Info Hound Online: Interesting News & Information!

July 4th Pictures from DC you will not see in the press

I didn’t see this in the news … did you??/

July 4th Pictures from DC you will not see in the press.Maybe you now know why the Obama Administration has sent out the NAACP to trash them as racists. They are getting a little nervous. This movement is growing fast.There was an unbelievable number of the “Angry Mob” in DC over the 4th, apparently. I didn’t know that. Happy 4th! I think this gathering should be appreciated as the extremely important historical event that it is. This is the first great conservative anti-statist manifestation in American history. The conservative movement, which developed in the post-WWII, Cold War environment has now fully matured into the most significant political movement of the 21st century. I believe that this day could be referred to in the not too distant future as the day that changed America . This was the day the great silent conservative majority finally found its voice. Many of the attendees were quite meek and timid and were unsure of exactly what to expect, this being the first time in their lives they’d been involved in a protest movement. Their fears evaporated early in the day and I saw people reveling in the camaraderie, the joy and sheer civility that was exhibited at the entire event. Chants of “Freedom, freedom, freedom”, “No more czars! No more czars!” carried through the air without the slightest hint of rancor or incivility which is the norm at the leftist rallies I have photographed over the years.     The two photos above show a tiny fraction of the two million ABC estimates attended. I saw signs and heard lots of comments comparing this event to Woodstock . At the time this photo was taken, around 1:00 p.m., Pennsylvania Avenue was still jammed completely, and the mall was packed from the Capitol Building past the Washington Monument .     Protesters came from every state in the union. This man came from San Antonio , TX . He said that he was really sorry he hadn’t brought his family. He stated that being a black conservative he was afraid to expose his children to what he expected would be a lot of liberal abuse. He was thrilled with the tenor of the event and the fact that no liberals were present to harass him. He spoke about how incredibly intolerant the left is to black individuals who don’t bow to the party line.     These Ohioans took a day off their rodeo bullriding schedule. They said they’ll be back at it tomorrow. Mike Pence (R-Indiana) was one of the speakers who addressed the crowd: “After years of fighting runaway government on this hill, you people look like the cavalry to me..I believe we are on the verge of a great American awakening.”     San Diego radio host Mason Weaver said from the podium: “I came here because I thought you might want to hear a black man speak without a teleprompter.This government is trying to make a nation of dependent people. Americans have always been independent people.This is not a Republican thing, it’s not a Democrat thing. It’s not a black thing or a white thing. It’s an American thing.We the people are telling them ‘No more! We’ve had enough!”     In the very center of the photo, above the Silence is Consent - Can You Hear Us Now sign, you can see Pennsylvania Ave. , which at this time is totally blocked with protesters who cannot move forward to the Capitol area. Sorry, full up.       There were notable differences though, in the behavior of these attendees. Although the legend of Woodstock is that there was a friendly atmosphere of camaraderie, the truth is that most people were there for the drugs, sex and rock and roll. Today in D.C. There was a true kinship amongst these people based on shared values and intellectual understanding of what America is and how its future is imperiled by big radical government. No one was having sex in the Reflecting Pool let alone the mud, and I saw no one projectile vomiting on the steps of the Capitol. There were no warnings to avoid the bad acid which would send you on a trip to the hospital. Not just a different era, but a different level of civilized behavior and thought. Oh, and by the way, these people didn’t l eave tons of garbage behind when they left. Actually they left no trash behind at all.       Obama Lied, Capitalism Died.     We are the mob!         Support Class Envy! Redistribute Wealth.     Madam Speaker: Kiss Our Astroturf!     The Only Thing We Have to Fear is Obama Himself - - - Compassion is Voluntary, Not Compulsory!     WALNUT - Workers Against Lazy Non-Producers United Together - the conservative answer to ACORN. Didn’t have to ask them if they were receiving any taxpayer money like radical left-wing ACORN. Different DNA!     Proud members of the “Angry Mob” and they’re armed with their votes.         Your wallet.the only place Democrats are willing to drill! - Don’t share my wealth - share my work ethic!     Right-wing extremist armed with the constitution.             Marxism - the opiate of the asses - Posters from the Peoples Cube are proliferating amongst protesters.     Stop Making Profit! - Report all Capitalist Activities to flag@whitehouse.gov     World’s #1 Crypto-Marxist. Endorsed by Fidel Castro: The most powerful progressive candidate to the U..S. presidency.” - GRANMA, Havana , May 26, 2008     Nancy Pelosi has accused patriotic tea-partyers of “carrying swastikas” implying that they are Nazi sympathizers. This event was wall to wall hammers and sickles and words like “socialist” “communist” and “Marxist” etc. It continues to fascinate me how long the Democrats will tolerate this without ever commenting on it. Either they like it, or there’s something to it.     Ever present at Tea Parties are Sons of Liberty reenactors. The couple on the left is from Tennessee and the young lady on the right is not but she joined in the photo. The clothing for the couple was hand stitched by the lady on the left. And boy do they love America . GOD BLESS AMERICA !

