|
|
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Recap - Week of 8/10/10 | ||||
|
||||
Thanks for believing in Unalienable Rights
Currency and the Republic
Sunday, 10 July 2011 15:22 | 
Author: Gregg Marinelli | 
Reposted from www.TrampledLawn.org.
Currency and the Republic
Understanding the effect of currency-devaluing
policies on the republicanism (small 'r') we require
to ensure America's democratic privileges
by Gregg Marinelli
Currency, unappreciated as a cultural mechanism, when considered as merely an instrument of financial exchange undermines the values of the culture using it for trade. Yet, national and international policies seem to subsist on the basis of its cultural independence to the extent that economies are faltering at continental scale. Currency is a reflection of culture just as are language, art, music, and religion, intrinsically influenced by values. Archeologists, looking for ancient coins, are looking for clues to ancient systems of value. The value of a currency is largely affected by the politics which institute it. A nation's politicians will, at least ostensibly, administer currency policy according to the values of that nation. To some degree, despite the efforts of a nation's central bank (if it has one), fluctuation in currency value is affected by culturally-significant, non-financial manifestations of the nation's value system. The currency of politics (pun intended) is values; we elect our politicians to trade on our values. Ultimately, currency and culture are inseparably linked. The highest aspirations of western culture realized in the foundation of American republicanism is in jeopardy of succumbing to currency malpractice. Currency-devaluing policies will tend to separate the culture from the currency. Is that intentional?
To manipulate currency inconsistent with the society's values is either ignorant or dastard. Unfortunately, the Keynesian economists currently in vogue rest their assumption on the insufficient notion that backing money with proper security will protect it, ignoring the cultural effect on the value of the currency itself, and vice versa. Unless the intent is to influence cultural norms, dramatic currency modification will not achieve the desired effect without cultural upheaval. If one cares about culture, then one lets culture drive currency. Even monetarists, eschewing the ease with which the Keynesian risks inflation, should they ignore the cultural aspect of currency, will deprive the culture of the value in its currency. The only way to achieve culture-currency balance is to subject currency manipulation to legislative process. Granted, much of the country is ignorant of the link. Thanks to the failure of our public schools and public policy, an entire generation is politically and econo-logically challenged.
More insidious than monetary policy, but even more destructive, has been the degree to which politicians have shamefully enabled citizens to ignore the value of money by merely giving it to them. Welfare programs have destroyed the family unit, they have destroyed motivation for creation of personal wealth, and they have destroyed the appreciation for the foundations of wealth on any scale. The founding principle of self-reliance is lost in families through multiple generations. Lacking the appreciation for the value of money, the welfare recipient allows their system of values to be skewed toward more entitlement. Combine this with monetary policy, ignored by congresses for many decades, and left to “the experts”, who have far less connection to the culture at large than the representatives, the currency has become largely devoid of its cultural valuation. Without the responsibility to tie the currency to the other values of our nation, usurping their constitutional responsibility to set the value of the currency, decades of congresses have lavished in the irresponsible practice of managing unbounded budgets. Monetary and welfare policy have combined to enable the distraction of the populous from the necessity of political currency governance. A massive re-balancing is forthcoming.
The diminution of values, both of the political variety and currency variety, are at the heart of the European Union's woes over Greek debt. Greece has seen fit to advance its socialist value system at the expense of other Euro-based nations who value socialism far less. The strength of the Euro, bolstered by Euro-based nations of stronger value systems enabled an expensive expansion of Greece's costly, centrally planned economic efforts, and this expansion of social programs would not have been possible without the benefit of a currency made strong by other nations. Ultimately, these cultural differences will either split the Euro, force a merging of the cultures, force a move toward European autocracy, or force Greece to abandon their socialist programs.
Similarly, the decline in the value of the US Dollar is not merely a mathematical function of some economic phenomenon. It is the reflection of the decline in values that bolster the currency. Such a decline in value precipitates the retraction of good governance in favor of politicians of weak value systems, and that weakness manifests as poor public policy, especially economic policy. The tie between non-economic values and the currency is not direct, but it is significant. Ineptness, favoritism, lack of political will, and sense of entitlement all play a role in debasing the values that foster efficiency and good policy. Rather than operating on strong policies that rely on and compliment individualism, weak politicians expand social programs and favoritism, requiring policies that weaken the currency. It is a simple concept, anything obtained too easily loses value. The same is true for currency. With ease, the Federal Reserve has printed money, devaluing it, in support of the poor policies of the government.
