PDA

View Full Version : Constitutional Crisis: The Fed Now Has Taxing Authority




roguepatriot
04-02-2008, 11:54 AM
You know I try not to get too carried away with the conspiracy theories, but it's hard not to when they keep coming true.

PLEASE READ AND DIGG HERE:

http://digg.com/business_finance/Constitutional_Crisis_The_Fed_Now_Has_Taxing_Autho rity

Tuesday, April 1, 2008
"Off The Reservation"?

There are probably a few of you wondering what sent me "Off The Reservation" earlier today, and why I locked the forum down to all but Gold members for a day (tomorrow, 4/2.)

No, it wasn't because the DOW went up 391 points. Remember, we had two more of those in the last three weeks.

It is simply this folks: The power of the purse is the first, last and greatest power that any government has. It is effectively the power to TAX, because spending must be paid for in some fashion - either by taxing or issuing debt.

This power is explicitly reserved to Congress - specifically The House of Representatives, set forth in Article 1 Section 9 and formalized in The House over time.

While there is much to say about the abuse of that power over the years and the influence of lobbyists and other bad things, the fact remains that once you lose the power of the purse all else soon follows.

It is one thing for Congress to delegate that power for some period of time, for some specific purpose, or in some other way to some other part of the government.

It is an entirely different matter when a government actor or agency, or worse, a quasi-government organization such as The Fed, arrogates to itself this power.

The latter is the most serious of matters and in fact rises to the level of a Constitutional Crisis.

Why?

Because once you lose this power you NEVER GET IT BACK.

If we allow this as a nation we will never again have the power of the purse held where it belongs under our Constitution, which is SOLELY in the United States Congress, specifically, in the US House.

Let me put this in a different light and ask you how you'd feel about it:

Tomorrow, the TSA decides that there is a "heightened risk" of an imminent terrorist attack. As a consequence they decide they need to spend $100 billion dollars immediately on new equipment and people, and in fact they commit those funds immediately. Of course there is no time for Congress to pass a bill authorizing this.

Next week, The Army Corps of Engineers decides that New Orleans requires new levees, and in addition, that Tampa has a high risk of flooding if they do not have a seawall constructed around Tampa Bay. They decide to commit $200 billion dollars immediately to rectify this. After all, hurricane season is coming and there is no time to get Congress to pass a bill.

The week after that......

Get it yet?

Think this can't happen?

The hell it can't!

The hell it won't!

We live in a Constitutional Republic. The United States is NOT a Democracy. You wouldn't want to live in a true democracy; in one minorities have no rights, as just one example.

That Constitutional Republic has a very specific delineation of powers.

Note that right now we have a RAGING debate over The War In Iraq.

Many in this nation think we made a huge mistake going into Iraq. Others think it was the right thing to do. But both sides, thus far, are respecting The Constitution and, despite the objections of some, every appropriation of funds for that war has in fact gone through Congress as is required.

Let's take just one small piece of the wartime debate - The Homeland Security Act. To some, a damn good thing. To others, over-reaching but acceptable. To still others, an outrageous invasion of privacy and personal freedom.

Where you sit on this particular issue in your political beliefs is not the point.

The point is that the bill was in fact introduced and debated, then passed through Congress, and it made its stop in Appropriations where the money was allocated by The House in order to implement the law.

You may disagree with the outcome, but the black letter of Constitutional Principles were followed. The law as passed was properly constructed and funded.

How would you feel if George Petraeus were to decide that he needed $500 billion more for the War and just spent it without a vote or even consideration by Congress?

What if "Homeland Security" was simply implemented by George Bush as he saw fit, with his "Homeland Security Czar" arrogating to his "new responsibility" $500 billion dollars from the Treasury?

Is that ok?

Well, if you don't do whatever is necessary to reverse what happened with Bear Stearns and mete out punishment for that blatant violation of our Constitution, you WILL wake up one day to find out that some General in Iraq, or some Homeland Security person, or some other agency or arm of government just decided to pick your pocket and spend without the appropriation of those funds by Congress, effectively legislating without ever seeing the chambers of the House or Senate!

It is INEVITABLE that if we do not step up right here and now that this will happen again.

And again.

And again.

The line must be drawn here and now.

If we fail to do so we may as well flush one of the remaining pieces of our Constitutional Republic down the toilet, and cede to a "New World Order" in which you can and WILL be taxed without a vote and without representation of any sort and where laws will be imposed by fiat of the executive whenever they damn well feel like it without the prior approval, debate and consent of Congress.