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, May 21st, 2010

Related: Desperate Establishment Launch Baseless “Racist” Attacks On Rand Paul

Related: The Establishment Is In Full Blown Panic Over Rand Paul

Would be Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has hit back at a desperate and sustained mainstream media attempt to smear him as a racist extremist following his historic primary victory earlier this week.

Paul appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America today to make it clear that the attacks against him regarding views he expressed on the Civil Rights Act, which we covered in our article yesterday, are “red herrings” and part of an establishment effort to “trash” his campaign.

“I’ve just been trashed up and down and they have been saying things that are untrue. And when they say I’m for repealing the Civil Rights Act, it’s absolutely false. It’s never been my position and something that I basically just think is politics.” Paul said.

Following Paul’s initial appearance on Wednesday’s Rachel Maddow program, during which the MSNBC host suggested Paul would tolerate racial segregation because he opposes federal government regulation, the cable network devoted a full day of coverage to the same talking point.

Despite Paul’s repeated statements that he did not tolerate discrimination or racism in any form, and that he supported the Civil Rights Act in totality, MSNBC wheeled out its liberal attack dogs in the form of Jesse Jackson, Democratic Congressman James Clyburn, liberal professors Boyce Watkins and Michael Eric Dyson and Democratic strategist Karen Finney. The network aired eight different segments totaling 37 minutes, without a single guest to defend Rand Paul’s position or provide any balance whatsoever.

Yesterday Paul’s opponent in the Senate race, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, now lagging behind Paul by a whopping 25 points according to a Rasmussen survey, claimed that Paul had said he wanted to “repeal” the Civil Rights Act, a blatantly false accusation that prompted Paul to issue a corrective statement. Ridiculously, Paul had to clarify that he did not wish to repeal the Civil Rights Act:

“Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Paul’s statement read.

“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws. As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years.” the statement concluded.

Despite Paul’s statement, the smear machine went into overdrive and even led to comments from White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who said “I think the issues that, that many fought for in the ‘50s and the ‘60s were settled a long time ago in landmark legislation and the discussion about whether or not to support those, I don’t think, shouldn’t have a place in our political dialogue in 2010.”

The LA Times devoted its front page to the smear attack, meanwhile, Organizing for America, an Obama campaign group run by the Democratic National Committee began emailing thousands of people on it’s mailing list in an effort to convince them that Rand Paul supports segregation and that there should be a “massive public outcry”.

Late yesterday afternoon, Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, also issued a statement, noting that “It is apparent that the Democrats are trying to twist Rand Paul’s words and create an issue that does not exist because they are rightfully worried that he is leading Jack Conway,”.

A fired up Paul hit out further at the establishment left’s political smear campaign on Good Morning America today:

“If you want to bring up 40-year-old legislation, why don’t you bring me on with Sen. [Robert] Byrd, and we’ll talk about how he filibustered the Civil Rights Act,” Paul said of the 92-year-old West Virginia Democrat. “Make him, call him to task for something he actually did as opposed to calling me to task for something they insinuated that I might believe that’s not true.”

“What is going on here is an attempt to vilify us for partisan reasons. Where do your talking points come from? The Democratic National Committee, they also come from Rachel Maddow and MSNBC.” he added.

Watch the video:

Rand Paul’s father, Congressman Ron Paul, defended his son on Thursday, describing the smear attacks as “overkill”.

“I don’t think he has anything to recover from,” the elder Paul said in comments reported by Politico. “Get out there and talk to the people … You’re talking about recovery. That’s an insult.”

Ron Paul also refused to comment on his views on the constitutionality of the powers granted to the federal government in the area of civil rights, noting that his comments would only be taken out of context and used to further smear his son. Instead he pointed to a chapter in his forthcoming book in which he addresses the matter.

Historian Tom Woods, who has contributed to Ron Paul’s best-selling books, addresses the smear campaign using concise and eloquent language:

The Left is going after Rand Paul over the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Why, Rand Paul secretly wants to repeal it, they say, which means we’d have segregated restaurants all over again. Now any non-hysteric knows a segregated restaurant would be boycotted and picketed out of existence within ten seconds, but we’re supposed to fret about fictional outcomes from the repeal of a law that will never be repealed. And certainly we cannot question the 1964 Act, since our betters have decided the matter is closed.

Of course, someone might have objected to that Act on the grounds that it would of course lead to affirmative action, since racially proportionate hiring is the only practical way to prove one has not been “discriminating.” One might also object to the law on constitutional grounds, or on the grounds that (as has indeed happened) it would lead to legally protected classes whose members simply cannot be fired, since their employers know they will be hit with groundless but costly and time-consuming litigation. (Incidentally, black employment statistics saw far more progress in the one year before the 1964 Act than in the two years after it.)

