Chrisforliberty's Blog

Just another WordPress.com site

Archive for November 2010

What Is The Deal With The Airport Scanners?

with 2 comments

For some of you, this comes as no surprise. Do you remember all that talk last winter about the shoe bomber and Michael Chertoff making the rounds on the networks?

Of course, the mainstream media won’t tell you this, but Michael Chertoff is one of the major investors and Congressional lobbyist for OSI Systems which owns Rapiscan Systems. This is the manufacturer of the airport scanners. Chertoff made a heavy investment in them after leaving the White House last year and signed on to become their lobbyist. It all comes down to the handshakes and back pats.

The CEO is Deepak Chopra. He is not the same Deepak Chopra, the writer on Ayurveda, spirituality and ying-yang.  I first read about this particular Chopra around five years ago. Deepak Chopra was also born in India in 1951. His background is in semiconductors and lighting products. He graduated from Punjab Engineering College in Chandigarh, Punjab, India and has a M.S. in Semiconductor Electronics from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. From 1976 to 1987, he was at ILC Technology, Inc. He has also been with Intel Corporation, TRW Semiconductors and RCA Semiconductors in one shape or form. He has been with OSI Systems as CEO and Chairman of the Board since 1987.

You can contact OSI Systems at OSI Systems, Inc. 12525 Chadron Avenue, Hawthorne, CA 90250 Phone: 310-978-0516 Fax: 310-644-7213

The Sidley Austin law firm that is connected to Obama represents OSI Systems in court matters.  Chopra is also traveling with Obama as he goes through India and makes other trips through the Pacific. Why?

Any global monetary system has to have India on board since it is the best positioned of any country to weather serious global currency problems. India is a thorn in the side of China and Pakistan. The rheortic of war between China and India has heated up and India and Pakistan have been at odds for over 60 years. The elites in those countries have played international affairs very well to set this up.

But don’t take it too personally. When global security (and war) is big business, there are always going to be vultures. So I guess we better let all our friends and neighbors know about this too since they won’t get it from their usual sources of information.

Written by chrisforliberty

November 15, 2010 at 10:23 pm

Posted in Banking/Money, Politics

Facts About The Federal Reserve

with one comment

According to some, banks only loan out depositors’ money. But, in fact, they create what they loan out, based on a system known as ‘fractional reserve banking’. This is explained quite succinctly in the following excerpt from the January 1993 edition of National Geographic Magazine, entitled, The Power of Money by Peter T. White, Assistant Editor. (Pages 83-86)

Bills and coins make up about 8 percent of the U.S. money supply — the rest is in bank accounts, including checkbook money; at this writing the sum total is 3.5 trillion dollars, says the Fed — the Federal Reserve System, which is the central bank of the government of the United States — and that is three billion more than a month ago. This is how that happens. Every business day, after a telephone conference call at 11:15 a.m., the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, acting on directives from the Federal Open Market Committee at Fed headquarters in Washington, buys U.S. government securities from major banks and brokerage houses, or sells some — usually U.S. Treasury bills, which in effect are government promissory notes.

Say today the Fed buys a hundred million dollars in Treasury bills from those big securities dealers, who keep a stock of them to trade with the public. When the Fed pays the dealers, a hundred million dollars will thereby be added to the country’s money supply, because the dealers will be credited that amount by their banks, which now have that much more on deposit. But where did the Fed get that hundred million dollars ? “We created it,” a Fed official tells me. He means that anytime the central bank writes a check, so to speak, it creates money. “It’s money that didn’t exist before,” he says. Is there any limit on that ? “No limit. Only the good judgement and the conscience of the responsible Federal Reserve people.” And where did they get this vast authority? “It was delegated to them in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, based on the Constitution, Article I, Section 8. ‘Congress shall have the power .. to coin money, regulate the value thereof …’

Now watch how that Fed-created money lets our commercial banking system create even more. The Fed requires banks to put aside a portion of their depositors’ funds as reserves. Say this reserve ratio is set at 10 percent — then for every $1,000 in new deposits, a bank must keep at least $100 in reserves but can loan out the rest, namely $900. On the bank’s books this loan remains as an asset, earning interest until it is paid off. The customer who got the loan is likely to spend it right away, say for a used car. The car dealer deposits the $900 check in his bank, which then has an additional $900 in reserves and can in turn loan out 90 percent of that — $810. And so on and on, until the original $1,000 put into one bank may enable dozens of banks to issue a total of $9,000 in new loans.

