Posts Tagged ‘Andrew Jackson’

Ron Paul’s Huge Impact on the Political Conversation

March 23, 2013
The Federal Reserve: The Biggest Scam In History

The Federal Reserve: The Biggest Scam In History (Photo credit: CityGypsy11)

Have you noticed that Ron Paul‘s presidential campaigns has caused a change in the political conversation starting with the 2008 USA presidential campaign? The effects will be felt for a long time.

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK“, SO-CALLED

First of all, one of the biggest things is that the “Federal Reserve Bank”, so-called, the private banking cartel that acts as the broker between the banks and manages a total “legal” monopoly over the nation’s currency, fixes the prices in interest rates for lending, and manipulates the economy through manipulation of the money supply. I put “legal” in quotes because the whole setup is unconstitutional.

“Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out.”

I just found a web page (here) that presents the reasons for Andrew Jackson’s veto that killed the central bank, “penned by George Bancroft” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bancroft):


The veto penned by George Bancroft outlined key points
which draw parallels to Americas present day scenario:
– It concentrated the nation’s financial strength in a single institution.
– It exposed the government to control by foreign interests.
– It served mainly to make the rich richer.
– It exercised too much control over members of Congress.
– Banks are controlled by a few select families.
– Banks have a long history of instigating wars between nations,
forcing them to borrow funding to pay for them.

First, one lesson from Ron Paul’s education campaign that is big but went somewhat unnoticed: His character and history exposed the dark underbelly of “opposition research”. This is the industry that specializes in uncovering things that will hurt a political opponent’s prospects. We saw this when they tried to smear him as a racist, and the only result of that was that everybody in the country learned that if anybody in political office has never been a racist, it is Ron Paul, and that the misinformation agents were very dirty indeed, if not racists themselves, for trying to smear a genuine unbiased gentleman. Besides, the more they talked about it, the more the audience realized that it was only Ron Paul who would kill off one of the ongoing causes of de facto harm to minorities in the country today, the useless and violent drug wars.

Another change is that everybody in the nation is now talking about the Federal Reserve, and most of it is not nice. Sure, the Obsolete Press is still “respecting” it in its reporting, tip-toeing around its economic dictatorship by a clique of bankers, but there is now with the Internet a true alternative news media that often reports facts that under the old more controlled structures, would be almost unknown by most people.

In fact, criticizing the Federal Reserve is a common practice by some Congressmen and economists. Many of them get quite acerbic in their language. I only remember one lone voice in the Old Media that had some harsh language for the Fed, Bob Brinker with the Money Talk call-in radio program. When Greenspan began strangling the stock market and the economy with his repeated increases in the base interest rates in the year 2000, Bob Brinker expressed perplexity that this decision could even be considered, and pulled no punches in his (albeit understated) language.

But Ron Paul is the one who forced the issue of the Federal Reserve specifically, and fiat money generally, and their true nature, into the national political conversation and consciousness.

RON PAUL MADE PEACE POPULAR AGAIN

To the consternation of the military-industrial complex, Ron Paul frustrated the neocon war drum pundits by making it popular to oppose unnecessary wars. The conversation his campaign catalyzed resolved into the realization that America’s wars of recent decades were not only unconstitutional, but they were a “cure” that had far worse results than the “disease”.

Now, almost everybody, get this, especially on the “right”, is now expressing weariness and puzzlement over the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The “Arab Spring” misinformation cover propaganda for throwing north Africa overboard to a clique of oligarchs ruling as theocrats, ideological analogues of Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, so called. I say “so-called” because they will persecute other devout Muslims who disagree with them as fast as they would kill a “Crusader”. Make no mistake Muslims: Even if you are a member, you are under the same risk from your leaders as the rest of us. There are indeed many Muslims who are not the stereotype.

RON PAUL MADE THE WORLD SAFE FOR “SEQUESTER”

The gig is up, the secret is blown, the public now knows the fraud they use in Washington when they talk about “budget cuts”. Now Americans know they are NOT budget cuts at all, but INCREASES in the budget, in the way that Americans talk about their own personal budgets, and even corporations.

Now they know that when Congress and the President talk about budget cuts, they are LYING because they know that Americans don’t “talk like that”.

No, Americans know now that the Chicken Little squawking over the “sequester” is a great big ridiculous joke, meant as cover to do more dollar-destructive profligate increasing in the budge. And a lot of Republican congressmen are surely getting heat from their siblings and their cousins back home about it. The Republican half of the Establishment Parties was scared by the press into caving on the “government shutdown” in the 1990s but “sequester” is a different story now.