As the Left sees it, none of these reasonable concerns can be the “real reason” for opposition to the 1964 Act. The real motivation is (what else?) a sinister and arbitrary desire to oppress blacks and other minorities for no good reason. The Left’s opponents are always and everywhere wicked and twisted people, who spend their time wondering how they can cause gratuitous harm to black people they have never met. Don’t believe me? Read the comments to this Politico article. These people have never in their lives deviated from what Official Opinion has demanded they believe. Without federal guns, we’d be back in the Dark Ages. The Left has its bogeymen and the neocons have theirs. The outcome is always the same: more power to the monopolists with the guns, and the unshakeable conviction that peaceful remedies are impossible.

Leading Libertarians have lauded Rand Paul, noting that his stance is at the core of Libertarian philosophy. True liberty requires a society in which all people can live and thrive without coercion from controlling forces such as the federal government.

Such core principles the are at the foundation of the U.S. Constitution.

George Washington said “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

Should racial discrimination be overcome by reason or by force?

This notion is at the heart of Rand Paul’s stance on civil rights. Those who equate this notion with racist beliefs are either intellectually incapable of grasping it or are purposefully seeking to defame those who embrace it.

Instead of running to the federal government for protection from and a quick fix to everything that is socially reprehensible, it is time for all of the afore mentioned detractors - from Maddow, through all her minions at MSNBC and their zombie choir - to look at the bigger picture, to wake up, grow up, break out of their pre programmed political paradigm.

Without such an awakening, discrimination and divisions will always exist and will always be taken advantage of by those who seek to control our society.

———————————————————————————————————————-
Alex Jones LIVE, A Fourth Hour Of Streaming TV Now Added To The Infowars Radio Show
Click here to get your subscription today!
———————————————————————————————————————-

Comment on this story Email This Page to: INFOWARS: BECAUSE THERE’S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND

Fox News hit piece against 9/11 truth and Jesse Ventura inadvertently reveals a shocking truth; WTC leaseholder was “on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building”

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, April 23, 2010

Preface from Alex Jones: To truly grasp the magnitude of this story, you really have to read the entire article. Immediately after the “pull it” controversy, debunkers claimed there was no plan to conduct a controlled demolition of the building. Now the fact that officials were considering blowing up the building is established, Silverstein’s consistent denial that this took place is a huge smoking gun. How did Silverstein expect to demolish the building safely when such a process takes weeks or even months to properly set up, even without the additional chaos surrounding WTC 7 on 9/11? How could explosives have been correctly placed on such short notice inside a burning building that had already been evacuated – unless the explosives were already in place? This new revelation is astounding and it needs to be investigated immediately.

A Fox News hit piece against Jesse Ventura and the 9/11 truth movement written by former Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.

Writing for Fox News, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro states, “I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.”

“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building’s collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.

“A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy,” writes Shapiro.

However, obviously aware of how it would impact his insurance claim, Larry Silverstein has consistently denied that there was ever a plan to intentionally demolish Building 7.

In June 2005, Silverstein told New York Post journalist Sam Smith that his infamous “pull it” comment, which has been cited as proof that Silverstein planned to take down the building with explosives, “meant something else”.

In January 2006, Silverstein’s spokesperson Dara McQuillan told the U.S. State Department that the “pull it” comment meant to withdraw firefighters from the building (despite the fact that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7 as we shall later cover). There was no mention whatsoever of any plan to demolish the building before it fell.

Shapiro’s faux pas has unwittingly let the cat out of the bag on the fact that Silverstein was aggressively pushing for the building to be intentionally demolished, a claim that he has always vociferously denied, presumably to safeguard against putting in doubt the massive insurance payout he received on the basis that the collapse was accidental.

For over five years since the infamous PBS documentary was aired in which Silverstein states that the decision was made to “pull” the building, a construction term for controlled demolition, debunkers have attempted to perform all kinds of mental gymnastics in fudging the meaning behind the WTC leaseholder’s comments.

“I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse,” said Silverstein.

Debunkers attempted to claim that Silverstein meant to “pull” the firefighters from the building due to the danger the structure was in, and this explanation was also later claimed by Silverstein’s spokesman, however, both the FEMA report, the New York Times and even Popular Mechanics reported that there were no firefighting actions taken inside WTC 7.

Another clip from the same documentary clearly illustrates that the term “pull” is industry jargon for a controlled demolition.

“While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was,” writes Shapiro in his Fox News hit piece.

Shapiro’s contention that the 47-story building simply collapsed into its own footprint within seven seconds without making a sound, a feat only ever witnessed in world history on 9/11 alone, is contradicted by numerous other first-hand eyewitnesses.

Contradicting Shapiro’s claim that the collapse of the building was quiet, NYPD officer Craig Bartmer stated that he clearly heard bombs tear down Building 7 as he ran away from its collapse.

