consent. Our system must stand as one in the relationship of the superior to the subordinate, the People themselves being superior to the subordinate federal government as the creator to the created.

An interesting note concerning constitutions is that the constitution of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics included within its articles the right of any Soviet Republic to Secede. The banality of that right can be seen in the way that constitution was ordained and established; in contradistinction to our own Constitution, the constitution of the former U.S.S.R. was ordained by the central government itself, for itself, of itself, and did not rely upon the consent of the people over whom this legal document resided. Of course, the right of secession was among many rights guaranteed to the people of the former Soviet Union however, since none of those rights and indeed the existence of the Soviet government itself did not depend upon the consent or will of the people and since the people themselves held no concept of their natural rights or sovereignty, the constitution was of no effect regarding the people themselves or their potential grievances. This is an example of what happens when there is a complete centralization of power. All so-called rights in such a system are absolutely contingent upon compliance.

In our original, thus former Constitutional Republic, it was the People, after all, that both called for the creation and existence of the federal government and conferred upon it all the powers and authorities it utilizes. Without such conferment the federal government has no ability or power to operate in any capacity or strength whatsoever, in fact, there would be no federal government since it emanates solely from the Consent of the People. As we have seen however, there has been a consolidation of powers and authorities by the federal government, centralized over the years to the effect that the Powers and Authority Reserved to the States and the People respectively have been assumed and absorbed by the centralized federal government; the effects of this process is evident.

So, the People of the Several States, in the essence of their Sovereign Capacity, agreed to unite themselves in a connection what was as close as possible without merging their Respective Sovereignties, the States, into one common sovereignty and consolidated government. For, it that had been the case we would not have State Constitutions or State governments and would only have one central government with one Constitution. The governments and Constitutions of the Several States are not, in any way, subordinate to the federal government, just the opposite is true. As to this Compact, that is the view of the document that legally provides the provisions of the functionaries of the federal government on behalf of the People in the Several States.

It is, in no way, the rule over the individual governments of those States, only the rule over the federal government as emplaced by the Several States in Compact. To use the language of the Constitution itself, it was solely ordained as the "Constitution for the United States" and not over them as they Ratified it between themselves. So, if a State or several States violate the provisions of the document they violate it in terms of the Compact made between the States, but when the federal government violates the document it violates the Law as set forth by that document as ordained by the Several States.

The Constitution was ordained over the federal government, over all departments and functions of the federal government, not over the States, which possess their own Constitutions that provide for the laws of each of the Several States. The federal government is therefore, under complete obligation to follow the strict legal format enumerated in the Constitution as it was ordained and established by the Ratification of the Several States in Compact Agreement between them. In the most distilled legal form, the federal government owes complete and absolute allegiance to the People as reflected through the Compact enacted between the Several States. So, if the Constitution is indeed a Compact between the Several States, acting in their Sovereign Capacity, upon Consent of their Sovereign Citizens, the rest should logically follow the necessary consequences of that action of ordination and establishment.

The absorption of Reserved Powers by the Delegated Authority is one, as we have seen for the last 150 years, of the most pressing dangers to the future health and well-being of our country for the absorption of those Powers Reserved to the States and to the People respectively effectively neutralizes the Rights of the People themselves. There can be no restoration of the Constitutional Republic without the restoration of the proper role of the Several States along with the Power and Authority Reserved to them and the Sovereignty of the People. Conversely, if the federal government is not reigned into and limited to the scope of power and authority that was Delegated to it in Trust, then there can and will be no restoration of the Constitutional Republic.

As we see, the issue of centralized power is gradually being questioned, not only by Citizens in their Individual Status, but also by the States. It is once again time to make this a primary issue in our hopes for the Restoration of the Republic for without the proper role of government, without the checks and balances as enumerated within the Constitutional Compact as Ratified Between the Several States then this country will continue down the road that will only lead to an increase of centralized power and tyranny. Without the proper exercise of Power and Authority as delineated within the Constitution the hopes and dreams of those who maintain Constitutional Patriotism will never be realized. We must make every concerted effort to regain each and every legislature of each State in order to press upon the federal government its place as a subordinate servant of the People.