Remember that 230-odd years ago we went to war over this EXACT issue - taxation without representation. The British King saw fit to spend and tax the colonists as he saw fit without any sort of redress to or vote by the colonists, and to impose laws via unitary decision, with the costs of implementation forcibly extracted from the Colonists' wallets.

The end result was The American Revolution.

We were fortunate in that the brave men who understood that responsibility were honest and not particularly interested in personal self-aggrandizement. History strongly suggests that our Founding Fathers were somewhat of a historical aberration, in that most of the time when a society finds itself under extreme duress it usually ends with someone more akin to Adolph Hitler than Jefferson, Madison or Hamilton figuring out what the government should look like.

It is critical that we the people do not permit this usurpation of power to stand, and insist that the power of the purse be restored to where it belongs - solely and exclusively in the hands of Congress.

Should we fail to do so it is a virtual certainty that three, five or ten years hence you will think back about this very issue and this Ticker and realize in horror what you could have prevented, but didn't.

Let us remember that this power to "raid" the public purse has never been wisely used in the past. From Germany prior to WWII on down to the present day, we have never seen a public official that is anywhere close to accurate on their "estimates" as to the fiscal damage from their programs.

Most of you remember the Medicare Part D debate. It was quoted at one number, then another, then another in terms of cost. After it was passed and signed we found out that those numbers were radically underestimated and the cost would be several times greater than we were told - but it was already law.

Some of you remember Ben Bernanke on The Hill giving what used to be called "Humphry-Hawkins" testimony last spring and summer, in which he said that the subprime problem was going to be a "tens of billions" of dollar problem, all-in. We now have seen over $100 billion in writedowns thus far, and Goldman Sachs has said out loud they think its a one trillion dollar problem, which is somewhere between 10 and 100 times as large as Bernanke originally told Congress. Has Bernanke been held accountable for this radically inaccurate "guess"? Of course not. Nor will he be unless you speak up.

Some of you remember the RTC, which allegedly was a "ten or twenty billion dollar" enterprise when the S&L crisis broke. It ultimately cost between $150 and $200 billion of taxpayer money, depending on who you ask, or ten times the original estimate. Yet none of those lawmakers and "agency wonks" were held to account either.

Social Security and Medicare were originally tiny portions of Federal outlays, and were projected to remain a "tiny" portion of public spending. They now constitute, together, some 30% of The Federal Budget, and are growing at a rapacious pace, and yet nobody in the government has ever been held to account for the incredible damage this not only has done but will do to our federal budget down the road.

All of this, thus far up until Bear Stearns, was done above the table and under the rules proscribed by the Constitution.

How much accountability do you think we will achieve when the appropriation is done BEYOND the reach - and accountability - of Congress?

"What is zero, Alex."

The 900lb Gorilla in the room is home prices. Pimco's Bill Gross, as I noted in The Ticker, is ranting and raving about "the need to stop home price declines", and has been doing so repeatedly both in his letters and on national television.

That is because he knows what is coming and how bad it is going to get.

The problem is that we can't stop home price declines, which is why you haven't heard Gross actually come out with a proposal to do so.

It is mathematically impossible to achieve his goal and he knows it.

Debt-to-income ratios over 36-40% are unaffordable no matter what you do, and this naturally caps home prices in the 2.5-3x income range, with the lower end being present when interest rates are relatively high (8-10%) and the upper end being present when they are low (6-8%.) Long-money rates under 6% are historically an aberration and cannot be sustained with the public debt and deficit spending our government engages in.

The nasty in all of this mess is that any attempt to prop up banks like Bear Stearns or others - and there will be others - inevitably screws the vast majority of Americans.

Let's remember - 30% of homes in America have no mortgage at all. Those homeowners have nothing to be gained by "bailouts" for speculators or homeowners, as they own their homes outright.

Another 50% of the housing stock has a mortgage on it that was underwritten under sound guidelines - 20% down, no piggybacks, owned for a long time. These mortgages are not underwater and won't go underwater. Yes, there will be home price depreciation, but the principal will remain less than the note, top to bottom, even if we have a severe, deep recession.

The last 20% of the homes are the problem.