“I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn’t see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn’t hear any… I didn’t hear any creaking, or… I didn’t hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming ‘get away, get away, get away from it!’… It was at that moment… I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself… Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit’s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you’re hearing “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.” I think I know an explosion when I hear it… Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they’re saying… Nothing to account for what we saw… I am shocked at the story we’ve heard about it to be quite honest,” said Bartmer.

EMT Indira Singh, a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management, told the Pacifica show Guns and Butter, “After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke – it is entirely possible – I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage.”

The host asked Singh, “Did they actually use the word “brought down” and who was it that was telling you this?,” to which Singh responded, “The fire department. And they did use the words ‘we’re gonna have to bring it down’ and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don’t know.”

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

Another EMT named Mike who wished to remain anonymous wrote in a letter to the Loose Change film crew that emergency responders were told Building 7 was about to be “pulled” and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.

“There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows…and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled… they told us,” he stated.

Following news reports in the days after the attack that Building 7 had collapsed due to fire damage, Mike fully expected this mistake to be corrected after the chaos had subsided, but was astonished when it became part of the official story.

Mike’s report of a countdown preceding the collapse of WTC 7 was backed up by Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden, who said that he heard the last few seconds of the countdown on a nearby police radio.

In addition, the language used by firefighters and others at ground zero shortly before the building fell strongly indicates that the building was deliberately demolished with explosives, and not that it fell unaided.

“It’s blowin’ boy.” … “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.” … “The building is about to blow up, move it back.” … “Here we are walking back. There’s a building, about to blow up…”

Photo and video evidence of the collapse of Building 7 shows classic indications of a controlled demolition. The standard ‘crimp’ in the center-left top of the building and the subsequent ’squibs’ of smoke as it collapses clearly represent explosive demolition.

Veteran news anchor Dan Rather shared the view that the building looked like a controlled demolition during news coverage of the event on CBS.

Several news agencies, including the BBC and CNN, reported that the building had already collapsed 26 minutes and as much as over an hour before it actually fell.

Footage broadcast 20 minutes before Building 7 fell shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of WTC 7 while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. A Separate BBC broadcast shows reporters discussing the collapse of Building 7 26 minutes before it happened.

Just about every sentence of Shapiro’s hit piece is contradicted by numerous other eyewitnesses, so his feigned righteous indignation in ranting, “I was there. I know what happened, and there is no single credible piece of evidence that implicates the United States of America in the Sept. 11 attacks,” fails to ring true.

However, the most damning aspect of the article is Shapiro’s inadvertent revelation that Larry Silverstein was on the phone to his insurance company pushing for the building to be demolished, which is precisely what happened later in the day, and as innumerable eyewitnesses as well as video footage and physical evidence prove, the collapse of WTC 7 could have been nothing else than a controlled demolition, which would place Silverstein’s $500 million insurance payout in severe jeopardy if ever acknowledged.

Shapiro’s testimony, intended to debunk questions surrounding the official story behind 9/11, has only succeeded in raising more, because it completely contradicts Larry Silverstein’s insistence that he never considered deliberately demolishing WTC 7 with explosives.

We would like to provide you right now with the 10 most important NIAnswers that we have recently added to our database. Please take the time to read and enjoy!

 

1) Is there any kind of signal to look out for that would indicate that hyperinflation is close, or will it just all of a sudden happen one day and catch everyone off guard?

 

We see many signals that hyperinflation is almost here already. The price of gold has been rising to record nominal highs. Stocks have been rising despite rapidly deteriorating fundamentals. College tuition and health care costs are surging to astronomical levels. Social security is now paying out more money than it takes in. Our budget deficits are reaching record highs. Our national debt growth is rapidly accelerating. China is diversifying out of their U.S. treasury holdings.

 

Hyperinflation can literally occur at any time now. It will catch most people off guard, but not NIA members because we see all of the signals that the mainstream media is ignoring. It is important for us to prepare as if hyperinflation will be here tomorrow.

 

2) What do you think about the recent appreciation in the U.S. dollar?

 

The U.S. dollar index has only been rising because it is heavily weighted against the Euro. With the debt crisis in Greece, many investors have been shorting the Euro, which has caused the U.S. dollar index to rise. However, the price of gold has held strong around $1,100 per ounce, which shows the U.S. dollar in reality hasn’t been appreciating in value at all.

 

3) What has happened in other countries when an ‘inflationary holocaust’ wreaks havoc on pricing? Will the (broke) government actually rescind the outrageous “gains” taxation and just print more money?

 

During historical instances of hyperinflation, the inflation took place so fast that governments funded over 99% of their spending with money printing and less than 1% through taxation.

 

Let’s say for example you had a car that you purchased new for $20,000 and you decided to scrap it for $50,000 worth of metal. The government might force you to pay taxes on the $30,000 fantasy profit. However, if you merely delayed paying that income tax for a few months, it’s possible inflation will be taking place so quickly that you will now be able to sell an old beat up pair of shoes for $50,000. Therefore, paying the tax, assuming there still was one, wouldn’t be a problem at all.