This is indeed a Revolution that is no less important, no less critical for our Liberty than that fought in 1776. The results of this Revolution will determine the future of this country and whether our children and children's children will enjoy the Heritage of Liberty passed down from those who had the insight to form and craft our once-prosperous Republic. Increasingly, there will be forces, which will rise against all who contend that these Principles are both valid and pertinent to our lives and the wellbeing of our country. At some point in the future we must all decide whether we will be considered merely collaborators with the centralized power expressed by the federal government or if we will oppose such assumption of powers and therefore be considered, for all intents and purposes, enemies of such usurpation of power by that government.

We have become a society which must seek permission, pay taxes, fees, hold licenses and generally comply with all codes, rules, regulations and legislations whether they be proper and necessary or not. We are a society that must completely rely upon our complance to the central government, and increasingly to another layer of compliance acts legislated by our own States, if we wish to remain relatviely free and unfettered in our pursuits.

THE DAY MUST COME WHEN WE REALIZE THAT FREEDOM CONTINGENT UPON COMPLIANCE IS NOT FREEDOM!

In Liberty,
Republicae

The Federal Breach Of Trust

2008-05-11T21:03:00.014-04:00

The People of this country formed a social compact; that compact was contained and detailed within the written Constitution giving the exact extent of powers they deemed necessary to the government. As you note, these were powers that were delegated to the government by the People, not relinquished. There has never been a single power relinquished by the People, any power within the function of the government is isolated through the action of Delegated Trust based upon the Sovereignty of the People.

This was to ensure that the People themselves enjoyed a very qualified Liberty of Action, Freedom from unnecessary restraints, unnecessary requisitions or extractions from the government. Of those limitations, the People in their Sovereignty gave their limited Consent to the government to function within a very, very narrow frame of action primarily for the sole purpose of the defense of the Liberty and the Rights for which they formed the government in the first place.

Any measures inconsistent with that very limited frame of action is to be considered an illegal action and an assumption of un-delegated powers by the government. In some cases where such illegal assumption of powers continues unabated, either by legislative or judicial process, it leaves the People with no peaceable remedy to follow since the general laws or the measures which were instituted to protect the People are ignored, making the ability to have their sincere petitions and grievances redressed in a legitimate manner.

When the government steps away from that social compact formed between the People to provide the protections of their Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of their Happiness, then it proves itself defective; having abridged its primary responsibility, choosing instead to take a more oppressive and tyrannical direction by ignoring the proper function of the powers that were Delegated to it in Trust. At any time when such a government violates that Trust, it becomes a law unto itself, assuming powers outside the realm of its authority.

One of the primary Rights of Action is the ability of the Individual to leave his own community, his State or his country; even the Right to cast off his native allegiance is one of the primary tenets of Liberty. This same Right of Action extends from the Individual to his respective States, for if it did not then the Right of Action for the Individual would not exist since all powers Reserved by the States are a direct delegation from the People themselves through their Consent.

I realize there are some who absolutely deny the claim of such Right of Action however, upon reasonable thought and a small amount of research it becomes clear that such a view is entirely contrary to the principles acknowledged in the Constitution of the United States. That primary principle exhibits that any action voluntarily entered into by the Individual may also, if desired, leave that compact in the very same way he entered. Indeed, to whom or what do we owe allegiance to in this Republic?

I state that we owe no one or anything our allegiance, but we do voluntarily lend our allegiance to the Principles upon which this country was Founded. It is not some person, or an inanimate object such as a flag, or even a piece of paper called the Constitution that either demands or seeks our allegiance, but it is the Principles found within that Constitution that, through a voluntary act we espouse and proclaim our allegiance.

No allegiance is Due to anyone or anything in a free society. It is at the discretion of the Individual to judge the cause for his allegiance or lack thereof; so too, after careful and weighted consideration the same applies to the States who function at the pleasure of their People and indeed the Constitution provides for such actions by the Several States who wish to, upon Concurrent Consent, leave this Union in the same voluntary manner in which they entered it as appropriately and legally demonstrated in their respective Resolutions at the time of Ratification.

There is, at least in principle, along with the Rights of Action, the Rights of Conscience and the ability to have the Freedom of Inquiry which all are entitled to and that entitles the Individual to be Free from the control of anyone, especially from the government which was instituted by the People to which the People have delegated that very limited scope of power for very specific purposes enumerated within the Constitutional Compact. Those elected to government have absolutely no right or power, except when illegally assumed, to do anything to infringe upon those Rights.