Thus a hundred million dollars injected by the Fed into the commercial banking system could theoretically stimulate the appearance of 900 million dollars in new checkbook money — money that didn’t exist before. And it’s all built on the assumption that the system is sound.

Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.” Lewis v. U.S., 680 F.2d 1239; 1982 U.S.

“The financial elites of this country, notably the Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb interests, were responsible for putting through the Federal Reserve System, as a governmentally created and sanctioned cartel device to enable the nation’s banks to inflate the money supply in a coordinated fashion, without suffering quick retribution from depositors or noteholders demanding cash. Recent researchers, however, have also highlighted the vital supporting role of the growing number of technocratic experts and academics, who were happy to lend the patina of their allegedly scientific expertise to the elite’s drive for a central bank. To achieve a regime of big government and government control, power elites cannot achieve their goal of privilege through statism without the vital legitimizing support of the supposedly disinterested experts and the professoriat. To achieve the Leviathan State, interests seeking special privilege, and intellectuals offering scholarship and ideology, must work hand in hand.” Murray Rothbard, Origins of the Federal Reserve

‎”The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which — through a complex series of steps — the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets.”
Alan Greenspan, Gold and Economic Freedom

Written by chrisforliberty

November 7, 2010 at 6:25 pm

Is the Federal Reserve a Federal Government Agency?

leave a comment »

JOHN L. LEWIS, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant/Appellee.No. 80-5905

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH CIRCUIT

680 F.2d 1239; 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20002

March 2, 1982, Submitted

April 19, 1982, Decided

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1]

As Amended June 24, 1982.

PRIOR HISTORY:

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

COUNSEL: Lafayette L. Blair, Compton, Cal., for plaintiff/appellant.

James R. Sullivan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for defendant/appellee; Andrea Sheridan Ordin, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., on brief.

JUDGES: Before POOLE and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON, District Judge. n*

* The Honorable Gus J. Solomon, Senior District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.

OPINIONBY: POOLE

OPINION: [*1240]

On July 27, 1979, appellant John Lewis was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by the Los Angeles branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Lewis brought this action in district court alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act (the Act), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court dismissed, holding that the Federal Reserve Bank is not a federal agency within the meaning of the Act and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

In enacting the Federal Tort Claims [**2] Act, Congress provided a limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts of federal employees. United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 813, 96 S. Ct. 1971, 1975, 48 L. Ed. 2d 390 (1976). Specifically, the Act creates liability for injuries “caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission” of an employee of any federal agency acting within the scope of his office or employment. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671. “Federal agency” is defined as:

the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations acting primarily as instrumentalities of the United States, but does not include any contractors with the United States.

28 U.S.C. § 2671. The liability of the United States for the negligence of a Federal Reserve Bank employee depends, therefore, on whether the Bank is a federal agency under § 2671.

There are no sharp criteria for determining [**3] whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of federal government control over the “detailed physical performance” and “day to day operation” of that entity. United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 814, 96 S. Ct. 1971, 1975, 48 L. Ed. 2d 390 (1976), Logue v. United States, 412 U.S. 521, 528, 93 S. Ct. 2215, 2219, 37 L. Ed. 2d 121 (1973). Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation, Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), Freeling v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 221 F. Supp. 955 (W.D.Okla.1962), aff’d per curiam, 326 F.2d 971 (10th Cir. 1963), whether the government is involved in the entity’s finances. Goddard v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 109 U.S. App. D.C. 304, 287 F.2d 343, 345 (D.C.Cir.1961), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 910, 81 S. Ct. 1085, 6 L. Ed. 2d 235 (1961), Freeling v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 221 F. Supp. 955, [*1241] and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States, Goddard v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 287 F.2d at 345. [**4] Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank’s nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. § 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. § 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activities include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 341 [**5] 361.

Each Bank is statutorily empowered to conduct these activities without day to day direction from the federal government. Thus, for example, the interest rates on advances to member banks, individuals, partnerships, and corporations are set by each Reserve Bank and their decisions regarding the purchase and sale of securities are likewise independently made.