 

4) Can you please explain how NIA estimates the real rate of inflation to be approximately 3-4% higher than what is indicated by the CPI index?

 

The government purposely understates inflation through the CPI index because social security and other programs adjust to the CPI index, and they want to keep payment increases for these programs as low as possible.

 

The CPI used to account for inflation a lot more accurately, but many revisions have been made over the years. Through geometric weighting, the CPI index today gives a lower weighting to goods that are rising in price and a higher weighting to goods that are dropping in price. They justify this by saying that if the price of steak rises, Americans are more likely to eat something that is dropping in price like hamburgers.

 

The government also now uses hedonics to understate inflation. Hedonics account for the increased pleasure of using goods. For example, if an oven increased 25% in price but is now more “energy efficient” the government can say the price didn’t actually gain at all. Also, if the government mandates that new safety features get added to cars and car prices rise by 10%, they can say because the cars are now safer, the price didn’t rise at all.

 

Between the geometric weighting and hedonics changes, the CPI index understates inflation by approximately 7% compared to the way inflation used to be calculated. However, some respected economists believe the old way of calculating inflation slightly overstated inflation so NIA is being conservative with our estimates that real inflation is about 3-4% higher than what’s reported by the CPI index.

 

5) China needs the U.S. to purchase their products. Do you really think their economy will grow without selling their products overseas?

 

The only reason the U.S. can afford to purchase cheap products from China is because the U.S. is exporting inflation to China and China is allowing the U.S. to run huge trade deficits. When China stops artificially propping up the U.S. dollar and allows their currency to strengthen, the Chinese will be able to afford to consume their own goods that they produce. They don’t need Americans to consume goods that they are perfectly capable of consuming themselves.

 

6) Do the other countries have to buy our debt or face the wrath of our military?

 

We don’t believe this is true, because if other countries stop buying our debt we won’t be able to afford our military. Our military is bankrupting our country and one of the main reasons we have such large deficits that will eventually lead to massive price inflation. The world does not need our military to police it. Countries like China can afford their own militaries a lot more cost effectively.

 

7) With the current size of our national debt, is deflation even possible?

 

The U.S. is the most indebted nation in the history of the world with a national debt of $12.7 trillion, Fannie/Freddie debts of $6.3 trillion and unfunded liabilities of more than $60 trillion. Our real debts are now about 600% of GDP and it will be impossible to pay them back. The U.S. will either default on its debt or print its way out of it, creating massive inflation.

 

Because we believe the U.S. is unlikely to admit it can’t pay back its debts, inflation is clearly the solution. We don’t see any risk of deflation long-term.

 

The mainstream media talks about deflation because they see through a rear view mirror. They see some prices having fallen after the financial crisis of 2008, but they don’t realize there were temporary forces driving prices down due to artificial forced liquidations and excess inventories that needed to be worked off.

 

When the artificial pressures holding prices down are gone, all that will be left is the trillions of dollars of newly printed money in circulation that will chase goods and services all at once.

 

What good would it be to elect a few select people to the Senate like Rand Paul and Peter Schiff? Shouldn’t we focus our energy and efforts on changing the entire system?

 

We believe the system is corrupt because of the Federal Reserve and its ability to manipulate interest rates and create phantom money out of thin air. Before the creation of the Federal Reserve, the value of our currency was stable and we did not have the booms and busts that we do today.

 

In our opinion, the system our founding fathers created would work if we only followed the Constitution. The creation of the Federal Reserve and all of the actions of the Federal Reserve are unconstitutional.

 

We need to do more than elect a few select people to Washington. We need to replace everybody in Washington with people who will work to protect the Constitution. If everybody in Washington was like Ron Paul, our country would not be on the verge of a hyperinflationary crisis like it is today.

 

It is because of the mainstream media and how they brainwash Americans, that Congress is full of people who are clueless about the economy and the root cause of all our problems. With the Internet, the mainstream media is slowly losing its power and our hope is that an increasing percentage of Americans will see our documentaries and learn to think for themselves instead of electing politicians based on what the mainstream media tells them.

 

9) If no governments currently back their currency with gold then why do they still hoard it?

 

Even though there are no currencies that are still convertible into gold, gold is real money and it is important for central banks to hold gold in order to protect the value of their foreign exchange reserves.

 

The average country has about 10% of their foreign exchange reserves in gold. However, China currently only has 1.5% of their foreign exchange reserves in gold and they have most of their reserves in U.S. dollars. Due to the massive monetary inflation taking place in the U.S., China’s reserves are at risk and it is important for them to diversify out of their U.S. dollars and accumulate more gold.

 

Although the U.S. has the largest gold reserves at 8,133.5 tonnes, which makes up 68.7% of its foreign exchange reserves, the value of the U.S.’s gold and other reserves is nothing compared to its $12.7 trillion national debt plus Fannie/Freddie debt and unfunded liabilities.