About half of those were purchased during the "bubble years". They are either underwater now or will be. There is no escape from this reality, and most of these will foreclose if the borrowers/owners are intelligent about it. They will exercise the right of "efficient breach" and jingle mail the keys. Their credit will be destroyed for several years, but that's where it stops for them.

The other half of the remainder, 10% of the total, are worse. These are the homes that were serially flipped or serially refinanced. Many, but not all, are held by speculators who got left "holding the bag." Those who serially refinanced and MEW'd out the money to blow on various toys and spending are the ones with real problems. Essentially all of these homes will eventually foreclose and most of those loans are "recourse", which means the borrowers - your neighbors - will be forced in to bankruptcy. This number may eventually reach 10% of all American households, or fifteen to twenty million filings over the next few years.

Now let's look at the economic damage.

The "best figure" I have on the US housing stock value is right near $36 trillion. 20% of that value, or about $7.2 trillion, is "at risk" in terms of borrowers. Let's further assume that through FHA and other programs, we can save half of these homes from foreclosure.

None of that housing stock subject to foreclosure is a zero. If we assume rather pessimistic recovery on first mortgages of 50%, this is $1.8 trillion in real losses that are going to be realized on the value of the homes.

The bad news is that there are also in the high several hundred billion in HELOCs that are worthless on top of the rest. It is reasonable to assume that of the HELOC money out there, that associated with the foreclosed homes has a zero recovery, as these homes are all underwater on the firsts. Call this $100 billion more of realized losses.

As you can see, we are rapidly approaching the $2 trillion mark and we have not yet accounted for any of the "knock on" effects such as decreases in consumer spending, decreases in construction activity and lost jobs across the economy. All in it is likely that the total bill for this carnage will exceed $5 trillion dollars.

To put this in perspective, and why we must stop any attempt to corrupt the power of the purse here and now, we must keep in mind that the total outstanding public debt in the United States is approximately $9 trillion.

In order to "absorb" this we would have to further devalue our currency to an outrageous degree or, alternatively, suffer monetary and price inflation in the 10% area for several years. Such an act would immediately and permanently impoverish all those who made prudent homebuying decisions, whether they are people who paid cash, who have reasonable mortgages, or who have long since paid off their house.

In addition such an attempt would destroy those on fixed incomes, including all retired Senior Citizens living in whole or part off Social Security. The entirety of the population reliant on Social Security to any significant extent would be reduced to poverty and the middle class of America would lose at least half of its discretionary purchasing power on a permanent basis.

If we do not restore the power of the purse to Congress where it belongs the bankers WILL attempt to prevent these losses from flowing back to them, effectively forcing them down the throats of your retired parents, grandparents, and the working class, all of whom will see severe decreases in their standard of living.

With the bankers having the power of the purse, instead of Congress, you will eat all of the losses and the catastrophe will be served upon you in order to save them!

The Bear Stearns bailout will likely not cost $29 billion, it is very likely to cost $100-300 billion if historical precedent holds. The Fed does not HAVE an extra $300 billion, and will, since it has been given the power of the purse, shove off that cost on the taxpayer by demanding it of Treasury.

Nor will this stop with Bear Stearns, as I have illustrated above.

The amount at risk in housing alone is close to $2 trillion! This does not count any of the "at risk" amounts in auto loans that will go bad, credit card debt that will default, or commercial real estate, nor does it, as I noted, include all the "knock on" effects.

All of these losses are real and WILL be realized.

We can argue over who eats these losses but we cannot prevent them from occurring.

When, not if, this flows through to the public balance sheet we will see immediate and severe cramping of the Federal Budget. Unable to fund itself on reasonable terms the government will find itself forced to drastically slash entitlement spending.

That, in turn, will lead to severe "voter unrest", and from there you can figure it out - what always happens will happen once again, as "someone" will appear on the political stage offering bread and circuses, which of course will require that the citizens give up "just a bit" of their freedom........

Still want to sit around and drink beer?

No?

Good.

Then sign the petition to ask the House and Senate to force the unwind of this transaction and, if Bernanke and Paulson refuse, to Impeach Bush (and by extension Hanky Panky)

While you're at it, Ben has been "invited" to several committee meetings the next few days. Here's the list of the Committees in the House and Senate - I strongly suggest that you give the appropriate Congressfolk a jingle and tell them what you think about all of this....

I made several of these calls today and was told they were very busy.

Perhaps tomorrow could be even busier...... but that, of course, is up to you.