It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks:

It is proposed that the Government shall retain sufficient power over the reserve banks to enable it to exercise a direct authority when necessary to do so, but that it shall in no way attempt to carry on through its own mechanism the routine operations and banking which require detailed knowledge of local and individual credit and which determine the funds of the community in any given instance. In other words, the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of routine.

H.R. Report No. 69, 63 Cong. [**6] 1st Sess. 18-19 (1913).

The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act. In United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S. Ct. 1971, 48 L. Ed. 2d 390 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by the federal government. Because the agency’s day to day operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency’s employees. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker’s compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government [**7] employee discounts on lodging and services.

The Banks are listed neither as “wholly owned” government corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 846 nor as “mixed ownership” corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 856, a factor considered in Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency under the Act. Closely resembling the status [*1242] of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit, federally chartered corporation organized to serve the public welfare. But because Congress’ control over the Civil Air Patrol is limited and the corporation is not designated as a wholly owned or mixed ownership government corporation under 31 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 856, the court concluded that the corporation is a non-governmental, independent entity, not covered under the Act.

Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. Cf. Goddard v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 109 U.S. App. D.C. 304, 287 F.2d 343, 345 (D.C.Cir.1961), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 910, 81 S. Ct. 1085, 6 L. Ed. 2d 235 (1961) [**8] (court held land redevelopment agency was federal agency for purposes of the Act in large part because agency received direct appropriated funds from Congress.)

Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. § 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims. In the past, the Banks have defended against tort claims directly, through private counsel, not government attorneys, e.g., Banco De Espana v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 114 F.2d 438 (2d Cir. 1940); Huntington Towers v. Franklin National Bank, 559 F.2d 863 (2d Cir. 1977); Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1981), and they have never been required to settle tort claims under the administrative procedure of 28 U.S.C. § 2672. The waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the Act would therefore appear to be inapposite to the Banks who have not historically claimed or received general immunity from judicial process.

The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes. In [**9] United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1982), this court held that a Federal Reserve Bank employee who was responsible for recommending expenditure of federal funds was a “public official” under the Federal Bribery Statute. That statute broadly defines public official to include any person acting “for or on behalf of the Government.” S. Rep. No. 2213, 87th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1962), reprinted in (1962) U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3852, 3856. See 18 U.S.C. § 201(a). The test for determining status as a public official turns on whether there is “substantial federal involvement” in the defendant’s activities. United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d at 754. In contrast, under the FTCA, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when the tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Banks, which perform important activities for the government.

The Reserve Banks are deemed to [**10] be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation, 499 F.2d 60 (1st Cir. 1974), after remand, 520 F.2d 221 (1st Cir. 1975); Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis v. Register of Deeds, 288 Mich. 120, 284 N.W. 667 (1939). The test for determining whether an entity is a federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, however, is very broad: whether the entity performs an important governmental function. Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 102, 62 S. Ct. 1, 5, 86 L. Ed. 65 (1941); Rust v. Johnson, 597 F.2d 174, 178 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 964, 100 S. Ct. 450, 62 L. Ed. 2d 376 (1979). The Reserve Banks, which further the nation’s fiscal policy, clearly perform an important governmental function.

Performance of an important governmental function, however, [**11] is but a single factor and not determinative in tort claims actions. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis v. Metrocentre Improvement District, 657 F.2d 183, 185 n.2 (8th Cir. 1981), Cf. Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956). State taxation has traditionally been viewed as a greater obstacle to an entity’s ability to perform federal functions than exposure to judicial process; therefore tax immunity is liberally applied. Federal [*1243] Land Bank v. Priddy, 295 U.S. 229, 235, 55 S. Ct. 705, 708, 79 L. Ed. 1408 (1955). Federal tort liability, however, is based on traditional agency principles and thus depends upon the principal’s ability to control the actions of his agent, and not simply upon whether the entity performs an important governmental function. See United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 815, 96 S. Ct. 1971, 1976, 48 L. Ed. 2d 390 (1976), United States v. Logue, 412 U.S. 521, 527-28, 93 S. Ct. 2215, 2219, 37 L. Ed. 2d 121 (1973).