 

10) Don’t you think the short U.S. dollar/long gold trade is too crowded for it to work?

 

In December when everybody was bearish on the U.S. dollar, we predicted a short-term really in the U.S. dollar index in early 2010 and we were right. Today, everybody is bullish on the U.S. dollar and bearish on the Euro. Soon traders will be forced to reverse their trades and the U.S. dollar will plummet. With interest rates at 0%, it will be impossible for gold prices to crash. There is simply way too much excess liquidity in the system. The average American is still more likely to be selling their gold than buying it. There are still more Americans looking to invest into Real Estate foreclosures, than precious metals. We have a dollar bubble, not a gold bubble.

 

The National Inflation Association

http://inflation.us

 

It is important to know that we are not investment or financial advisors. NIA’s web site and newsletter are meant for informational and educational purposes only and should not be used to make investment decisions.

Congressman Ron Paul
March 5, 2010

Since my 2008 campaign for the presidency I have often been asked, “How would a constitutionalist president go about dismantling the welfare-warfare state and restoring a constitutional republic?” This is a very important question, because without a clear road map and set of priorities, such a president runs the risk of having his pro-freedom agenda stymied by the various vested interests that benefit from big government.

Of course, just as the welfare-warfare state was not constructed in 100 days, it could not be dismantled in the first 100 days of any presidency. While our goal is to reduce the size of the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure our immediate proposals minimize social disruption and human suffering. Thus, we should not seek to abolish the social safety net overnight because that would harm those who have grown dependent on government-provided welfare. Instead, we would want to give individuals who have come to rely on the state time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help – churches and private charities.

Now, this need for a transition period does not apply to all types of welfare. For example, I would have no problem defunding corporate welfare programs, such as the Export-Import Bank or the TARP bank bailouts, right away. I find it difficult to muster much sympathy for the CEO’s of Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs.

No matter what the president wants to do, most major changes in government programs would require legislation to be passed by Congress. Obviously, the election of a constitutionalist president would signal that our ideas had been accepted by a majority of the American public and would probably lead to the election of several pro-freedom congressmen and senators. Furthermore, some senators and representatives would become “born again” constitutionalists out of a sense of self-preservation. Yet there would still be a fair number of politicians who would try to obstruct our freedom agenda. Thus, even if a president wanted to eliminate every unconstitutional program in one fell swoop, he would be very unlikely to obtain the necessary support in Congress.

Yet a pro-freedom president and his legislative allies could make tremendous progress simply by changing the terms of the negotiations that go on in Washington regarding the size and scope of government. Today, negotiations over legislation tend to occur between those who want a 100 percent increase in federal spending and those who want a 50 percent increase. Their compromise is a 75 percent increase. With a president serious about following the Constitution, backed by a substantial block of sympathetic representatives in Congress, negotiations on outlays would be between those who want to keep funding the government programs and those who want to eliminate them outright – thus a compromise would be a 50 percent decrease in spending!

While a president who strictly adheres to the Constitution would need the consent of Congress for very large changes in the size of government, such as shutting down cabinet departments, he could use his constitutional authority as head of the executive branch and as commander in chief to take several significant steps toward liberty on his own. The area where the modern chief executive has greatest ability to act unilaterally is in foreign affairs. Unfortunately, Congress has abdicated its constitutional authority to declare wars, instead passing vague “authorization of force” bills that allow the president to send any number of troops to almost any part of the world. The legislature does not even effectively use its power of the purse to rein in the executive. Instead, Congress serves as little more than a rubber stamp for the president’s requests.

If the president has the power to order U.S. forces into combat on nothing more than his own say-so, then it stands to reason he can order troops home. Therefore, on the first day in office, a constitutionalist can begin the orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. He can also begin withdrawing troops from other areas of the world. The United States has over 300,000 troops stationed in more than 146 countries. Most if not all of these deployments bear little or no relationship to preserving the safety of the American people. For example, over 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. still maintains troops in Germany.

Domestically, the president can use his authority to set policies and procedures for the federal bureaucracy to restore respect for the Constitution and individual liberty. For example, today manufacturers of dietary supplements are subject to prosecution by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) if they make even truthful statements about the health benefits of their products without going through the costly and time-consuming procedures required to gain government approval for their claims. A president can put an end to this simply by ordering the FDA and FTC not to pursue these types of cases unless they have clear evidence that the manufacturer’s clams are not true. Similarly, the president could order the bureaucracy to stop prosecuting consumers who wish to sell raw milk across state lines.

A crucial policy that a president could enact to bring speedy improvements to government is ordering the bureaucracy to respect the 10th Amendment and refrain from undermining state laws. We have already seen a little renewed federalism with the current administration’s policy of not prosecuting marijuana users when their use of the drug is consistent with state medical-marijuana laws. A constitutionalist administration would also defer to state laws refusing compliance with the REAL ID act and denying federal authority over interstate gun transactions. None of these actions repeals a federal law; they all simply recognize a state’s primary authority, as protected by the 10th amendment, to set policy in these areas.