The question, and what should drive you to act (or not) is simple - do you want our flag to look like this in a few short years? If not then pick up the phone.




Senate Banking Committee

First Last Phone Fax State------------+---------+-------------+-------------+------ Richard Shelby 202-224-5744 202-224-3416 AL Wayne Allard 202-224-5941 202-224-6471 CO Christopher Dodd 202-224-2823 202-224-1083 CT Tom Carper 202-224-2441 202-228-2190 DE Mel Martinez 202-224-3041 202-228-5171 FL Daniel Akaka 202-224-6361 202-224-2126 HI Evan Bayh 202-224-5623 202-228-1377 IN Jim Bunning 202-224-4343 202-228-1373 KY Jon Tester 202-224-2644 202-224-8594 MT Elizabeth Dole 202-224-6342 202-224-1100 NC Chuck Hagel 202-224-4224 202-224-5213 NE Robert Menendez 202-224-4744 202-228-2197 NJ Charles Schumer 202-224-6542 202-228-3027 NY Sherrod Brown 202-224-2315 202-228-6321 OH Tim Johnson 202-224-5842 202-228-5765 SD Bob Corker 202-224-3344 202-228-0566 TN Robert Bennett 202-224-5444 202-228-1168 UT Michael Enzi 202-224-3424 202-228-0359 WY



House Financial Services Committee


First Last Phone Fax State--------------+------------+-------------+-------------+----------- Spencer Bachus 202-225-4921 202-225-2082 AL Kevin McCarthy 202-225-2915 202-225-2908 CA Bradley Sherman 202-225-5911 202-225-5879 CA Gary Miller 202-225-3201 202-226-6962 CA Maxine Waters 202-225-2201 202-225-7854 CA Ed Royce 202-225-4111 202-226-0335 CA Joe Baca 202-225-6161 202-225-8671 CA John Campbell 202-225-5611 202-225-9177 CA Ed Perlmutter 202-225-2645 202-225-5278 CO Christopher Shays 202-225-5541 202-225-9629 CT Christopher Murphy 202-225-4476 202-225-5933 CT Michael Castle 202-225-4165 202-225-2291 DE Ginny Brown-Waite 202-225-1002 202-226-6559 FL Robert Wexler 202-225-3001 202-225-5974 FL Tom Feeney 202-225-2706 202-226-6299 FL Tim Mahoney 202-225-5792 202-225-3132 FL Ron Klein 202-225-3026 202-225-8398 FL Adam Putnam 202-225-1252 202-226-0585 FL Tom Price 202-225-4501 202-225-4656 GA Jim Marshall 202-225-6531 202-225-3013 GA David Scott 202-225-2939 202-225-4628 GA Peter Roskam 202-224-4561 202-225-1166 IL Judy Biggert 202-225-3515 202-225-9420 IL Luis Gutierrez 202-225-8203 202-225-7810 IL Donald Manzullo 202-225-5676 202-225-5284 IL Melissa Bean 202-225-3711 202-225-7830 IL Joe Donnelly 202-225-3915 202-225-6798 IN Geoff Davis 202-225-3456 202-225-0003 KY Michael Capuano 202-225-5111 202-225-9322 MA Barney Frank 202-225-5931 617-332-2822 MA Stephen Lynch 202-225-8273 202-225-3984 MA Keith Ellison 202-225-4755 202-225-4886 MN Michele Bachmann 202-225-2331 202-225-6475 MN William Clay 202-225-2406 202-226-3717 MO Emanuel Cleaver 202-225-4535 202-225-4403 MO Brad Miller 202-225-3032 202-225-0181 NC Walter Jones 202-225-3415 202-225-3286 NC Patrick McHenry 202-225-2576 202-225-0316 NC Melvin Watt 202-225-1510 202-225-1512 NC Paul W. Hodes 202-225-5206 202-225-2946 NH Albio Sires 202-225-7919 202-226-0792 NJ Scott Garrett 202-225-4465 202-225-9048 NJ Steve Pearce 202-225-2365 202-225-9599 NM Dean Heller 202-225-6155 202-225-5679 NV Peter King 202-225-7896 202-226-2279 NY Carolyn McCarthy 202-225-5516 202-225-5758 NY Gary Ackerman 202-225-2601 202-225-1589 NY Carolyn Maloney 202-225-7944 202-225-4709 NY Gregory Meeks 202-225-3461 202-226-4169 NY Nydia Velazquez 202-225-2361 202-226-0327 NY Deborah Pryce 202-225-2015 202-225-3529 OH Steven LaTourette 202-225-5731 202-225-3307 OH Charles Wilson 202-225-5705 202-225-5907 OH Dan Boren 202-225-2701 202-225-3038 OK Frank Lucas 202-225-5565 202-225-8698 OK Paul Kanjorski 202-225-6511 202-225-0764 PA Jim Gerlach 202-225-4315 202-225-8440 PA Gresham Barrett 202-225-5301 202-225-3216 SC Lincoln Davis 202-225-6831 202-226-5172 TN Randy Neugebauer 202-225-4005 202-225-5547 TX Al Green 202-225-7508 202-225-2947 TX Ruben Hinojosa 202-225-2531 202-225-5688 TX Jeb Hensarling 202-225-3484 202-226-4888 TX Ron Paul 202-225-2831 202-226-9379 TX Kenny Marchant 202-225-6605 202-225-0074 TX Gwen Moore 202-225-4572 202-225-8135 WI Shelley Moore Capito 202-225-2711 202-225-7856 WV