Brink’s Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F. Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1979), held that a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal [**12] instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. § 351. Citing Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the court applied the “important governmental function” test and concluded that the term “Federal Government” in the Service Contract Act must be “liberally construed to effectuate the Act’s humanitarian purposes of providing minimum wage and fringe benefit protection to individuals performing contracts with the federal government.” Id. 288 Mich. at 120, 284 N.W.2d 667.

Such a liberal construction of the term “federal agency” for purposes of the Act is unwarranted. Unlike in Brinks, plaintiffs are not without a forum in which to seek a remedy, for they may bring an appropriate state tort claim directly against the Bank; and if successful, their prospects of recovery are bright since the institutions are both highly solvent and amply insured.

For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

Written by chrisforliberty

November 7, 2010 at 6:14 pm

Posted in Banking/Money

How to Run for Public Office

leave a comment »

“It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” Samuel Adams

Have you given some thought to running for public office? What issues do you seek to address? Are you interested in being a public servant or do you seek politics as a career? What will you be up against?

“Steady, hearty allegiance to the policy of the government they (bureaucrats) serve will constitute good behavior. That policy will have no taint of officialism about it. It will not be the creation of permanent officials, but of statesmen whose responsibility to public opinion will be direct and inevitable. Bureaucracy can exist only where the whole service of the state is removed from the common political life of the people, its chiefs as well as its rank and file. Its motives, its objects, its policy, its standards, must be bureaucratic. It would be difficult to point out any examples of impudent exclusiveness and arbitrariness on the part of officials doing service under a chief of department who really served the people, as all our chiefs of departments must be made to do. It would be easy, on the other hand, to adduce other instances like that of the influence of Stein in Prussia, where the leadership of one statesman imbued with true public spirit transformed arrogant and perfunctory bureaux into public-spirited instruments of just government.”
Woodrow Wilson, “The Study of Administration”, Political Science Quarterly. pp. 197–222, November 1, 1886

So now that you know what you are going up against is an entrenched bureaucracy that has been in place for a long time, what is an individual to do?

If you’re motivated to make (real) changes, and to work with others who feel the way you do, then that is a start. If you haven’t already, free your mind, heart and spirit. Everything you do flows from these factors. Educate yourself on the issues. Have a principled approach to liberty and justice. Government already attracts enough unprincipled power hungry people as it is. Finally realize, that overall, government is almost never the answer to our problems. But try telling that to 99% of the people and they will think you are crazy.

If you are giving a serious consideration to running for public office, organization is the first step. You don’t need experience in organizing to take action now. You have to start somewhere. You already know that the majority will not automatically “get it” when it comes to liberty especially not in a society that is accessorized, customized and deodorized one like the United States.

Depending on what level of office you are running for, you will want to take into consideration several factors. One factor is how well known are you and how much money do you have or can you raise? I don’t mean that you need to be a celebrity. I do mean that no one is going to support or vote for someone they don’t know anything about. Are you one who has been involved in the community such as helping the poor, do you own a business or do you attend school board meetings? You will have to get comfortable in dealing with the public and to realize people will have questions to ask (hopefully it won’t be of the private kind). An attractive resume to put on your campaign literature will be helpful.

Get familiar with the inner workings of the city council, county commission or whatever level you are considering running for. Attend meetings and become familiar with who is already there. Alliances are critical in running for public office as well as being in public office.

After you find one or two potential public offices to run for, you will want to spend some time at the local election commission. Be familiar with the procedures for petitions, campaign finance, election laws, etc… Of course, if you are running as an independent, expect to encounter more roadblocks than if you were running as a democrat or republican. The system is set up to benefit those who already run the system.

After you get enough signatures for your petition (rule of thumb is to aim for around 4x the number of required signatures), start holding events.  Events can be a neighborhood planning meeting, a media interview, or a potluck, to name a few examples.  You might as well start with people you know so that you can become comfortable with speaking in public, being asked questions and putting yourself out there.

You will likely need to name a treasurer. A friend is okay if they are ethical and know how to manage campaign funds. You may want to ask other people who are in public office (not the one you are thinking about running for) on suggestions on what to look for in a treasurer. Be familiar with campaign finance laws relevant to the office you are seeking.

A candidate can’t do everything. Not even the millionaires/billionaires (of whom the majority in the U.S. Congress happen to be) can do everything. Unless you are loaded with money or are famous, you probably won’t be able to hire a professional campaign staff like those big wigs do.