In fact, none of the measures I have discussed so far involves repealing any written law. They can be accomplished simply by a president exercising his legitimate authority to set priorities for the executive branch. And another important step he can take toward restoring the balance of powers the Founders intended is repealing unconstitutional executive orders issued by his predecessors.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

  

Executive orders are a useful management tool for the president, who must exercise control over the enormous federal bureaucracy. However, in recent years executive orders have been used by presidents to create new federal laws without the consent of Congress. As President Clinton’s adviser Paul Begala infamously said, “stroke of the pen, law of the land, pretty cool.” No, it is not “pretty cool,” and a conscientious president could go a long way toward getting us back to the Constitution’s division of powers by ordering his counsel or attorney general to comb through recent executive orders so the president can annul those that exceed the authority of his office. If the President believed a particular Executive Order made a valid change in the law, then he should work with Congress to pass legislation making that change.

Only Congress can directly abolish government departments, but the president could use his managerial powers to shrink the federal bureaucracy by refusing to fill vacancies created by retirements or resignations. This would dramatically reduce the number of federal officials wasting our money and taking our liberties. One test to determine if a vacant job needs to be filled is the “essential employees test.” Whenever D.C. has a severe snowstorm, the federal government orders all “non-essential” federal personal to stay home. If someone is classified as non-essential for snow-day purposes, the country can probably survive if that position is not filled when the jobholder quits or retires. A constitutionalist president should make every day in D.C. like a snow day!

A president could also enhance the liberties and security of the American people by ordering federal agencies to stop snooping on citizens when there is no evidence that those who are being spied on have committed a crime. Instead, the president should order agencies to refocus on the legitimate responsibilities of the federal government, such as border security. He should also order the Transportation Security Administration to stop strip-searching grandmothers and putting toddlers on the no-fly list. The way to keep Americans safe is to focus on real threats and ensure that someone whose own father warns U.S. officials he’s a potential terrorist is not allowed to board a Christmas Eve flight to Detroit with a one-way ticket.

Perhaps the most efficient step a president could take to enhance travel security is to remove the federal roadblocks that have frustrated attempts to arm pilots. Congress created provisions to do just that in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. However, the processes for getting a federal firearms license are extremely cumbersome, and as a result very few pilots have gotten their licenses. A constitutionalist in the Oval Office would want to revise those regulations to make it as easy as possible for pilots to get approval to carry firearms on their planes.

While the president can do a great deal on his own, to really restore the Constitution and cut back on the vast unconstitutional programs that have sunk roots in Washington over 60 years, he will have to work with Congress. The first step in enacting a pro-freedom legislative agenda is the submission of a budget that outlines the priorities of the administration. While it has no legal effect, the budget serves as a guideline for the congressional appropriations process. A constitutionalist president’s budget should do the following:

Reduce overall federal spending
Prioritize cuts in oversize expenditures, especially the military
Prioritize cuts in corporate welfare
Use 50 percent of the savings from cuts in overseas spending to shore up entitlement programs for those who are dependent on them and the other 50 percent to pay down the debt
Provide for reduction in federal bureaucracy and lay out a plan to return responsibility for education to the states
Begin transitioning entitlement programs from a system where all Americans are forced to participate into one where taxpayers can opt out of the programs and make their own provisions for retirement and medical care

If Congress failed to produce a budget that was balanced and moved the country in a pro-liberty direction, a constitutionalist president should veto the bill. Of course, vetoing the budget risks a government shutdown. But a serious constitutionalist cannot be deterred by cries of “it’s irresponsible to shut down the government!” Instead, he should simply say, “I offered a reasonable compromise, which was to gradually reduce spending, and Congress rejected it, instead choosing the extreme path of continuing to jeopardize America’s freedom and prosperity by refusing to tame the welfare-warfare state. I am the moderate; those who believe that America can afford this bloated government are the extremists.”

Unconstitutional government spending, after all, is doubly an evil: it not only means picking the taxpayer’s pocket, it also means subverting the system of limited and divided government that the Founders created. Just look at how federal spending has corrupted American education.

Eliminating federal involvement in K–12 education should be among a constitutionalist president’s top domestic priorities. The Constitution makes no provision for federal meddling in education. It is hard to think of a function less suited to a centralized, bureaucratic approach than education. The very idea that a group of legislators and bureaucrats in D.C. can design a curriculum capable of meeting the needs of every American schoolchild is ludicrous. The deteriorating performance of our schools as federal control over the classroom has grown shows the folly of giving Washington more power over American education. President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law claimed it would fix education by making public schools “accountable.” However, supporters of the law failed to realize that making schools more accountable to federal agencies, instead of to parents, was just perpetuating the problem.

