Invisibility Instead Of Protest

View blog authority

The past few days, I have been hearing lots of rhetoric about how this head of state and that head of state should boycott China's Olympics in response to its Tibetin policy. An easier, less time consuming, and much more cost effective solution is simply to stay invisible.

In these days of a costly war, and an economy heading further south than what the Fed wants you to beleive, why should the United State's tax payers pay for trips by government delegates [including our president Bush] to the far off shores of Beijing China. Simply said, we should not even bother to think about showing up unless the entire trip is payed out of the president's pocket. Even more simply said, do not even bother to think about showing up because this just wastes any time that should be devoted to other issues already on the politicians plate.

The easiest solution is to let the private sector take up the slack. Delegate some high profile business guru like Robert Gates or Warren Buffet to give the official high fives to the US Olympic Committee instead of government officials getting their coats lined by Olympic lobyists. Companies could exhibit their sponsorship to the Olympics, advertise its participation by showing up, while helping to marginalize their profit margins.

In addition, tax payers ought to fall on their knees and worship the private sector for this sort of decision to save tax payers money [and possibly purchase the product as a thank you] instead of another expensive tax ridden trip. This would give more time for politicians to think about real policy decisions.


Home

Monetary Politburo Calls The Shots Again

Ben Bernanke and the secret organization, The Federal Reserve Bank, plans to lend financial institutions liquidity instead of their usual FDR style role of entitlement distribution with free money in exchange for a higher national debt and a higher budget deficit.

The recent scenario of lending instead of cost cutting measures makes this latest action slightly more favorable. Still, money will be printed and inflation will continue its onward rise due to this automated feature.

I will repeat for the one millionth time that this most recent Fed action is unconstitutional. According to article one, section eight of the US Constitution, the Congress is to be the deciders of authorization of money being printed and distributed.As opposed to the transparent spirit of the Constitution, The Federal Reserve Board acts in a manner closer to the secret and socialist style of the Soviet Politburo.

Fed's interest rate games could destroy the dollar http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080404/OPINION01/804040313/1008

home http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/newsjunkie/libertarian.html

Creative Destruction In The Beltway

The spirit of economist Joseph Schumpeter's creative destruction theory, simply meaning that in order for a business to survive in a long term business cycle, you have to think about possibly destroying a monopoly. This unique business model is running through the halls of D.C. with Ron Paul's GOP presidential run.

So how does a politician capture the ideas of a free market economist and bypass the beaurocratic government officials? Simply act the role of a free agent. Another way of stating this is that an anti-politician politician is transparent while also fitting the mold of an outsider. Read Dr. Ron Paul.

Dr. Paul, a 72 year old ob-gyn specialist became interested in the Austrian style of economics through the work of Ludwig von Mises and Fredrick Hayek. Paul's economic quests eventually helped steer him towards his current position of being a Republican House Of Representatives member. Instead of being a cookie cutter neo-con, Paul considers himself a champion of freedom, better known as a libertarian.

Open your history book to the likes of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. These three founding fathers promoted the idea of non-interventionaism. When a nation expands to empire status, disaster looms on the horizon. Nation building policies supports the military economic structure, while the rest of the nation suffers from the government borrowing from foreigners. Long run analysis points to higher taxes from overspending while inflation rises higher from the Fed's fiat currency being printed like clockwork.

Even though Dr. Paul's ideas are new to many of his grassroots supporters, he considers himself a traditional conservative with states rights beliefs that opposes federal government getting involved in everyday life. Paul supports abolishing the Federal Reserve System, bringing back the Gold Standard as a preventative measure to government spending, removing all troops from overseas, keeping government monetary incentives out of all legislation, keeping national sovereignty intact, and other political positions to be looked up. Dr. Paul simply votes his legislation in accordance to the Constitution.

While I highly support Dr. Paul's life long services of championing freedom, I really am supporting his ideas of a minimal government which does not meddle in foreign and economic affairs.