Now, notwithstanding, within the delegated powers provided to the government are the necessary functionalities to render certain protections for the People who delegated those powers. So, my statements should not be, as I know they will be, misconstrued into some anarchist libertine version of unbridled lawlessness irregardless of the laws created by and through the Consent of the People and their delegation of powers to government for that purpose.

We are however, the sole judge of our own conscience and the attributes obligated to the direction our consciences lead. Therefore it can be readily assumed that there is no part of the government that has been deputized to regulate or infringe upon the conscience of the Individual. Every single individual has the Right and should be at Liberty to form opinions as he or she pleases and act upon those opinions as long as such actions do not infringe upon the Freedom and Liberty of others to act in concert with their own consciences.

Now, ancillary to the very limited above list of Rights comes the Right to Reform, Secede from or Dismantle entirely the government itself. This Right is the cornerstone of the American Republic of States. It forms the very nature upon which this country was founded. It is the Right to Resist those who govern when government invades the Rights of the People. No government can have a legitimate foundation except when founded upon the best interests of the People themselves and the Consent upon which the government should depend for guidance and deliberation of law.

When a government is effective in both its use and execution of powers delegated to it by the People then it becomes far easier for the People to enjoy the highest degree of Individual Rational Liberty. When the People can, without molestation from the government, feel secure in their persons and their property living quietly and undisturbed in all their Rights without worry of either turbulent or licentious intervention by the government then you have what can be called good government. On the other hand when these fundamental ideals are absent from government then it behooves the People to form every defense against such abuses and usurpations.

The Sovereignty of each of the Several States, which is totally dependent on the nature and character of the People who make up these governmental communities, is indivisible and remains totally integral, even though, through the Consent of the People, all powers of government are delegated. As such, the States, through the medium of the Sovereign People who make up such communities, may delegate a myriad of powers to the federal government without the slightest diminishment of the People's Rights, Power or Authority as represented by the agency of the States. Nor does any delegation of powers relinquish any control over such powers or authority. The States, which were pre-existent to the formation of both the government as it resulted from the Articles of Confederation and by the Constitution itself.

Now on to Secession and Constitutional Liberty, a most distorted and maligned Constitutional Principle. Early in his presidency, George Washington stated that: "free choice, of government founded, not upon force, but Free Assent, and instituted for the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed."

As always, it is rare that well-disposed and content People will join in any attempt to overthrow their government; it is only when their government trespasses upon the environment that promotes the ability of the People to maintain their beneficial dispositions that they would or should consider such actions, and then only after carefully weighed deliberation. Such actions should always be based upon

There are, of course, those who, both in the past and currently, think of these Constitutional Principles as false and seemingly have permanently embossed them as the height of political heresy, when the fact is that the view that they themselves hold is diametrically opposed to most, if not all, Constitutional Principles. After listening or reading their arguments to the contrary, it becomes apparent that they can offer few, if any actual proofs based upon the Constitution, the ancillary documents or the Debates of the Constitutional Convention that crafted the Principles upon which this country was founded.

There were two extremely important principles established by the Colonies; one being that it is the Right of a State to govern itself and it is the Right of the People to abolish a government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. It was concurrent with the establishment of these principles that Britain recognized each and every Colony, by name, as Free, Sovereign and Independent States. Thus when it was found that the functionality of the Articles of Confederation were deficient to fully express and execute the delegated powers necessary to ensure the fullness of the Liberty of the People, they instituted, by Constitutional Compact between those who Ratified that agreement, a government subject to those two great and enduring principles that were asserted in the Declaration of Independence. Ancillary to those two great principles naturally flowed a third and that was the Law of Compact, voluntarily entered into by assent.

Indeed, these common principles were clearly stated in the following:

"The Union was formed by a compact of sovereign and independent States upon covenants and conditions expressly stipulated, the mode of its formation subjects it to the principle, namely that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement entirely release the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure with all its consequences."

The above succinctly expresses what should be self-evident, that there is an essential principle inherent within the compact that binds our States based upon both Consent and Compliance to the Compact agreed upon. Without either Consent or Compliance, the Compact is essentially void; our Constitutional Compact is based upon the ancient principles found in Voluntary Contracts. That is the foundation upon which our Constitution rests and upon which all other principles are built.