But by extending the debt limit out some more –yet again– they are exposing themselves. And even much of the alternative media did not make much noise about this. The Tea Party surge in 2010 when Americans spoke with a loud voice that they wanted the spending and the borrowing to STOP RIGHT NOW, there were four freshmen who gave in.

It seems like the Republicans are the biggest enemies to implementing their own rhetoric into law. The minimum price for raising the debt ceiling should have been at least the repeal of “Obamacare”. It has already caused great harm to Mom and Pop shops, small business, and the poor at the bottom of the wage scale has seen their pay and their hours reduced, and both health insurance costs and cost of medical services has gone up more than inflation, all harmful and opposite to the promise.

Hondurans stopped a dictatorship in its incipient stages in July 2009. They have more sense than Americans, and we call ourselves a “democracy” or even a “republic”? Who are you to talk about them? Corruption is pretty much a fact of life in Latin America, and corruption worked hand in hand with anti-corruption demagoguery to put de-facto “elected” dictators in place now in several countries in South America, but one little country said NO! to an “elected dictatorship” despite all the dollars the Chavistas poured into it.

RON PAUL EXPOSES THE WELFARE STATE

There are millions of people in the USA that get a monthly check or free food at the cost of divulging a thousand private secrets they would not tell a neighbor. But now people are much more aware of how this government intervention into people’s lives actually hurts the poor more.

Politicians for example raise taxes and borrow money to pay for a bureaucracy that gives out money (and “food stamps”) to people for the price of all their information. Some government fanatics now take a word out of the Orwellian Doublespeak dictionary and call it an increase in “revenues’. Never mind it never increases tax revenues as much as they say, because the economy is NOT zero-sum.

Say John Doe works at a low-wage job and his employer, Uncle Joe Creations, sees his taxes go up to pay for those people who have no jobs. So the Uncle Joe looks at how he can cut costs, and one of biggest expenses for business in the United States is payroll. He has to look at payroll.

If Joe has been a good businessman, he cannot cut back on infrastructure or on inventory to pay for the increase in taxes because it would decrease his own revenues. Sales would go down. Joe’s sales have been going down because the shrinking production in the economy has hurt business. That’s why the demand by government officials and “consultants” with six-figure and seven-figure salaries in Washington are demanding more “tax revenues” to “help the poor” [sic].

John Doe is maybe the janitor, say, so what “Uncle Joe” does is decide that he can use a part-time service at half of what he pays John Doe.

That’s how John Doe loses his job, the economy loses production at the margins of productivity, and now John Doe cannot buy the car he planned on, or the TV, and he has to cut back on everything while collecting unemployment. Not all is lost. The unemployment checks come from payments to the funds by people who are working, except now there is one fewer working.

So of course the bureaucrats (who started out as wanting to help the poor, and many still do) demand more from the tax base. Politicians have an easy out with debt increases, especially if it creates “currency” out of thin air. But that causes inflation, a euphemism for robbing value from your savings and your cash to pay for what they want.

YOUNGER FOLKS ARE ABANDONING THE SOCIALIST LIE

One of Ron Paul’s strongest showing in 2008 and 2012 was on college campuses. While other candidates had problems getting even one section of a stadium to look full, Ron Paul’s crowds packed stadiums and auditoriums across the country. They came often because of his opposition to unconstitutional and senseless wars, and many of those also cheered his message of killing corruption by kicking government out of the economy.

EVERYBODY IS A LIBERTARIAN NOW

It is now popular to call yourself a libertarian in politics, especially in the Republican Party, but in other venues as well. It has left the corner where the Rulers’ Media had it relegated as “crazy people” and set fire to kid’s imaginations and made it a popular cause to oppose the welfare-warfare state in the same sentence.

THE WAR ON DRUGS IS UNPOPULAR NOW EVEN AMONG PEOPLE WHO HATE MIND-ALTERING SUBSTANCES

Now the body politic is questioning the cost in lives and resources of the so-called war on drugs. They are getting the message that the war on drugs is worse overall than the drugs themselves, and that Prohibition Round Two is not working. Oh, and by the way, it’s not even constitutional like Prohibition One was.

MARRIAGE

An important and largely unnoticed percentage of BIble-believing Christians –like me– have always disdained the idea that the state would have anything to do with marriage, but the issue of so-called “same-sex marriage” has driven this idea into the open to libertarians, who now want the state to bug out of the marriage altogether.

Why should we allow the state to issue “licenses” to marry?

It’s not that I think “gays” should “be allowed” to marry. I was married for awhile before I had to get state recognition for it so I could get the visa that allowed my wife to come to the States. One “same-sex marriage” advocate that wants government permission for this has defended this by saying there are some 10,000 legal privileges “enjoyed” by heterosexual couples in the USA that “gays” should be able to benefit from.