What you would want is a campaign manager ideally one who has experience, is passionate about this role and is a superb organizer. The CM should know about the area of the office you are seeking, how to organize precincts, wards, neighborhoods and can coordinate volunteers to work these areas on a given day. This person would know how to set up media interviews, work with a printing or graphic design company to produce literature, signs, website, etc… I would suggest setting aside a fund that can be used to pay volunteers a token amount for travel, donuts, something to show your appreciation for their time and effort.

After you have laid the groundwork, you will want to get out there and knock on doors yourself. You should set aside just about every Saturday for neighborhood canvassing. You should also train your volunteers on decorum, language, how to address people when they answer the door, etc…

Eventually things should fall into place as momentum builds and more people know your name. Even after you put everything into it, will you win? You have no control over who counts the votes and I am not aware of any fraud proof system that could keep the voting honest. Ultimately, people will make their decisions. The main thing is to realize the campaign isn’t about you, but the ideas you are representing and ideas are bulletproof.

Written by chrisforliberty

November 6, 2010 at 11:16 pm

Posted in Politics

Know Thy Enemy

with 6 comments

“A flourishing libertarian movement, a lifelong dedication to liberty can only be grounded on a passion for justice.”
Murray Rothbard, Egalitarianism As a Revolt Against Nature

For those who have been at this political stuff for a while, you already know what I’m talking about. Chances are that you are reading this because you want to change unfair drug laws, be part of that “reform movement” you’ve heard about, reduce property taxes, etc…, but you are unsure how to begin. Chances are you or either someone you know was affected in some manner and it made you realize that something wasn’t right and it inspired you to get involved.

My own experiences have taught me three important lessons: First, real change begins with you.

Be your own leader. Be yourself even as you work with like-minded people or work to hash out differences that you have. I’m a Christian who is single, has no kids, and a college student to put it in a nutshell. Yet I have worked with atheists, Jews, homosexuals, democrats, republicans, blacks, women to name a few where we had an issue or several issues in common. My way of looking at it is that it won’t make much of a difference what your label is when in the end, we are rounded up and sent to a death camp. Some people prefer the terms concentration camp or reservation. It is merely a matter of semantics. Just as real change for the better doesn’t happen all at once, tyranny doesn’t come in a single night either.

Second Think Globally, Act Locally!

Today, it is easier to find people with common interests all over the world and locally to get involved by simply joining a social networking site like Facebook or Meetup. It is very much the technology of our time much like the telegraph and printing press were in another era. Through the use of these technologies which are more cost-effective and easier to operate, it enables the average person on the street to get more involved in the process whereas creating and owning a television network, a newspaper company or radio station generally takes a bit more investment and capitol which may not be readily available.

Thirdly, understand what we are going up against.

We are literally going up against a system, an entrenched bureaucracy that is hell-bent on complete and utter control of the entire planet. The people who run the system are unlimited in their desire for power. When it becomes necessary to shoot and slash in order to defend ourselves against death squads or armed mercenaries such as Xe (formerly Blackwater), we will have plenty of opportunities.

As Ludwig von Mises put it:

“In America there were no such remnants of the Dark Ages. It was in this sense a young country, and it was a free country. Here were neither industrial codes nor guilds. Thomas Alva Edison and Henry Ford did not have to overcome any obstacles erected by shortsighted governments and a narrow-minded public opinion.

But it is quite a different thing under the rising tide of bureaucratization. Government jobs offer no opportunity for the display of personal talents and gifts. Regimentation spells the doom of initiative. The young man has no illusions about his future. He knows what is in store for him. He will get a job with one of the innumerable bureaus, he will be but a cog in a huge machine the working of which is more or less mechanical. The routine of a bureaucratic technique will cripple his mind and tie his hands. He will enjoy security. But this security will be rather of the kind that the convict enjoys within the prison walls. He will never be free to make decisions and to shape his own fate. He will forever be a man taken care of by other people. He will never be a real man relying on his own strength. He shudders at the sight of the huge office buildings in which he will bury himself.”

We can find even disgruntled government workers to spread the message of liberty too. They see themselves as just doing a job for a paycheck. They have no moral compunction when they file papers.