America needs a resurgence of politicians who value republicanism (small 'r') and the limits of the constitution. The strength of our democracy and our currency depends on it. The founding fathers implicitly understood the link between values and currency, giving the Legislative branch the power to regulate the value of coins (currency) so as to reflect the values of the populous, rather than leaving it to some mere mathematically or autocratically determined calculation of the Executive branch.
Purposefully, or by accident, the use of a central bank (such as the Federal Reserve System), will force a clash between the bankers and the populous of the nation unless the actions of the central bank reflect the values of that populous and their will. Decades of corrupt policies in support of concentration of wealth within the banks required to support the corrupt policies of politicians have separated the will of the people of the United States from the policy of the central bank. Now, the people are clamoring for accountability from a banking system that is not respecting their values, that has created a culture of their own in a class of their own at the expense of the populous, while telling them the central bank actions are in support of their values.
The primary protector of the nation's currency, and therefore it values, is not democracy as I'm sure most will insist—it is not majority rule—it is the exercise of republicanism. Authority to govern granted by the consent of the governed, rule of law, the sovereign individual, equality under the law, self-reliance empowered by unalienable rights, respect for the rights of the minority—these tenants of republicanism have been violated by our government repeatedly over just the last few years and on massive scale over the last century. Combined with the destruction of the federal system of governance over time, the concentration of power co-opted through the concentration of currency, have propelled this nation on a path toward autocracy. It is a natural consequence that the real value of the currency has declined in concert. There is symbiosis in the value of the currency and the state of the republic.
It was the instruction of the founding fathers that power be vested in the people. It was not only Federalism that brought about this effect; they envisioned that the most powerful representative should be those elected at the local level. The role of the state was to create policy which could not be effective at the local level and involved inter-municipal negotiation. The role of the federal government was, likewise, to create policy which could not be effective at the state or local levels. Yet, over time, centrally-oriented, not federally-oriented policies have arisen at the national level, effectively supplanting the federal system of governance with a national system of governance. The differences are stark and bode poorly for the republic. They too, concentrate power, diminishing an individual's effective representation and evolving power away from local government contrary to the design of the once efficient federal government. The resulting loss of efficiency has, again, contributed to diminishing representation of values and, therefore, the decline of the currency.
The bailouts, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the TARP, the threat of Cap-N-Trade, increasingly burdensome tax law and regulations, failure of entitlement programs, unprecedented moral hazard—the list goes on; these all precipitated a currency devaluation, because they and the corrupt means by which they were obtained, cut at the heart of republican values. Note, Republicans (capital 'R') have lost sight of these republican values to nearly the same degree as the Democrats. They allowed themselves to be sweet-talked into “pragmatic” compromises at the expense of leadership supporting a constitutionally-limited, republican form of governance in a federal system.
Samuel Adams, ARISE!
Last Updated (Sunday, 10 July 2011 21:48)
Increasing Dependence Dulls the Allure to Immigrate to America Friday, 11 March 2011 13:06 | Author: Gregg Marinelli |
Reposted from www.TrampledLawn.org. America's allure, what has called immigrants to it's shores throughout its history, is due to its ideals. More than democracy, it is republicanism and the freedoms recognized by this republic, that give these ideals their luster. The current socialist trajectory threatens to dull that luster. The primacy of the individual, that is the capacity of the individual to make their own decisions and assert their independence, has been challenged increasingly for more than a century. Opposing ideology, supporting the supremacy of the government as the decision maker, imposes more and more policy, diminishing individual liberty. Fiscal policy is no exception. The increase of dependence on the state (at all levels) reduces the individual's independence.
So the administration bases its projections on 5% GDP over the next several years, 4-1/2% next year. It would be nice to assume that, and even if it were true, it's no reason to avoid reducing the bugdet deficit. Meanwhile, Wall Street is crying for both long term debt reduction and short term deficit reduction to avoid ruining the nation's credit rating. Futhermore, even the President's own debt commssion determined that even if we had double digit growth over the next 10 years, it wouldn't get us anywhere near to closing the gaps.
That may be true. However, what is the trend there? Twenty years ago, we were many times more productive than China. Compared to twenty years ago, our standard of living, relative to other countries, was higher than it is today. The public schools, receiving more money per capita than ever before, is producing dramatically fewer college graduates, by percentage, and decreasing relative to other countries. How much relative value has the dollar lost over the last twenty years? This country has never had the debt to GDP ratios it now has. Is this guy is trying to paint a false sense of security? I can't imagine he believes his own assertions.