In the form of the Confederation we find the following:

"Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union BETWEEN [all the States were named]. Article 1. The style of this Confederacy shall be "the United States of America". Article 2. Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

That should be very clear, but obviously its not because some declare that the Articles of that Confederation were basically destroyed when the Constitution was Ratified because the Articles were deficient however, if you read the Debates on the Constitutional Convention you will quickly see just what they did when they formulated and then when it was Ratified by the Independent States. The Articles of Confederation were simply absorbed, in all its form and then expanded within a very narrow construct in the Constitution. You can find this throughout the Constitution; the Articles of Confederation remained the building blocks of that newly formed Compact. The only thing that was actually nullified was the "Perpetual Union" formed through the Articles of Confederation; this was affected by the Secession of every State of the Union from the Confederation. As referenced earlier, two States refrained for almost two years from Acceding to the new Constitutional compact and joining in the new federation. Both Unions were called the United States of America, the style of the foundational system remained the same, only the functionalities of the structure of government under the new Constitution were enhanced.

In fact, to express the actual nature of the States, one need not look far to see that both Rhode Island and North Carolina refused entry into the new Constitution for almost two years. Now, although the Articles of Confederation stated that the Union was perpetual, it becomes obvious that during that period, both Rhode Island and North Carolina were not part of the old Confederation, which no longer existed, but there were also not a part of the newly formed federation called the United States, but retained their former position as sovereign and independent States outside of compact.

Now, these States held no claim upon the sovereignty of their "sister" States nor did the States who, through agreement between them, entered into the United States claim any part of the sovereignty of either Rhode Island or North Carolina. In contradistinction, even within the compact of the Constitution, no State may lay claim or trespass against any other State because to do so is a violation of the principles of Sovereignty. Likewise, in the same construction, under the Constitution, each State retains, by their Respective State Constitutions and governments, their own sovereignty and independence to the exclusion of every other State in the Union. Otherwise, there would be no need for either State Constitutions or State governments, only a general and centralized national government, but alas, that was not the intention nor was it how this Republic was constructed by the Framers of the Constitution. The form of our governmental structure was not only that of a Republic, but it was a Republic of Republics. In the simplest construction, the federal government is not singular in usage but plural; thus the federal government is nothing more than a reflective governmental arm of the Several States formed through a federational compact based upon Consent instead of conquest.

The Several States, by Consent of their People, Acceded to the Compact established and ordained between them. This act of Accession was the voluntary action that solely formed the agreement and by which it is maintained, without the act of Accession the document becomes void. In fact, until the moment it was Ratified, it was merely just another document without authority; for it was the act of Accession, the act of Ratification that imbued the Constitution with authority, authority solely derived from the People themselves.

Benjamin Franklin stated that: "Our new Constitution is now established with eleven States, and the Accession of a twelfth is soon expected."

There was a great debate on the structure of the new government; there were those who, in a "nationalistic" fervor favored a "national government" however, this was quickly rejected until it once again became the predominate doctrine in the 1860s. It was said that the most compelling argument against such "nationalism" was the name given to the country itself: The United States of America, which, in the understanding and verbiage of the period was descriptive in expounding the system of federalism. Indeed, the only resolution to the expansion of this "nationalist" government is to restore, reassert and re-establish the original federal plan, keeping the government within the restraint of the supreme law which allowed the federal government both to reflect and work with the State governments in a balance that hasn't been seen in nearly a hundred and fifty years.

In 1798, Mr. Madison used the following wording in the Virginia Resolution: "That this assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact, to which the States are parties." That sentence is very descriptive of the Constitutional Compact for it declares that the States are parties to this Compact, not the federal government that results from that Compact. In other words, the federal government is not a party to the Compact agreement made between the Several States only the result of that Compact. It is no different than two people crafting and signing upon agreement to form a company. The company itself bore no power or connection to the contract that created it except that the company must abide by the by-laws and provisions set forth in that contract to remain a valid and legally binding document.

So, the source of all power in our country emanates from the States, being the medium of the People's Sovereignty, and is delegated or flows to the federal government to operate at the Will and Consent of the People. It is interesting that in every original State Constitution you can find similar wording: "All political power is inherent in the People". This was not just an expression, an extract of philosophical niceties, it was a truth that, as the Founders realized, instituted Freedom.