Joint Economic Committee


First Last Phone Fax State----------+----------+-------------+-------------+------ Loretta Sanchez 202-225-2965 202-225-5859 CA Baron Hill 202-225-5315 202-226-6866 IN Sam Brownback 202-224-6521 202-228-1265 KS Edward Kennedy 202-224-4543 202-224-2417 MA Elijah Cummings 202-225-4741 202-225-3178 MD Amy Klobuchar 202-224-3244 202-228-2186 MN John Sununu 202-224-2841 202-228-4131 NH James Saxton 202-225-4765 202-225-0778 NJ Jeff Bingaman 202-224-5521 202-224-2852 NM Maurice Hinchey 202-225-6335 202-226-0774 NY Charles Schumer 202-224-6542 202-228-3027 NY Carolyn Maloney 202-225-7944 202-225-4709 NY Phil English 202-225-5406 202-225-3103 PA Robert P. Casey 202-224-6324 202-228-0604 PA Jim DeMint 202-224-6121 202-228-5143 SC Lloyd Doggett 202-225-4865 202-225-3073 TX Kevin Brady 202-225-4901 202-225-5524 TX Ron Paul 202-225-2831 202-226-9379 TX Robert Bennett 202-224-5444 202-228-1168 UT Jim Webb 202-224-4024 202-228-6363 VA

gb13
04-02-2008, 12:22 PM
Great article. Scary, and not at all far-fetched...

roguepatriot
04-02-2008, 03:21 PM
http://www.urbansurvival.com/week.htm


Revolution Monday: The Bankster's Coup

Back in earlier times in America, before the Central Bankers took over, there were lots of financial institutions in the country. Most were fiercely independent and they played a key role in the development of the nation. That was a time when the White House was able to dictate to the banks and financial interests rather than today's mirror/reversed situation where bankers largely tell the government what to do.



Of particular significance are two historical events. One is the history of the Second Bank of the United States, which, after its federal charter was withdrawn, ended up bankrupt in a few years. The key thing to remember is that President Andrew Jackson was so mad at the corruption and attempts to influence government, that he pulled the 'federal charter' of the bank, leading to its demise.



Key point: The President dictated to the Banks, not the other way around.



A second moment of history to be recalled is two days before Christmas 1913 the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. Perhaps the most thoroughly researched book on the forming of the 'Fed" to date has been G. Edwards Griffin's "Creature From Jekyll Island" where the bankers of the day hatched their plans for the monetary takeover of America in a scheme which would, in effect, allow private bankers to charge the country interest on it's own money.



A short video which you can see here, lets some of the secrets out: The Fed's actual owners are secret and the watering down of the purchasing power of the dollar has been successfully 'spun' from theft through watering down to the popular belief that prices go up through a mythical process called "inflation" which was ground into the public mind during the last Great Depression and its aftermath.



Key point: From 1913 until this week, the Fed dealt only with banks.



Now fast forward to this coming Monday when, according to a Reuters dispatch, "The U.S. Treasury will propose...that the Federal Reserve be given sweeping new powers that would make it chief regulator with authority to require actions and to ensure market stability"



Key Point: Having seized control of the currency in 1913, and having sold the notion that prices somehow mysteriously levitate in the general economy independent of the supply of goods, market demand, and supply of money, the bankers club - the not-really Federal Reserve will begin its push Monday to control much more than banking. It's about to seize Wall Street.