America's allure will diminish if our economy continues to suffer due to continued unsustainable debt maintenance, if our country continues its slide toward socialism. Historically, people have flocked to America for its freedoms. Now, people are increasingly entering the country for the giveaways. As the country institutes more giveaways, increasing the dependency, it becomes more socialist. The unfortunate side effect of dependency (reduced individual independence) is that social decisions become more critical. The dependent must rely on government to make broad, sweeping decisions on behalf of those dependents. Unfortunately, the dependent also make increasing demands, and the effect is that either the mob begins to rule or government decisions become non-representative. In the case of mob rule, it devolves into non-representation. That is the beginning of the end, the establishment of autocracy. How many will flock here then? Last Updated (Saturday, 12 March 2011 22:41) Involuntary Servitude Monday, 28 February 2011 20:44 | Author: Dave Newbry |
The base article has been floating around for a while. I edited it and sent it to my 3 elected "representatives." An attorney friend/brother believes this may have some merit, so I believe you may want to share this with your elected officials as well. When the democrats started playing fast and loose with the commerce clause of the constitution to shove obamacare down our throats some constitutional scholars came up with this: You should consider the broad implications for the public good regarding the actions you are not taking to secure a balanced budget. Carefully consider the following and you will realize the absolute rightness of this statement and profound historical importance of what you are doing.
I hereby submit to you that as stated in The Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 13-Slavery Abolished, ratified 12/6/1865:
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof 1. Children may not be born into servitude of the Federal Government. 4. Children born during the 113th Congress cannot be brought into servitude status owing a national debt, nor can the unborn children of the future be held responsible for a national debt. If there can be no slavery or involuntary servitude based on our Constitution, then a balanced budget during each session of Congress is required, and the 112th Congress has to provide by law, a balanced budget. Congress must document this requirement as a valid law of the United States. Last Updated (Tuesday, 01 March 2011 15:28) Giveaways -> Dependency -> Despotism Sunday, 27 February 2011 20:52 | Author: Gregg Marinelli |
Reposted from www.trampledlawn.org Populist giveaway leads to dependency, and the next step is despotism. Critical in this path is the inefficiency of government, as was understood and identified by the Founding Fathers. In the opening sentence of the first paper of the Federalist, Alexander Hamilton argues in 1787 against expanding the Articles of Confederation (and in favor of ratifying the Constitution), stating
He expressed how unique and historic was the new document before them, claiming the decision to ratify would decide
They knew that the stakes were monumental beyond comparison to any event in history. In that “age of enlightenment,” despotism was as real as a threat as the approach of floating dandelion seeds toward your well-manicured lawn. But the consequences meant as much as life or death. The British, the French, the Spanish, they were waiting for the confederacy to fracture and fail. Hamilton cautioned to weigh carefully the arguments on either side of ratification and to recognize “the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good.” In his papers, he goes to great length to warn
Understand, while Hamilton opposed the use of bills of rights, as used previously in history, he believed they were inherent and implied in the unamended Constitution, and to enumerate them would weaken the stance for the liberties of the individual against those not enumerated. Hamilton wasn't perfect (he favored a central bank, and he signed the Alien and Sedition Acts), but we was the champion of republicanism and of ratifying the Constitution, and he believed its approval was acknowledgment that our rights were intrinsic as humans. In 1775, he wrote
So, his warning on “the zeal for the rights of the people” cannot be construed as an opinion against individual rights, merely against the use of such claims to secure favor. The unpopular (“forbidden appearance of”) zeal for LIMITED government will, in effect, do more to secure those rights, because the Bill of Rights itself is useless when the very republic disappears due to inefficiency. This concept has been completely lost on most of today's politicians and citizen, and the risk is growing exponentially. In the third paper of the Federalist, John Jay (first Chief Justice) argues for the security afforded by the consistency of law and justice of one nation versus many states, stating