Indeed, the clarity of these principles can be found in the words of John Jay: "The proposed government is to be the government of the people. All its officers are to be their officers, and to exercise no rights but such as the people commit to them. The Constitution only serves to point out that part of the people's business, which they think proper by it to refer to the management of the persons therein designated."

Judge Parsons of Massachusetts stated that: "The federal constitution establishes a government of this description, and, in this case, the people divest themselves of nothing; the government and powers which the congress can administer, are the mere result of a compact made by the people."

Pinckney of South Carolina, at the ratifying convention of the State said: "The sovereign of supreme power of the State, with us, resides in the people. The general government has no powers but what are expressly granted to it. By delegating express powers, we certainly reserve to ourselves every power and right not mentioned in the constitution."

The fact is that no State would have ratified the Constitution had they not believed that the States would not retrain their complete Sovereignty and Power as Independent and Free States. In fact statements to that effect are found throughout the Ratification process, both in the State Conventions and the Constitutional Convention itself.

Judge John Marshall, later the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, stated the full expression of these Reserved Powers retained by the States: "Those who give, may take away. It is the people that give power, and can take it back; what shall restrain them? They are the masters who gave it, and of whom the servants hold it. Are not Congress and the State Legislatures the agents of the People?"

James Wilson, statesman from Pennsylvania to both the federal and State conventions declared the following: "The supreme, absolute and uncontrollable power is in the people before they make a constitution, and remains in them after it is made. The absolute sovereignty never goes from the people."

In Federalist No. 46, James Madison also reiterated the common knowledge of the relationship of both the federal and State governments were to the people: "The federal and State governments are, in fact, but different agents and trustees of the people, instituted with different powers. The ultimate authority wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone." Madison clarified this principle at the Virginia Convention when he said that the phrase "people" did not mean, as the members of the Federalist and Radical Republican Parties later claimed, that "the people as composing one great society, but the people as composing the thirteen sovereignties."

In other words, this country was not to be considered governed under an all-encompassing national government that contains power, authority and sovereignty upon to itself to act or govern in any way its chooses, but all, absolutely all power rest solely in the People to determine the exercise of the agency called the government.

The Constitution, and the resulting federal government, is nothing more than an instrument of agency and that agency completely serves the Will and Consent of the People. As such, the federal government maintains no power, no supremacy and no sovereignty of its own; it only acts on behalf of the People and when it ceases to do so it becomes an illegal and rogue institution devoid of legitimacy.

It was, without any question, understood by the Framers of the Constitution that no government, either State or federal, contained inherent sovereignty. Nor did any of the Framers ever characterize the federal functionaries they constructed through the Constitution as sovereign; it was the People and only the People to were Sovereign, the People were considered Citizens of their Respective States, complete in their Sovereignty; in fact, the States were considered the People, Free and Independent. There was never a hint that either government, State or federal, would or could possess any inherent or original powers.

Yet, for all this, there were those who sought to pervert this sound foundation of government, even today there are those who, in lawlessness, seek to subvert the very foundation of our Republic in favor of a "unified nationalist principle" contorting, through willful ignorance or malicious intent, that the federal government, by will of its own, possess all inherent sovereignty to legislate or function in any manner it sees fit. This pernicious political doctrine, which began early in our country's history, relegates the States to minor factionaries of the federal government and therefore, the "nation"; in fact, they must view the federal government as the "nation" in order to maintain such political doctrinal heresy. They view this country as a consolidated "nation" under complete control of the federal government and its functionaries as a corporate sovereign. Of course, since the 1860s, we have seen this government, this foreign and perverted government; operate exactly as one would expect a corporate sovereign to operate.

It was a self-consolidation the government, fraudulently implemented by force and caused the treasonable destruction of the Reserved Powers of the States, thus the People themselves. The People were herded into a consolidated and undivided nation state; eventually even the functions of Constitutional government were skewed into favoring that nation state. This was a massive transformation because originally the States made up the federation and the general government was federal, not national.

These changes, these perverted transformations affected the very worst type of consolidation, placing within this "national" government all sorts of prerogatives that are almost regal in their execution. It has, for all intents and purposes, become a self-contained corporate body with all the characteristics of a complete sovereign with the ability to operate outside the parameters of the Constitution to achieve both its goals and self-perpetuation.