In the years since No Child Left Behind was passed, I don’t think I have talked to any parent or teacher who is happy with the law. Therefore, a constitutionalist president looking for ways to improve the lives of children should demand that Congress cut the federal education bureaucracy as a down payment on eventually returning 100 percent of the education dollar to parents.

Traditionally, the battle to reduce the federal role in education has been the toughest one faced by limited-government advocates, as supporters of centralized education have managed to paint constitutionalists as “anti-education.” But who is really anti-education? Those who wish to continue to waste taxpayer money on failed national schemes, or those who want to restore control over education to the local level? When the debate is framed this way, I have no doubt the side of liberty will win. When you think about it, the argument that the federal government needs to control education is incredibly insulting to the American people, for it implies that the people are too stupid or uncaring to educate their children properly. Contrary to those who believe that only the federal government can ensure children’s education, I predict a renaissance in education when parents are put back in charge.

The classroom is not the only place the federal government does not belong. We also need to reverse the nationalization of local police. Federal grants have encouraged the militarization of law enforcement, which has led to great damage to civil liberties. Like education, law enforcement is inherently a local function, and ending programs such as the Byrne Grants is essential not just to reducing federal spending but also to restoring Americans’ rights.

Obviously, a president concerned with restoring constitutional government and fiscal responsibility would need to address the unstable entitlement situation, possibly the one area of government activity even more difficult to address than education. Yet it is simply unfair to continue to force young people to participate in a compulsory retirement program when they could do a much better job of preparing for their own retirements. What is more, the government cannot afford the long-term expenses of entitlements, even if we were to reduce all other unconstitutional foreign and domestic programs.

As I mentioned in the introduction to this article, it would be wrong simply to cut these programs and throw those who are dependent on them “into the streets.” After all, the current recipients of these programs have come to rely on them, and many are in a situation where they cannot provide for themselves without government assistance. The thought of people losing the ability to obtain necessities for them because they were misled into depending on a government safety net that has been yanked away from them should trouble all of us. However, the simple fact is that if the government does not stop spending money on welfare and warfare, America may soon face an economic crisis that could lead to people being thrown into the street.

Therefore, a transition away from the existing entitlement scheme is needed. This is why a constitutionalist president should propose devoting half of the savings from the cuts in wars and other foreign spending, corporate welfare, and unnecessary and unconstitutional bureaucracies to shoring up Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and providing enough money to finance government’s obligations to those who are already stuck in the system and cannot make alternative provisions. This re-routing of spending would allow payroll taxes to be slashed. The eventual goal would be to move to a completely voluntary system where people only pay payroll taxes into Social Security and Medicare if they choose to participate in those programs. Americans who do not want to participate would be free not to do so, but they would forgo any claim to Social Security or Medicare benefits after retirement.

Some people raise concerns that talk of transitions is an excuse for indefinitely putting off the end of the welfare state. I understand those concerns, which is why a transition plan must lay out a clear timetable for paying down the debt, eliminating unconstitutional bureaucracies, and setting a firm date for when young people can at last opt out of the entitlement programs.

A final area that should be front and center in a constitutionalist’s agenda is monetary policy. The Founders obviously did not intend for the president to have much influence over the nation’s money – in fact, they never intended any part of the federal government to operate monetary policy as it defined now. However, today a president could play an important role in restoring stability to monetary policy and the value of the dollar. To start, by fighting for serious reductions in spending, a constitutionalist administration would remove one of the major justifications for the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies, the need to monetize government debt.

There are additional steps a pro-freedom president should pursue in his first term to restore sound monetary policy. He should ask Congress to pass two pieces of legislation I have introduced in the 110th Congress. The first is the Audit the Fed bill, which would allow the American people to learn just how the Federal Reserve has been conducting monetary policy. The other is the Free Competition in Currency Act, which repeals legal tender laws and all taxes on gold and silver. This would introduce competition in currency and put a check on the Federal Reserve by ensuring that people have alternatives to government-produced fiat money.

All of these measures will take a lot of work – a lot more than any one person, even the president of the United States, can accomplish by himself. In order to restore the country to the kind of government the Founders meant for us to have, a constitutionalist president would need the support of an active liberty movement. Freedom activists must be ready to pressure wavering legislators to stand up to the special interests and stay the course toward freedom. Thus, when the day comes when someone who shares our beliefs sits in the Oval Office, groups like Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty will still have a vital role to play. No matter how many pro-freedom politicians we elect to office, the only way to guarantee constitutional government is through an educated and activist public devoted to the ideals of the liberty.

For that reason, the work of Young Americans for Liberty in introducing young people to the freedom philosophy and getting them involved in the freedom movement is vital to the future of our country. I thank all the members and supporters of YAL for their dedication to changing the political debate in this country, so that in the not-too-distant future we actually will have a president and a Congress debating the best ways to shrink the welfare-warfare state and restore the republic.