In doing so, the Treasury is expected to promote the merging of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission that oversees the commodities markets.



Oh, and in dabbling their toes in owning (as securities pledge against loans) CMO's and such, the Fed may also have tipped its hat that it's getting into real estate ownership.



Context and Impacts

There are many ways one can describe the Fed's expansion into non-banking financial regulation.



One way is to argue that because of the electronic linkage between markets, its necessary to ensure 'market stability' at all costs, thus justifying the expansion.



On the other hand, as an independent speculator, which I readily confess to being, there's another equally descriptive term: Price Fixing.



The bailout of the financial institutions which we've been witnessing develop over the past year, or so, having arisen out of the mortgage bubble collapse, in pure economic terms should have resulted in the destruction via bankruptcy of the immoral, unethical, and unsound characters who caused the condition.



However, in today's United States, which adheres to a more generally socialist agenda (*e.g. government control and central planning) such self-cleaning properties of American Free enterprise are no longer politically acceptable. It's just not Agenda 21.



Instead of allowing market forces to shut down Bear Stearns, or other "too big to fail" institutions, what we witness instead is the methodical use of taxpayer monies to bail out the morally and otherwise bankrupt firms that gambled too heavily on CMO's, CDO's, SIV's, and the lot, with probable foreknowledge that (wink, wink, nod, nod) there really would be no risk to those making the decisions: The Taxpayers would be writing the checks to cover bad bets, which is where we are today.



In a country where the number of movie and mindless infotainment channels outnumbers the financial channels by perhaps a 200 to 1 ratio, it's understandable, yet sad anyway, that the bankers are using the excuse of "market stability" to enforce price fixing.



Is it possible that the linguistic work of www.halfpasthuman.com which has been pointing to a rebellion/revolution this spring and lasting for several years was not about regular people being priced out of their homes by foreclosures, losing their jobs through offshoring, or walking because gas is headed skyward and instead refers to a banker's coup?

---

Americans have always had a 'silent partner' in their investments. Whether it was a farm in Washington's time, or a Silicon Valley startup in the Internet bubble days, business has always paid some tribute to government in order to secure our greater good.



However, when I stand back and review the longer view, I can't help but notice that government's tribute, as a percentage of the gross, has expanded 20-50 fold since revolutionary days. Simply put, the bankers have been doing a marvelous job of getting a larger and larger piece of the fruits of the enterprising American worker's labors.



I have no doubt - well, OK some - that the Fed Chairman and the Secretary of the Treasury are well-intentioned: They realize that if the banking system were allowed to go through its normal 'self-cleaning cycle' that a lot of damage would be done, and millions would see their retirement accounts evaporate, because the investment community conned everyday folks into a belief that investment advisers and their ilk could make better decisions about what's a sound investment, than could a thoughtful worker who considers carefully where to save and invest.



Well, surprise, surprised, they didn't. They puffed up the books and sold liar's paper. But rather than fess up - with a few well earned visits to the iron-bar hotel, the Fed's bailing out Wall Street. But in return, this deal with the Devil, now turns to a pact to honor the Devil's spawn, the banksters behind the scenes... the 30% interest crowd.



Thus, as the era of American capitalism comes to an end, we see the institution of American socialism in its rawest price fixing mode entering the scene. Like junkies hooked on smack, the American worker has been fattened by the bankers of cheap credit, and absent assent to a slaughter of our freedom, we'll be beggared and bankrupted one-by-one and sent to tent cities where colored wrist bands will mark those allowed into the Bush presidency's hidden Hoovervilles.



Monday will also mark, if there had been any doubt previously, the end of the Republican Party that I grew up with. There was a time when the GOP stood for small central government, a progressive civil rights stance, strong belief in states rights, and minimal foreign entanglements along with strict adherence - to the letter - of the greatest Nation founding document ever.



Gee, I don't suppose you have any idea where the real Republican Party is, do you? I routinely call the current batch of pretenders "republicorps" because the universal solution to all problems in the country has been more laws, more governance, and oh, by the by, a bigger share for your silent partner.



The myth also persists that that there is an opposition party, the Democratic Party. Yet I continue to call this party the 'democorps." Why? Because the democorps, like the republicorp have their hands so far into the corporate cookie jars and have succumbed to PAC attacks to such a large extent, that genuine change of a policy found lacking can no longer be achieved because the money and 'grease' rules the day; the grease being voter turnouts promised by the PAC's, the campaign workers supplied, and so forth.