Dr. Paul's ideas cycle back to the creative destruction theory that Capital Hill and the White House needs to implement. By destroying parts of unnecessary government growth, Dr. Paul's vision of real freedom is achieved.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ Dr. Paul's Official Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul Dr. Paul's Political Positions

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/newsjunkie/libertarian.html
[HOME]

The Federal Reserve System

The inflation cycle meandering Federal Reserve System could easily lead itself towards a path larger than any previous natural or economic disasters with their mechanical printing press. Many changes ought to be implanted towards the secret society of the monetary gods, if not abolishment.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 [Boyer, Oxford Guide: United States History, 2001, New York, Pages 260-261] enabled the eventual steps towards broken government. These unconstitutionally misguided steps eventually led the privately owned Fed away from the Gold Standard [Boyer, Oxford Guide: United States History, 2001, New York, Page 313] to the more impractical, yet more convenient method of creating money out of the thin air [aka;fiat money].
The problem with the later Federal Macroeconomics policy is many fold worse. First of all, by not having a valuable commodity to back up the every downward spiralling buck, the government becomes larger because bullion forces the administrators of beaurocracy to be converted into more minimum authority. Additionally, the more money that is printed the higher prices increases. This is known to the common folk as inflation.

Another problem with the Federal Reserve Act is that in reality, it is a private bank even though the Constitution states "To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin... [CATO, The Declaration Of Independence And The Constitution, 2002, Washington, DC, Page 23]. Private banks should not administer monetary policy due to both transparency and sovereignty issues. Do you beleive me if this is a private institution? Check out "FederaL Reserve Bank" in your phone book under businesses because this media controlled society is not in the government pages.

So what is the best way to wean this Constitutional Republic off the unconstitutional version of the Masons? Think abolishment.
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/newsjunkie/libertarian.html
[HOME]

Interdependents vs. Independents

While money is being created in the atmosphere, shooting up higher in the form of inflation, I have wondered whether to return my Libertarian Party Club Med membership or in a fine statist style, reciting their well thought out constitutionally based party line.

More simply said, my cheap ballpoint pen recently checked off "independent" in the little black box on the state of Missouri's change of party form. In effect, I have renounced the LP, making my wallet sized card null and void. In reality, I still believe in the concepts of being pro-free market, pro-constitution, and pro- freedom through self reliance.

Month upon month, I have mentally flossed my brain cells over whether I am an interdependent part of a machine [the LP, even though they do not qualify as being a large machine] or an independent human, processing information for myself. In short, I opted for the latter selection because it enhances the case for freedom while not depending on others.

Yes, I am positive that I will continue to vote pro-freedom, pro- free markets and other related subjects. The point is by becoming independent, I am thinking for myself , a sign of self reliance while the opposite is for me to be part of the well oiled machine that I do mostly agree with and more than likely vote for.
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/newsjunkie/libertarian.html

[home]

Jefferson, MLK, & Affirmative Action

Thomas Jefferson and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. should have rolled 180 degrees in their graves upon hearing the landmark June 23, 2003 Supreme Court's reiteration of the University Michigan's School Of Law affirmative action enrollment policies.
Affirmative action was first implemented in March of 1961 when President Kennedy decided to react to many years of racial prejudice against African-Americans, from being private property of plantation owners, all the way to the subjection of post-Jim Crowe , Southern segregationalist policies.

Scribesman of the Declaration Of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote in this most sacred document, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. Simply said, he means that all people are created equal, even though at the time, the only people were white, caucasian males. In order for Jefferson to help organize the great experiment, the United States Government, he had to begrudgingly deal with these important matters of the day, which included slavery [Jefferson On Slavery].

If Jefferson was currently walking the earth, he would be equally as shocked over the treatment of whites in discriminatory hiring practices as the black's bondage into slavery during the colonial days.

"In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [Martin Luther King Junior's I Had A Dream Speech : August 28, 1963]
My interpretation of the above statement is that every man has the right to live in a "color-blind society," period. In addition, he has the responsibility to allow others to live as equally as him. Equality is equality if it pertains to African-Americans, Whites, Native-Americans, Latin-Americans, Asian-Americans, etc. Why should it be that a certain race has preferencial treatment because their skin color is dark [as in this case]?

Jefferson would no doubt slam his fist to the table upon hearing about "reverse discrimination." Contrary to "Jeffersonian Theory", there is evidence that King supported affirmative action during his life, but he might have eventually changed his mind later on because the landscape of America has radically altered. Present day African-Americans are economically more sound than thirty years ago. It has become common place to encounter them in numerous upper-level jobs, while many more have even jumped into the investment game. Sure, lots of prejudice is still targeted towards African-Americans, but why should anybody have an up on another due to the recent American phenomenon of "victimization?"

Pro-affirmative action policies propels itself against the spirit of Jefferson and [maybe] King. Why should an artificial barrier be placed in order to supposedly make up for many years of oppression? The more just outcome would be equal hiring practices, which could possibly mark the closest we have done to achieve utopia in years.
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/newsjunkie/libertarian.html
[home]