At the time, there was real concern over insurrection and war between the states. Safety would result from enlisting the best to manage national affairs. Essentially, greater efficiency would inspire more of the best to civic duty. Unfortunately, the converse rings abundantly clear today. Inefficient, expansive government has attracted even the worst among us to even the highest office. Examine the relationship of the best executives with inefficient, bureaucratic companies, then contrast that to their willingness to seek public office. The brightest don't board that company without the assurance of a massive golden parachute, since the risk to a career of not succeeding in the face of such inefficiency is quite real, and must be compensated. Ask yourself, in government, is there equivalent compensation in the form of philanthropic, civic duty? And, is there not great inducement to use public office toward expropriation as has now been seen on such massive scale with an effect of the personal enrichment of the expropriators and their cohorts? Our Founding Fathers went to great length to secure the blessings of liberty, understanding its continued existence depends on the efficient management of the republic. Many paid for it with their lives. The honor of those Patriots is being spat upon by those liberally exchanging treasury for power. The prescribed efficiency has completely disappeared with the populist misappropriation by misapplying the Welfare clause and the Commerce clause. It will threaten the disappearance of the republic itself. To great effect, the expanding dependency instituted by Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare programs, corporate bailouts, stimulus programs, and other misappropriation, have enriched those unproductive and willfully dependent at the expense of those who produce. The current leadership shows no aversion to sacrificing the treasury for political advantage. The culture is quickly becoming one of dependency, even among supposed “capitalists”. But what they're lured by is state capitalism (think Nazis and Chinese) which rewards companies who cooperate with the agenda. In such cultures, republics struggle under the weight of democracy, making fertile ground for the Caesars and the Hitlers. Just look at Greece in the various stages of its history, including the present. Those democracies vote themselves still greater dependency. Let's hope, for Greece's sake that its republican roots will somehow re-assert themselves to avert the inevitable despotism that has plagued its past once democracy was allowed to overtake the republics. Let's hope that for ourselves, as well. Only one use of the word “guarantee” ever appears in the Constitution. Section 4 of Article IV mandates
No other concept in the Constitution invited such necessity to underscore its importance with a guarantee as that of a Republican Form of Government. The actions of progressives and pragmatic conservatives currently in leadership threaten that guarantee with policies that increase dependency with more giveaways and by continuing to participate in the 1974 Budget Act (which must be abolished). In this light, their actions are unconstitutional. If allowed to continue to run the government, the country itself may continue to exist, but eventually, willfully or otherwise, progressives, appealing to support for programs promoting dependency through the abuse of democracy, will render the republic dead and with it, the Constitution. Today, we hear everywhere the call to “make the world safe for democracy.” Where is the call to make the world safe for democratic republics? Last Updated (Sunday, 27 February 2011 21:56) Another Legislative Attempt to Create an "Internet Kill Switch" Monday, 07 February 2011 13:52 | Author: Gregg Marinelli |
Reposted from TrampledLawn.org As TJ said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Senators Lieberman (D-Connecitcut) and Snowe (R-Maine) are re-introducing the “Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010” bill that failed last year again in the 112th Congress. It gives the Executive Branch authority to arrange agreements with private service providers to tell them when to shut down their internet access at a time of national emergency. They call it the INTERNET KILL SWITCH. THINK EGYPT!!!! There is no possible way for the government to shut down all internet communications, but such actions would limit access to only those with enough money or the technical savvy or political connections. At times of national emergency, Americans will want more access to the internet, not less. The fact is, when some entity introduces some virus with national security implications, good Americans with knowhow will kick into overdrive to rebuild safe networks, needing no direction from the government. Leaving it up to the government will be disastrous. There's a critical flaw in their thinking. Those of us who would construct new networks with new security measures for good purposes would probably be looked upon suspiciously by the government and become targets of the government merely for trying to exercise the right to free speech. Just as you will want your artillery at a time like this, the ability to communicate will be just as important. Of course, without the ability to communicate, it'll be easier for them to take your guns. The topic is lightly covered by this article in CNET. The bill goes beyond what CNET warns of: basically, it authorizes access to any information, anywhere (yes, it does!) without a warrant! Yes, it does! Read the bill. It merely requires the President's approval, not a judge's approval. Furthermore, it can require private companies to restructure their security apparatus to federal specification (one size fits all is a hacker's dream). Of course, the bill allows for them to be reimbursed by you and I. So, companies that now spend billions and billions on diverse security measures can, through this bill, charge it to us to, effectively, homogenize internet security. That, by the way, is the only real way the government could attain the abilty to limit access on a broad scale. Do-gooders in congress don't realize that no matter how hard they try to do good, they're really only doing harm. Last Updated (Monday, 07 February 2011 19:47) |