At one time, the People had the power and ability to place the pressure of their Will upon the government, knowing that all the checks and balances restrained the government and restrained, to a large degree, the actions of politicians. Thus under the guise and form of a Republic we now have little more than a consolidated empire functioning under the auspices of corporate despotism, disguised for its own benefit and function. Under such auspices, as our own history bears out, such a militarily-backed government despot can choose its own direction, its own actions even if it means using force against the People and against their Will to govern themselves by their Consent. In a very real sense, it means that this government can execute its "right" to impose and enforce its assumed "absolute supreme sovereignty" against its own People, and indeed, it has done just that through the years. Today, this government operates under a Simulacrum Constitution that is being adeptly administered in place of the legitimate Constitution, this government now functions under an image of the Constitution; a disguise that merely mask the level of tyrannical usurpation, concealed, for the most part, from the People themselves.

This foul effrontery, illegal and illegitimate at its core, allows this government to find all the appropriate tools to stage and perform before the eyes of the People, all the while its imperial polity is shackled upon the People through a gradual bleeding of their Liberty and Freedom. The People continue to be deceived through an image of civil liberty, doled out to them, contingent upon their compliance to its will, its direction and its self-perpetuation.

All coercion by the federal government is an abridgment of Trust, since each of our States, being equal in their Sovereignty through the People, voluntarily acceded to the Union; the Constitution being the very expression of their Will and Sovereignty, the federal government served only as the agency, in such a system no coercive power over them by the federal government could possibly be derived from the Constitution. It is also logically impossible for an entity, through such a voluntary contract as the Constitution, become involuntarily bound to that contract. In other words, the States, in both nature and character, voluntarily entered into Compact with each other resulting in the formation of the federal government, could not then become involuntary entities merely by the act of entering a voluntary union, the proof of which can be found in the Power of Amendment. The States have the sole power to Amend the Contract through the Concurrent Consent of the People.

Additionally, it is apparent, that under the Constitution, all disputes rising between the various States are to be dealt with through very specific statues; if the Constitutional Compact were dissolved it becomes obvious that the law of nations would be applicable to the Individual States once again. The Several States are the Citizens of those States, therefore, as such; the Sovereignty rests solely in the People and therefore their respective States as Independent and Free Polities. Therefore, upon every possible principle found within the enumerated Compact called the Constitution, the People have the absolute Right to determine the form of government, the reach and scope of that government or, they can, upon proper and determined Consent, withdraw from, alter or dismantle that government. For government only exists at the Behest and Consent of the People themselves, there is no other power that restrains them.

Let us remember, that Madison made it clear in Federalist Paper No. 40, that: "The States are regarded as distinct and independent sovereignties by the Constitution proposed." In the most clarified language composed, Madison made it clear that the Constitution did not then, nor has it sense, formed a "national government" that consolidated the States into one nation state.

By all the references provided to us by the Founders, coercion of the States was to be considered as War on the States. Thus those waging such coercion cannot be considered anything but enemies, no matter what they might call themselves, what color banner they may fly. There was never a single provision made for the federal government to coerce the States, in fact, you will find references where Madison and others decried the proposals of such provisions as totally incompatible with the Republic and the principles upon which it was Founded. As stated, it was the very people who carefully crafted the Constitution that declared such coercion by the federal government against the States as an Act of War, and that such use of coercion was completely incompatible to the principles of the Republic.

The People, as expressed through their respective State governments, possess all absolute power, the federal government being nothing, absolutely nothing more than a derivative of the People's Power expressed through the States; as such it, the federal government, could not express a superior authority when it only possessed a subordinate authority.

The States, in their Sovereign Authority delegated to them by their Sovereign Citizens, ratified the Constitutional Compact between them in the very same way as European Sovereignties would enter into and ratify a treaty. It is an absolute absurdity, and totally false, to content or believe that the federal government could or should have control over the Several States when it was the Several States, through Constitutional Compact, that created the federal government in the first place, making that which is created, the federal government subject to the States that are inherently Sovereign. The only event that changed this was a subversive and treasonable revolution, that revolution was carried out almost 150 years ago and it has continued to press its treason upon this People and this country.

The ideals of the Republic and this seemingly absolute sovereignty assumed by the federal government cannot co-exist. The two principles are, to put it mildly, mortal enemies!

In Liberty,
Republicae-Seditionist