So, Monday the Revolution begins. Bankers will promote their socialist / price fixing, total government control of markets under the guise of 'saving us' from misdeeds by people who have made what are called 'errors in investment judgments'. In an earlier time, it would have been called fraud or rampant speculations and people would be fired, bankrupted, jailed, or hung for such breach of the public trust.



"Market Stability" is like pregnancy: You're either price fixing, or your not.

---

I've been writing about since 1995 about the economic future of America. You can find papers and notes I've made all the way back to 1997 in the library on this site. At it's core, this site has been watching for the painful - but manageable - wringing out of malinvestment from the system so that America can go through its periodic rebirth, formerly happening in long wave economic pivotal years like the Panic of 1873 and then the Depression of the 1930's.



In Biblical times, these were Jubilee Years (go reread Leviticus) and all debts were forgiven. In modern days, it was Long Wave Economics, but the same principles of death and rebirth continued.



Most weekends I offer a summary of various news events, a little contexting to maybe help you see the way to the future more clearly. But this weekend, there is only one story. ^There's a revolution coming Monday.

---

America has one of its most important decisions ever just ahead. Although it may be summarized incorrectly here, my view is that it comes down to a choice between two alternatives that demand your most solemn consideration.



We can, on the one hand, accept the proposals put forth by what I refer to as the corpgov and banksters. In accepting their proffered solution, we will be agreeing to more government and what's worse, more government control of private enterprise. With it will come further price fixing of financial markets via the interventions of the Plunge Protection Team, more formally the President's Working Group on Markets.



The outcome here will be a complete government stranglehold on your finances, assuring that without perfect cooperation with the system, you and your descendants will be "subjects" of the system rather than Free Men and Women. You'll be told where to work, what to think, and how to act to a much greater extent than even now because as history has taught us, absolute power5 corrupts absolutely.



The other outcome, which I admit is much less likely but the one I personally favor, is to take the other path. The one both political parties (before corporate subversion) followed: Strictly allegiance to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and a balance between the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Oh, did I mention sound money?



The problem with this path is will hurt - and maybe a lot: People will lose savings, but the flip side is the bankers can be brought to heel; the spiraling growth of government can be slowed. Maybe even reversed. Freedom - in the purest sense of the Framers - can be preserved. Or, it can be lost forever.



By the way; it never occurred to me to put it into a web browser, but see what happens when you click on www.usconstitition.gov or www.billofrights.gov. Nothing! Is this some kind of a hint? Is the outcome already assured?

---

I've chosen with my wife to live in a remote part of East Texas because of the spirit of the place. We don't have credit card debt, and we have voluntarily eschewed the 'flash and bling' media pimped lifestyle based on debt and excessive personal consumption. In a word, we've tried to 'unplug' from the mainstream a bit. No texting, no long commute, no twice weekly trips to big-name department stores, fewer prepared foods. Instead, we have a garden, raise a few animals, and pay our taxes.



The people out here are more 'real' than citified folks. The idea that a person's value is implicit in his vehicle, clothes, brand of cell phone even, well, that's just patently absurd. Strangely, with enough media hype, exactly that kind of thinking seems to prevail in many urban areas, though. We've decided to voluntarily downscale.

---



So the Banker's Revolution begins Monday and the choice is simple:

We can take the easy way which means more government and a furtherance of the recent price fixing in markets...I'm sorry; maintenance of market stability. Come to the great casino, no losers here. Good times, but more regulations, less freedom of choice and a bigger and meaner Big Brother. Did someone over there lose? Well, you just chip in and pay for their losses. The house will keep a share for its hard work, of course.

Or, we can take the hard path and limit bankers, contain government, hold greedy speculators accountable, and let the markets clean themselves. And if we make bad choices, we will live with those. Hard times for a while, but 30% interest rates can be beaten back to 8%, states can legislate usury, and the wealthy elite 'ruling class' can be sent packing: Those who would export our jobs, leave our borders unfenced, and abdicate their responsibilities to preserve sound money, are welcome to leave.



So give it some thought this weekend. Which side will you choose? Soft and Easy but totally Ruled, or Hard and Thrifty - yet FREE?



Let me know your thoughts. It might make an interesting Monday article if anyone responds. Send comments to george@ure.net.