We tread lightly and distribute literature to them including at post offices, county commission meetings, police stations, etc… You won’t get the majority of them, but even if you can get 1% to rethink their position or to resign from their cushy government job, that is a start.

What we are dealing with is the old order of elites that date back 5,000 years. They just rearranged the chairs on the decks from kings, emperors and religious advisors to bankers, bureaucrats and “economic” advisors. The Classical liberalism of the 16th-19th century no longer made rule by kings and emperors fashionable. So they had to change the melodies while keeping the lyrics.

Written by chrisforliberty

November 6, 2010 at 10:10 pm

Posted in General, U.S. History

Why Obama is going to India?

with 4 comments

US President George W. Bush (2nd-left) and Chinese President Hu Jintao (left) toast Saudi King Abdullah during a dinner at the White House for leaders attending the G20 Summit on Financial Markets November 14, 2008 in Washington, DC. Leaders of the Group of 20 richest economies and emerging economic heavyweights met in Washington to craft a joint strategy to deal with the rapidly spreading global financial crisis (caused by the same people). About two dozen leaders in all attended the dinner in the White House’s State Dining Room.

In early 2009, I blogged the following:

“Unless you have been tuning out (which can be good), you may have noticed that the United States recently sent a “warning” to North Korea and another one to China. Consider the source. Does Weapons of Mass Destruction mean anything to you? I suspect this is a coordinated PR stunt in order to fan the flames. India and Pakistan did it in a big way last year. India falsely claimed Pakistan was behind the attack as a way to distract from its own internal problems and a haste attempt at starting another war.  Fortunately, it didn’t happen. But it could with the right conditions.

Wars are planned and coordinated.  Sure, they are chaotic for the average person, but for the war-mongers and profiteers, it is a game. Poker, chess, Russian Roulette, pick your poison. How is it that the military can move massive amounts of equipment, material and soldiers in such a short amount of time when the average person on the street can’t even give you the time of day? It takes coordination and planning to be able to do all that.”

Speaking of coordination and planning, Obama is taking a “trip” to India as well as Indonesia and South Korea along with around 3,000 people. Beware of falling coconuts! What is really going on in addition to taking in some sights (I don’t mean the kind of places Mother Teresa would be seen in) is that they are making a show of force in a country of a billion people to solidify the adherence of the top level of society to the “Anglo-American” line which in fact has less to do with Americans and British in general and more to do with the global elite specifically i.e. the Rothschild/Rockefeller/Morgan line. Any global monetary system has to have India on board since it is the best positioned of any country to weather serious global currency problems. India is a thorn in the side of China and Pakistan. The rherotic of war between China and India has heated up and India and Pakistan have been at odds for over 60 years. The elites in those countries have played international affairs very well to set this up.

From the globalists’ viewpoint, business needs to further deteroriate in the West, and even China and increase in India. The idea is the more you have, the more you will have to lose and a society that is dependent on technology will not be able to provide basic needs since they are less inclined to put their hands in the dirt. It can be done, but they are less instinctive than say the hunter/gatherer or pioneer.

More business leaders in India need to be brought into lock step with those in the United States and England.  Almost all of the top level of business men and women came from families that worked with England in the time before India’s independence, but many of the people here are set against the multinationals. There are several popular religious TV stations that rail against GMO and promote ownership of solid assets and family values. Many of the mid size companies are run by men who are genuinely devote Buddhist. What’s more, they know the stories about the people at the top having groups declared to be terrorists so they could kill whole villages to put in plants. It’s unheard of to meet a businessman who makes a good income (millions or more) who doesn’t put a large part of their money into farm land, gold etc.

India will continue to grow. The private gold holdings are estimated to be around 30 times what they are in the USA. Salaries are cheap and technical expertise is abundant, even if they can’t match the top level talent in the USA yet. The middle class here is larger than the population of the US, but makes such small salaries that there is tremendous room for growth.

With competitive advantages, vast private gold holdings, short local supply chains, a limited amount of foreign debt on the books and a mostly rural population, India is in an excellent position to deal with a global currency collapse. Thus they are the next target of the elites (primarily bankers, bureaucrats and the Corporatocracy) which harken back to the time of kings and emperors claiming to rule by divine right.

Written by chrisforliberty

November 4, 2010 at 6:25 pm

Posted in Banking/Money, Politics