First of all, if you concede your government the say-so, the last word on the matter, then you open it up for your opponents. If you advocate same-sex marriage and demand the privilege from political power, then you are making it a legitimate issue for those who oppose you.

“One size fits all” dilutes your own cause. I tell my close family and friends that I think homosexual practices are harmful to them in many ways that are independent of morality claims. The practice has been common throughout history –variety of expressions of hedonism has never lacked in most societies. But even in cultures where it was common, never did they consider male coupling as a “marriage”.

But I don’t think anybody, whether they represent a “government” or not, should be able to dictate who I can be with, and I would rather persuade others than use force on them.

Even so, I will mention here that one of the best defenses against a state that imposes cookie-cutter conformity on its citizens is the natural family, mother and father raising their children. Talkers in media talk about non-traditional “kinds of families”, but what they avoid talking about is the fact that all these different “kinds” of families outside the traditional model, are all take-offs from the natural family of father, mother, and children.

SCHOOL CHOICE

The idea that parents should make the decisions about their children’s education is every day more popular. The idea has breached a threshold: most “minority” parents want vouchers for their kids. A government monopoly is now ever more unpopular.

FREEDOM RINGS

What did God say about people wanting a king? What did God warn them about taxes and war?

1 Samuel 8:7 7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.

19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;

20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.

Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

Advertisement

Alexander Hamilton, the first U.S. central bank, money changers, and Andrew Jackson

February 24, 2013
English: Andrew Jackson - 7 th President of th...

English: Andrew Jackson – 7 th President of the United States (1829–1837) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Central banking was NEVER a good idea. Andrew Jackson had flaws, but at least he apparently was not in their “pocket” (pun intended). No partisan of individual liberty –natural individual rights– can condone a force-subsidized centralization of control over a nation’s financial activity, or government-enforced privileges for a selected cartel of private bankers.

I don’t know enough about the Federalist Papers to know what Alexander Hamilton said in them about central banks, but it’s rather obvious that he and Justice Marshall hid the “whole truth” from the public. Many of the other founders, including Thomas Jefferson, were very explicit in their condemnations of centralized banking power.

Central banks are the Trojan horse of usurpation of power leading to more power-grabbing. This is one reason Jesus Christ himself showed by example what his followers should do with money changers. Keep watch on them, they cheat and lie and turn the houses of God into dens of thieves.

This is EXACTLY what happened with Alexander Hamilton’s central bank. It’s a very bad mark on Washington’s presidency, in fact. The bankers began using federal government money to expand their control over all the banking in general, which was one reason Maryland tried to stop them in Maryland.

And the fact that many of these central-banking-advocates signed the Constitution shows they were not all being honest. That includes later Chief Justice Marshall, who headed the Supreme Court decision to declare the charter for the central bank constitutional.

So when Andrew Jackson got his chance to veto the central bank charter renewal passed by Congress, he most emphatically put his VETO on it. He had his flaws but this is one of the best things any U.S. president has ever done for the American people. ALL the American people.

Think about why  Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto advocated for a central bank that would control the monetary system in every country in the world. Most socialists, Communists, and “progressives” roll right over that –except the ones that do and think about it do not remain such for long– but they should consider it. Why would an anti-capitalist push for giving capitalist bankers complete control over a nation’s economy?

 

(Some) Republicans turn their backs on black kids

June 23, 2012

English: Governor Bobby Jindal at the Republic...

English: Governor Bobby Jindal at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana. [Advocate of school choice] (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Republicans turn their backs on black kids:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/republicans-turn-their-backs-on-black-kids/

..Joining the Democrats…

One area that awareness of the need for freedom from government control has penetrated black attitudes is in education.

The chronic failure of public schools to notably improve dismal test scores and high dropout rates of black children has made it clear to many black citizens of good will that there has got to be a better way.

Polls show black support for school choice. For example, in a poll done last year in New Jersey by the Rutgers-Eagleton Center at Rutgers University, 54 percent of blacks expressed support for school vouchers compared to 36 percent of whites.
……

What’s wrong with giving freedom to black parents (and white parents) to choose the education for their children? Do the lawmakers just think parents are too stupid?

……

In a genuine breakthrough, a black Democrat in the Illinois state Senate, Rev. James Meeks, who happens to also be the pastor of Chicago’s largest Baptist congregation, introduced a school voucher bill.

The bill passed the Illinois Senate and then died in the state House, with only 25 of 48 Republicans supporting it. It fell 12 votes short of the 60 it needed to pass.

This is not an across-the-board indictment of Republicans. Two Republican governors – Mitch Daniels in Indiana and Bobby Jindal in Louisiana – have spearheaded passage of school voucher programs in their states.

In a new Gallup poll, only 29 percent, an all time low, express “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in our public schools.

The Republican Party is supposed to be the party of freedom and limited government. Nowhere are these principles more needed than in education, and no community needs it more than blacks.

At a time when our country and our poor communities are hurting so badly, any failure of leadership by those in the party of Lincoln is inexcusable.

Well, not that Lincoln himself is any shining example of loving liberty himself. He did put the second kibosh of USA history on the central bankers though, the first being Andrew Jackson.

See? Liberals hate the constitution, especially the unlimited Bill of Rights parts

June 3, 2012
Patrick Henry, portrait by George Bagby Matthe...

Patrick Henry, portrait by George Bagby Matthews c. 1891 after an original by Thomas Sully (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: The Bill of Rights, the first ten ame...

English: The Bill of Rights (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There actually exists a professor who says the US Constitution is “imbecilic” and for proof he talks about how so many people have not followed it. So he wants to change it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lyle-denniston/constitution-check-has-am_b_1559121.html

So says this “constitutional professor” who pretends to know more about such things than the giant scholars who participated in the writing of our Constitution, and the Christians who extorted the Bill of Rights out of reluctant federalists, including Mr. Central Bank Alexander Hamilton.

Here comes this guy going way beyond Hamilton’s wildest hopes for dissolving local and state jurisdiction over anything in even his book title. Better the approach by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.

This seems like a “trend” now, with this guy, and then one of the Supreme Court telling the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to forget about the American Constitution that set up a balance of powers between three branches of government, and between the states and the federal government, and of course, the B-word she really didn’t want to talk about, the Bill of Rights which is really part of the original Constitution because without that agreement there would have been no such Constitution.

They have the same problem with the Constitution that they have with the Bible. It’s not that either of them contradicts itself, it contradicts them.

Andrew Jackson’s Central Bank Veto Message-Good for 2012

February 25, 2012

This is a message that applies today in detail to the Federal Reserve Bank:

http://www.knowsouthernhistory.net/Speeches/andrew_jackson_bank_veto.html

It’s the message Andrew Jackson gave when he vetoed the Central Bank legislation that came to him from Congress, and God bless him. This message belongs not to the South but to all of us, around the world included:

The present corporate body, denominated the president, directors, and company of the Bank of the United States, will have existed at the time this act is intended to take effect twenty years. It enjoys an exclusive privilege of banking under the authority of the General Government, a monopoly of its favor and support, and, as a necessary consequence, almost a monopoly of the foreign and domestic exchange. The powers, privileges, and favors bestowed upon it in the original charter, by increasing the value of the stock far above its par value, operated as a gratuity of many millions to the stockholders….

The act before me proposes another gratuity to the holders of the same stock, and in many cases to the same men, of at least seven millions more….It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our Government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners. By this act the American Republic proposes virtually to make them a present of some millions of dollars.

Every monopoly and all exclusive privileges are granted at the expense of the public, which ought to receive a fair equivalent. The many millions which this act proposes to bestow on the stockholders of the existing bank must come directly or indirectly out of the earnings of the American people….

It appears that more than a fourth part of the stock is held by foreigners and the residue is held by a few hundred of our own citizens, chiefly of the richest class.

Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? The president of the bank has told us that most of the State banks exist by its forbearance. Should its influence become concentered, as it may under the operation of such an act as this, in the hands of a self-elected directory whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the purity of our elections in peace and for the independence of our country in war? Their power would be great whenever they might choose to exert it; but if this monopoly were regularly renewed every fifteen or twenty years on terms proposed by themselves, they might seldom in peace put forth their strength to influence elections or control the affairs of the nation. But if any private citizen or public functionary should interpose to curtail its powers or prevent a renewal of its privileges, it can not be doubted that he would be made to feel its influence.

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society the farmers, mechanics, and laborers who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.

Nor is our Government to be maintained or our Union preserved by invasions of the rights and powers of the several States. In thus attempting to make our General Government strong we make it weak. Its true strength consists in leaving individuals and States as much as possible to themselves in making itself felt, not in its power, but in its beneficence; not in its control, but in its protection; not in binding the States more closely to the center, but leaving each to move unobstructed in its proper orbit.

Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters and most of the dangers which impend over our Union have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government by our national legislation, and the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires we have in the results of our legislation arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to pause in our career to review our principles, and if possible revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which distinguished the sages of the Revolution and the fathers of our Union. If we can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy….