Irish TD Clare Daly takes on Bankers 6/27/13

[Peace Piper]

Published on Jun 27, 2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA9x6WwGhVM
http://youtu.be/xA9x6WwGhVM

"...Five years ago the banking crime of the century-- the theft of billions from men women and
children in this country and nothing has been done...

"What other crime would be treated in this way? Where is the fraud squad, where is the
criminal assets bureau- this is what they were set up for. Any other crime scene would have
been surrounded and the evidence taken. It was 6 months before they made a visit to
Anglo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo_Irish_Bank) two years before they even got the passwords.

And the reason why it's different is that there's a different attitude to crimes committed by
people in suits...they're not considered to be real crimes. Also of course the fear that if they
had gone in it might have revealed a connection to the political establishment...


"...It's utter nonsense your point about due process or the system being potentially tainted
there are facts here laws were broken this criminal activity happened and those who were
responsible for it haven't been brought to book.

...the critical thing actually that they're interested in - that those responsible would be brought
to account...

why are you asking the Irish people- forcing the Irish people to pay for the crimes
of these bankers while they walk free

you have the power to cancel the bonds that are under the Central Bank --let the ECB take a
hit rather than special needs assistance, rather than parents , rather than mortgage holders-
the choice is now with you and harking back to the past won't cover you on this one."

Contact TD Clare Daly
http://www.claredaly.ie/contact/

Anglo Irish Bank


Anglo Irish Bank was an Irish bank headquartered in Dublin from 1964 to 2011.[1] It went into wind-down mode after nationalisation in 2009.[2] In July 2011, Anglo Irish merged with the Irish Nationwide Building Society, with the new company being named the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation. Michael Noonan, the Minister for Finance stated that the name change was important in order to remove "the negative international references associated with the appalling failings of both institutions and their previous managements...

...The bank's heavy exposure to property lending, with most of its loan book being to builders and property developers, meant that it was badly affected by the downturn in the Irish property market in 2008.[4] In December 2008, the Irish government announced plans to inject €1.5 billion of capital for a 75% stake in the bank, effectively nationalising it.[5][6] The Dublin and London Stock Exchanges immediately suspended trading in Anglo Irish's shares, with the final closing share price of €0.22 representing a fall of over 98% from its peak...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo_Irish_Bank

[satchelmcqueen]

i love her

[Carson]

Not much can be done globally.

No matter how much hard earned honest dollars the, "we the people" of the world can gather together to build their world the way they want others have the ability to fire up the fake money presses and print up what ever amount of counterfeit it takes to get their way...

and stiff you with the bill.

[Carson]

i love her

Wouldn't be bad to find yourself standing shoulder to shoulder with her.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Never let a crisis go to waste... Clare Daly's big push, because the Irish, fall back into RECESSION. She needs to expose these fraudsters and puppets across from her.
Checkout the Financial Times reporting.


http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/35f13914-df1d-11e2-881f-00144feab7de.html June 27, 2013 1:22 pm
Irish economy back in recession amid exports slump

By Jamie Smyth in Dublin
Ireland (http://www.ft.com/topics/places/Ireland) has plunged back into recession amid a slump in net exports and a fall in personal consumption, raising question marks over an economy tipped as the eurozone’s best chance of a bailout success story.
New figures published by Ireland’s national statistics agency on Thursday show gross domestic product fell 0.6 per cent in the first quarter of 2013, compared with the previous three months. The agency also revised down previous growth estimates, signalling that Ireland’s economy has shrunk for the past three consecutive quarters.

On this story



More repossession powers for Irish banks (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/72954160-de75-11e2-b990-00144feab7de.html)
Lombard Ireland should lift lid on bank crisis (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/65b9490c-dcbb-11e2-9700-00144feab7de.html)
Fears for Portugal and Ireland bailout exits (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/183b0b36-d8ea-11e2-a6cf-00144feab7de.html)
Ireland proposes parliamentary inquiry into banking crisis (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6eb54446-befe-11e2-a9d4-00144feab7de.html)
Video Ireland’s soggy patch (http://video.ft.com/v/2328754970001/Ireland-s-soggy-patch)

On this topic



Art imitates life in play on Irish financial crisis (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2ca1d23e-dfe4-11e2-bf9d-00144feab7de.html)
Peter Cunningham Cruel comedy at the Irish taxpayers’ expense (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0a0806dc-de48-11e2-9b47-00144feab7de.html)
Ireland scraps forest sell-off plan (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2b36f1e2-d902-11e2-a6cf-00144feab7de.html)
Dublin to delay bank tests until 2014 (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3aa78666-d446-11e2-8639-00144feab7de.html)


The economy shrank by 0.2 per cent in the final quarter of 2012. Two consecutive quarters of negative growth define a “technical” recession.

The bad news comes after shocking revelations this week about Irish bankers’ attitudes (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0a0806dc-de48-11e2-9b47-00144feab7de.html) to the billions of taxpayers’ money used to rescue the banks at the start of Ireland’s financial crisis.
“The economy is still ‘flatlining’ and net exports are a concern,” said Michael Connolly, a senior statistician at the agency.
The agency also revised down Ireland’s annual growth rate in 2012 to 0.2 per cent of GDP, from its previous estimate of 0.9 per cent.
Alan Barrett, an economist with Ireland’s Fiscal Advisory Council, said the figures were disappointing, particularly as the fall in GDP extended over three quarters.
“Ireland is suffering because the eurozone economy is poor. Unless there is some recovery in Europe then Ireland won’t enjoy a sustainable recovery,” he said.
Exports of goods and services fell by 3.2 per cent in the first quarter of 2013 – an extraordinarily weak performance for an economy that has enjoyed an export-led recovery (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3af98170-922c-11e2-851f-00144feabdc0.html) since its economic crisis and international bailout in 2010.

Goods exports have fallen sharply, which is due in part to a number of pharmaceutical products coming off patent over the past 12 months. Pharmaceutical exports account for about 60 per cent of Ireland’s goods exports, said the agency.
The domestic economy also remains weak amid a mortgage crisis (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f5d742a8-a3a1-11e2-ac00-00144feabdc0.html) and high unemployment. Consumer spending fell 3 per cent in the first three months of the years, compared with the fourth quarter of 2012.

“On the basis of the first-quarter figures, it is hard to see the economy posting positive growth this year, which in turn will have negative implications for Ireland’s budgetary position,” said Alan McQuaid of Dublin-based Merrion Stockbrokers.

Ireland’s department of finance is forecasting 2.5 per cent GDP growth in 2013. A failure to reach this target could raise questions of Ireland’s debt sustainability as it seeks to exit its bailout in December (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/183b0b36-d8ea-11e2-a6cf-00144feab7de.html). Ireland’s debt to GDP ratio is expected to peak at 123 per cent this year.
Economists had hoped that a dip in unemployment to 13.7 per cent in the first three months of 2013, down from 15.1 per cent in the first quarter of last year, suggested the Irish economy was stabilising. But the figures published by Ireland’s statistics agency on Thursday show most economic indicators have worsened over recent months.
One of the few positives was a 2.9 per cent increase in gross national product, a narrower measure of economic output than GDP, in the first quarter of 2013. But this measure of economic output in Ireland is typically distorted by “redomiciled Plcs”, companies that relocate their headquarters to Ireland for tax purposes (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/70c74edc-c6ec-11e2-8a36-00144feab7de.html) without investing in operations.

[opal]

I hope she runs for office

[FrankRep]

What a shocker. She hates banks and she's a Socialist.



Clare Daly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_Daly) is an Irish politician. She was elected as a Socialist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_%28Ireland%29) Teachta Dála (TD) for the Dublin North constituency at the 2011 general election. She was previously a Socialist Party councillor for the Swords electoral area on Fingal County Council. She resigned from the Socialist Party on 31 August 2012, redesignating herself as a United Left Alliance TD.


It's scary how the Socialists keep suckering the so-called "Liberty Activists." Socialits always claim to "fight corruption" yet tend to be the source of the corruption.

[FrankRep]

Clare Daly wants to Nationalize the Banking System!


Clare Daly
March 19, 2013 (http://www.claredaly.ie/cyprus-troika-empty-the-atms/)

The small savers of Europe now look on in fear wondering if they are next. The banking system is yet again undermined, not by those who argue against austerity, but by the greed of the system itself. An honest and serious debate about nationalising the banks is now more necessary than ever. A Nationalised banking system is the only way to protect small savers and the domestic economies of Europe. Only a publicly owned banking system committed to state investment can reverse the austerity which has done much to damage European society.

[enhanced_deficit]

She is bold gutsy leader, how come Amereica does not have a courageous woman like her in politics? Too much GM food?

God bless her. I'll be happy to stand with her over immoral socialist hypocrites that make up much of Dem and GOP today in our corrupt horse trading of politics. Overall, she is head above shoulders in integrity, leadership, intelligence than vast majority of GOP and Dem clowns in Washington today.


What a shocker. She hates banks and she's a Socialist.
..
It's scary how the Socialists keep suckering the so-called "Liberty Activists." Socialits always claim to "fight corruption" yet tend to be the source of the corruption.

She had become independent and is no longer member of socialist party. Jesus was a socialist and Jesus probably would have not approved of Federal Reserve Bank. Jesus would not have approved of bankers who are puppet mastering Obama, McCain etc.

As long as many so called fake hypocritical "conservatives" and "liberals" in US keep sponsoring bloodbath of innocent around the world for war profiteering or whatever global socialist agenda, expect this scary trend to continue. She may not be perfect but she is pretty hot and near divine.

[FrankRep]

She is bold gutsy leader, how come Amereica does not have a courageous woman like her in politics?[/SIZE]

You support Nationalizing the Banking System?

[tod evans]

She's got fire!

I'm supporting her attitude..;)

[FrankRep]

She's got fire!

I'm supporting her attitude..;)

How about her "Nationalizing the Banks" solution?

[heavenlyboy34]

Frank, we've been over this. Daly has some opinions I disagree with, but she's an ally WRT certain issues like the banksters and various criminals in the US and EU. Her last major (anti-US imperialism/anti-Obama fascism) speech was great. She's better than the majority of GOP folks at this time. Support Daly's fight against TPTB! :cool:

[heavenlyboy34]

How about her "Nationalizing the Banks" solution?
Jackson did that here, which killed the central bank's power until the next central bank was chartered. Nationalized banks>quasi private banking cartels. Free banking>nationalized banks.

Take a cue from Murray/Ron Paul and find strategic alliances everywhere, Frank.

[FrankRep]

Frank, we've been over this. Daly has some opinions I disagree with, but she's an ally WRT certain issues like the banksters and various criminals in the US and EU. Her last major (anti-US imperialism/anti-Obama fascism) speech was great. She's better than the majority of GOP folks at this time. Support Daly's fight against TPTB! :cool:

I don't see how so-called "liberty activists" can support Clare Daly's Socialist solution of Nationalizing the Banking System.

[enhanced_deficit]

You support Nationalizing the Banking System?

Do you support bombing innocent children of Iraq and adding $1 Trillion debt to future children of America? I take it you like Palin, so I have to ask.


I said what I said, I'm greatly impressed by Ms Daly's courage and leadership.

[FrankRep]

Do you support bombing innocent children of Iraq? I take it you like Palin, so I have to ask.

I said what I said, I'm greatly impressed by Ms Daly's courage and leadership.

Wow. Off topic. I do not support Sarah Palin.

Correction: You are greatly impressed by Ms Daly's courage and Socialist leadership -- to Nationalize the Banking System.

[heavenlyboy34]

i love her
:D Gotta love how she flips the figurative bird at TPTB in the EU, US, and banking cartels.

[heavenlyboy34]

Wow. Off topic. I do not support Sarah Palin.

Correction: You are greatly impressed by Ms Daly's courage and Socialist leadership -- to Nationalize the Banking System.
The kucinnich-type left wants to audit the FED for socialist reasons. Who cares WHY people want to do these sort of things as long as they do them?

i.e. the Marxians, like ancaps, want to smash Statism, just for the wrong reasons. It doesn't make them bad allies per se.

[FrankRep]

I remember when liberty activists used to be against Nationalizing the Banking System.

[FrankRep]

The kucinnich-type left wants to audit the FED for socialist reasons. Who cares WHY people want to do these sort of things as long as they do them?

i.e. the Marxians, like ancaps, want to smash Statism, just for the wrong reasons. It doesn't make them bad allies per se.

Marxists do support Statism, they just want to be in control of it. Socialists/Marxists are not allies of the liberty movement.

Holy crap, dude.

[heavenlyboy34]

I remember when liberty activists used to be against Nationalizing the Banking System.
:rolleyes: Liberty activists also used to avoid the GOP. At some point, you have to make unsavory alliances to make progress. Ask Ron Paul and he'll tell you the same thing.

[heavenlyboy34]

Marxists do support Statism, they just want to be in control of it. Socialists/Marxists are not allies of the liberty movement.

Holy crap, dude.
The Marxians want to dissolve the State in favor of egalitarian communism. To them, socialism is a step in that direction. Sounds like you actually know nothing of the Communist movement. But you don't understand the anarchist movement either, so I'm not surprised. You may be content with your GOP circle-jerks, but I am interested in advancing the cause of liberty for everyone.

ETA: Constitutionalists have in common with communists of all stripes belief in "common property", "state-issued public debt", and a number of other things.

ETA: From marxists.org:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1900s/01_07_x01.htm

Communism, being an eminently economic institution, does not in any way prejudice the amount of liberty guaranteed to the individual, the initiator, the rebel against crystallising customs. It may be authoritarian, which necessarily leads to the death of the community, and it may be libertarian, which in the twelfth century even under the partial communism of the young cities of that age, led to the creation of a young civilisation full of vigour, a new springtide of Europe.The only durable form of Communism, however, is one under which, seeing the close contact between fellow men it brings about, every effort would be made to extend the liberty of the individual in all directions.Under such conditions, under the influence of this idea, the liberty of the individual, increased already by the amount of leisure secured to him, will be curtailed in no other way than occurs today by municipal gas, the house to house delivery of food by great stores, modern hotels, or by the fact that during working hours we work side by side with thousands of fellow labourers.With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible. Without it, it necessarily becomes slavery and cannot exist.

[FrankRep]

:rolleyes: Liberty activists also used to avoid the GOP. At some point, you have to make unsavory alliances to make progress. Ask Ron Paul and he'll tell you the same thing.

Ron Paul slams Marxism, Communism, and Socialism repeatedly. Why align yourself with people who admire the Soviet Union and Stalin?

[FrankRep]

The Marxians want to dissolve the State in favor of egalitarian communism. To them, socialism is a step in that direction. Sounds like you actually know nothing of the Communist movement. But you don't understand the anarchist movement either, so I'm not surprised. You may be content with your GOP circle-jerks, but I am interested in advancing the cause of liberty for everyone.

Are you going to teach us how wonderful the Communist movement is? Please, tell us how Communism will lead us to freedom.

[heavenlyboy34]

Are you going to teach us how wonderful the Communist movement is? Please, tell us how Communism will lead us to freedom.
Frank, you are trolling. I already explained this to you earlier in the thread. Your red herrings, illogic, and misrepresentations of what I say are tiring. Grow up, man-child troll.
http://www.characterink.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Troll_940px.jpg

[Sola_Fide]

What a shocker. She hates banks and she's a Socialist.



Clare Daly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_Daly) is an Irish politician. She was elected as a Socialist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_%28Ireland%29) Teachta Dála (TD) for the Dublin North constituency at the 2011 general election. She was previously a Socialist Party councillor for the Swords electoral area on Fingal County Council. She resigned from the Socialist Party on 31 August 2012, redesignating herself as a United Left Alliance TD.


It's scary how the Socialists keep suckering the so-called "Liberty Activists." Socialits always claim to "fight corruption" yet tend to be the source of the corruption.


Clare Daly wants to Nationalize the Banking System!


Clare Daly
March 19, 2013 (http://www.claredaly.ie/cyprus-troika-empty-the-atms/)

The small savers of Europe now look on in fear wondering if they are next. The banking system is yet again undermined, not by those who argue against austerity, but by the greed of the system itself. An honest and serious debate about nationalising the banks is now more necessary than ever. A Nationalised banking system is the only way to protect small savers and the domestic economies of Europe. Only a publicly owned banking system committed to state investment can reverse the austerity which has done much to damage European society.

Frank is right. Whatever criticism she has that we might agree with, her solution to the problem is unacceptable and even worse than the problems themselves.

[heavenlyboy34]

06-30-2013 11:47 AM
FrankRep (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?2658-FrankRep)

Thread: Irish TD Clare Daly takes on Bankers 6/27/13 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?419825-Irish-TD-Clare-Daly-takes-on-Bankers-6-27-13&p=5102197#post5102197)


Stop promoting Marxism please.

Cute -rep, Frank. Stop lying about what I said.

[enhanced_deficit]

Wow. Off topic. I do not support Sarah Palin.

Correction: You are greatly impressed by Ms Daly's courage and Socialist leadership -- to Nationalize the Banking System.

Love is blind. Jesus was a socialist.

What is higher priority under the moral system that governs you, saving the Bankers/FederalReserve as they operate today or saving innocent children being killed by drones that yours and mine tax dollars are funding? Worrying about saving bankers or their operations is not high on my priority list as long as foreign interventions continued to be funded by them.
Off topic, do you support or oppose message of Jesus?

[heavenlyboy34]

Frank is right. Whatever criticism she has that we might agree with, her solution to the problem is unacceptable and even worse than the problems themselves.
He's partly right, as I said. Nationalizing the bank system isn't good, but it's less bad than the other fascist solutions that I'm seeing offered by the Irish. You have to understand that we're debating "less bad" here, not "good". Same as republicanism. It's "less bad" than democracy, but not "good".

If you read the thread, I've been trying to get this through to Frank in as many ways as possible, to no avail.

[heavenlyboy34]

Love is blind. Jesus was a socialist.

What is higher priority under the moral system that governs you, saving the Bankers/FederalReserve as they operate today or saving innocent children being killed by drones that yours and mine tax dollars are funding? Worrying about saving bankers or their operations is not high on my priority list as long as foreign interventions continued to be funded by them.
Off topic, do you support or oppose message of Jesus?
FINALLY, someone else who gets it in this thread! :D +rep

[tod evans]

How about her "Nationalizing the Banks" solution?

Frank,

I have no idea what "nationalizing" means but I'm betting it has to do with government owned/operated?

If that's the case then I'm against the idea.

Doesn't change the fact that I like her attitude and the fire in her belly..;)

[FrankRep]

Frank,

I have no idea what "nationalizing" means but I'm betting it has to do with government owned/operated?

If that's the case then I'm against the idea.

Yes, it means a Socialist controlled Bank in the ownership of the Government. anti-Free Market, anti-Capitalist.

[enhanced_deficit]

:D Gotta love how she flips the figurative bird at TPTB in the EU, US, and banking cartels.

She should be invited to address US Congress. 99% of US Congress memebers can use some schooling and learn how to be honest with their beliefs and have the courage to put them in words. That is part of leadership.

[Sola_Fide]

Love is blind. Jesus was a socialist.

I've seen you say this a few times. What possibly do you base that on?


What is higher priority under the moral system that governs you, saving the Bankers/FederalReserve as they operate today or saving innocent children being killed by drones that yours and mine tax dollars are funding? Worrying about saving bankers or their operations is not high on my priority list as long as foreign interventions continued to be funded by them.
Off topic, do you support or oppose message of Jesus?

If you think the message of Jesus was forced redistribution and inflationary central banking, then you're nuts. There is nothing like that in the Scripture...it is the exact opposite. Jesus preached against the theft and preached voluntary charity.

[heavenlyboy34]

She should be invited to address US Congress. 99% of US Congress memebers can use some schooling and learn how to be honest with their beliefs and have the courage to put them in words. That is part of leadership.
Indeed! :) I don't think they'd do what she would say though, as Boobus prefers pretty lies to truth.

[heavenlyboy34]

Frank,

I have no idea what "nationalizing" means but I'm betting it has to do with government owned/operated?

If that's the case then I'm against the idea.

Doesn't change the fact that I like her attitude and the fire in her belly..;)
Don't worry. Frank doesn't know that the Constitution is a nationalizing document in a lot of ways, so you two are even. ;)

[FrankRep]

Don't worry. Frank doesn't know that the Constitution is a nationalizing document in a lot of ways, so you two are even. ;)
The Constitution gave the federal government few and defined powers.

Ron Paul called himself the "Champion of the Constitution" so go ahead and keep attacking the Constitution if you want.

[opal]

I think I'd like to see her jumping into journalism.. like Ben Swann.. she does not appear afraid to ask rough questions.

[enhanced_deficit]

The Constitution gave the federal government few and defined powers.



Frank, what is your solution to issues America is facing?
Where do you stand on Obama, on McCain, on Iraq liberation, on Afghan freedom, on Obama drone wars, on Obama puppet masters, on Freedom for Palestinians?

Like Ms Daly, do you also see Obama as a war criminal?
I'm hoping your worldview goes beyond bankers and banks.

[FrankRep]

Frank, what is your solution to issues America is facing?
Where do you stand on Obama, on McCain, on Iraq liberation, on Afghan freedom, on Obama drone wars, on Obama puppet masters, on Freedom for Palestinians?

Like Ms Daly, do you also see Obama as a war criminal?
I'm hoping your worldview goes beyond bankers and banks.

I stand with Ron Paul.

Side note: Ron Paul is against Nationalizing the Banking System.

[enhanced_deficit]

I stand with Ron Paul.

Side note: Ron Paul is against Nationalizing the Banking System.


Great. But I was hoping to know your views on foreign policy and your understanding of issues America faces because of it. So please answer this one question.

On US Foreign Policy, do you find Ms Daly's views more sensible & informed or those of Ms Palin?

[FrankRep]

Great. But I was hoping to know your views on foreign policy and your understanding of issues America faces because of it. So please answer this one question.

On US Foreign Policy, do you find Ms Daly's views more sensible & informed or those of Ms Palin?

I support a non-interventionist foreign policy and Congress must declare war first with a clear and defined objective. I share Ron Paul's views, like I said.

I reject Clare Daly and Sarah Palin.

[enhanced_deficit]

I support a non-interventionist foreign policy and Congress must declare war first with a clear and defined objective. I share Ron Paul's views, like I said.

I reject Clare Daly and Sarah Palin.

Thank you for replying but I don't think you answered the question as I was not looking for view on acceptance/rejection of their persons but specifically on their Foreign Policy views.

Ms Daly sees Obama (and very likely Bush) as a war criminal and Ms Palin sees Iraq war as "work for God".

One thing great about Ms Daly is she is very clear about where she stands on issue and knows how to clearly express her views. Hope we can learn from that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QIMucHfUMyg



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H-btXPfhGs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H-btXPfhGs

[FrankRep]

Thank you for replying but I don't think you answered the question as I was not looking for view on acceptance/rejection of their persons but specifically on their Foreign Policy views.

Ms Daly sees Obama (and very likely Bush) as a war criminal and Ms Palin sees Iraq war as "work for God".

One thing great about Ms Daly is she is very clear about where she stands on issue and knows how to clearly express her views. Hope we can learn from that.

Ron Paul also views Obama and Bush as War criminals. I think I'll just stick with Ron Paul.

[Peace Piper]

What a shocker. She hates banks and she's a Socialist.


Clare Daly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_Daly) is an Irish politician. She was elected as a Socialist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_%28Ireland%29) Teachta Dála (TD) for the Dublin North constituency at the 2011 general election. She was previously a Socialist Party councillor for the Swords electoral area on Fingal County Council. She resigned from the Socialist Party on 31 August 2012, redesignating herself as a United Left Alliance TD.

It's scary how the Socialists keep suckering the so-called "Liberty Activists." Socialits always claim to "fight corruption" yet tend to be the source of the corruption.

Labels help people avoid thinking for themselves. What is scary is how a single word (label) can make some people turn their brains off like a light bulb.


Clare Daly: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_Daly)

...She resigned from the Socialist Party on 31 August 2012.[3] In a statement, the Socialist Party said "it believed Ms Daly had resigned because she placed more value on her political connection with Independent TD Mick Wallace than on the political positions and work of the Socialist Party."[19] This claim was dismissed by Daly as "absolute nonsense", who stated that she had not called for Wallace's resignation because the Socialist Party had not called for his resignation.[20] She requested a share of the €120,000 Socialist Party's Leaders Allowance to allow her to continue to fund her activities as an Independent TD.[21]

In April 2013, along with Joan Collins, she founded a new political party called United Left

How has our present system of private fractional reserve banking worked for the US?

From a well documented letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28tj110120%29%29) dated June 24, 1813. This letter was written during the war of 1812 and it is clear that Jefferson was attempting to find ways to fund said war.


"But this [the issuance of currency by the government and backed by coinage],the only resource which the government could command with certainty, the States have unfortunately fooled away, nay corruptly alienated to swindlers and shavers, under the cover of private banks. Say, too, as an additional evil, that the disposal funds of individuals, to this great amount, have thus been withdrawn from improvement and useful enterprise, and employed in the useless, usurious and demoralizing practices of bank directors and their accomplices."

Jefferson goes on to say:

"It is not easy to estimate the obstacles which, in the beginning, we should encounter in ousting the banks from their possession of the circulation; but a steady and judicious alternation of emissions and loans, would reduce them in time."

From whatreallyhappened.com:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fedponzi.php

Awaken slaves! - How The Private Central Bank Ponzi Scheme Trapped And Destroyed America

Once upon a time, in 1913, a corrupt Congress and a corrupt President transferred the money creation authority vested in the government by the Constitution to a private central bank. It was going to be called the Third Bank of the United States. Such a fundamental change to the nation's economy should have required a Constitutional Amendment. But earlier that same year, there had been a huge fight to ratify another Amendment, the 16th Amendment authorizing the income tax, and there is good reason to suspect that the 16th Amendment actually failed ratification even though the payers of that income tax were told otherwise.


"I think if you were to go back and and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th amendment, which was the internal revenue, the income tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment." - U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox, Sullivan Vs. United States, 2003.

Then there was a problem with the proposed name, "Third Bank of the United States", as it reminded people of the predations of the First and Second Bank of the United States.


"Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out!" -- Andrew Jackson, shortly before ending the charter of the Second Bank of the United States. From the original minutes of the Philadelphia committee of citizens sent to meet with President Jackson (February 1834), according to Andrew Jackson and the Bank of the United States (1928) by Stan V. Henkels

Shortly after President Jackson (the only American President to actually pay off the National Debt) ended the Second Bank of the United States, there was an attempted assassination. But I digress.


Faced with the possibility that a new Amendment to transfer money creation from the US Government to a privately owned bank might fail and fail badly, and with the name "Third Bank of the United States" already leading to opposition to the plan, the plotters did an end run around the Constitution, passing the federal Reserve act over Christmas vacation when the members of Congress opposed to the bill would be away. The name of the new bank was then changed to "The Federal Reserve." But, it is a private bank, no more "Federal" than Federal Express. From that moment on all currency would enter circulation as a loan at interest.


"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit.We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -- Woodrow Wilson 1919

Ironically enough, this was the very system of banking the American Revolution was fought to free us from.


"The refusal of King George 3rd to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, was probably the prime cause of the revolution." -- Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father

Starting in 1913, public schools stopped teaching about King George's Currency Act, which ordered the American colonies to conduct business only using bank notes borrowed at interest from the Bank of England, and since then American students are taught that the revolution was about Tea Parties and Stamp Acts, lest the more clever students wonder how we ended up back in the same banking system that led to the first revolution.

The Founding Fathers understood how dangerous such banking systems are, and I will try to teach you here what the public schools are forbidden to let you know. The Federal Reserve system is a deliberate trap, to enslave a population to unpayable debt in order to control and exploit them, and here is how it works.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/FedPyramid/1.jpg

Before any commerce can happen, currency must go into circulation. Someone has to borrow it from that private central bank. The borrower can be government, a business, another bank, or ordinary citizens using credit cards, car loans, or mortgages. For the purposes of clarity, we will use a single dollar to represent that initial borrowing from the central bank. For the purpose of this illustration, "borrower" refers collectively to the entire American nation.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/FedPyramid/commerce.jpg

That dollar now enters circulation, passing from the original borrower to others, as payment for labor, in exchange for raw materials, as taxes, and so forth. Round and round it goes, passing from hand to hand, yet it is still a note borrowed from the Central Bank and it is still accruing interest. That Central Bank note, or (in the United States) Federal Reserve Note, is not a unit of value, it is a unit of debt.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/FedPyramid/2.jpg

At some point, that dollar is repaid to the Central Bank. The Central Bank then demands the interest. In our case, a nickle. But there is a problem. That nickle doesn't exist and it never did. It is imaginary.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/FedPyramid/3.jpg

So now the borrower has to borrow another dollar, out of which he takes a nickle to pay for the interest on the first dollar.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/FedPyramid/commerce2.jpg

The rest of that second borrowed dollar now goes into circulation, but this time, only 95 cents is in circulation to pass from borrower to vendor to employee to grocery store to government, then back to the Central Bank.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/FedPyramid/2a.jpg

The borrower goes back to the Central Bank to repay that second dollar, but only has 95 cents, plus he owes that imaginary five cents interest as well, or ten cents.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/FedPyramid/4.jpg

Once more the borrower has to borrow a new dollar from the Central Bank, only this time he has to take a dime out of that new dollar to hand bank to the banker. The borrower walks out of the bank with only 90 cents to put into circulation, while still owing a whole dollar plus five cents interest.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/FedPyramid/5.jpg

The cycle keeps repeating over and over with each new loan having to return more and more back to the Central bank as accumulated interest.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/FedPyramid/commerce4.jpg

With each cycle the Central Banks gets richer while there is less and less currency available for commerce. People have to tighten their belts. Works are let go. Sales slow down. "Austerity" is imposed.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/FedPyramid/6.jpg

Eventually, a point is reached where as much accumulated interest is owed as the money being borrowed. So the borrower now has to borrow twice as much from the Central Bank merely to have the same actual currency in circulation as when they started. The Central Bank system only operates as long as the borrower is willing to go deeper and deeper into debt, and debt slavery. This is what makes the Central Bank scheme a pyramid system. It works only so long as ever-larger new generations of borrowers can be found to allow new currency to enter circulation, out of which the interest on the older loans is paid. And of course, by design, the debt can never ever be paid off. Once that first paper note is loaned into circulation, total debt will always exceed total currency. The system is designed that way, to keep you in debt, to keep you a slave to the bankers.

This is the reason that every nation on Earth with such a Central Bank is now drowning in debt. The Federal Reserve, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank, are all built on this same system. This is why nations that refuse such banking systems are made war on.

And what did it cost the Central Banks to wield such power over nations? Paper and ink, or today a few keystrokes on a keyboard. In fact the practices of the Central Bank would be felonies under the United States Coinage Act of 17922, which declared debasement of the gold and silver-backed currency of the United States a death penalty offence.

The Central Bank knows that those pieces of paper with ink are worthless. But while the Central Bank can just create those paper notes out of thin air (legalized counterfeiting), you may not. In order to pay that ever-growing debt you have to do what you are told to do by those who have some of those pieces of paper to hand out tell you to do. Work long hours. Invade a foreign nation that refuses to have a Private Central Bank. Torture innocent people to death to find weapons of mass destruction that do not exist to justify a war. Compromise your morals and integrity. Perform sexual favors. Whatever the purveyors of those pieces of paper want, you must do. That paper note is your slave chain

Even worse, as the imaginary debt piles higher and there is less and less currency in circulation, people start to become desperate to obtain those pieces of paper with colored ink on them to pay off that debt they have been tricked into believing they owe to the private central bankers. Over time, more and more moral accomodations become accepted by society in exchange for the acquisition of those pieces of paper with ink on them. Manufacturers start cutting corners, producing shoddy products that break and wear out. Foodcompanies start using more cheap fillers. Pharmaceutical companies produce medicines of dubious efficacy and definite harm. Society turns brutal and predates on itself. Manufacturers come to want bad products that break easilyso people will buy more. The medical establishment comes to desire a sickly population because they cannot make money off of a healthy people. Food companies add addictive chemicals to food to make people buy and eat more. Wall Street comes to see fraud as a legitimate business tactic. Eventually immorality and unethical business behavior becomes the accepted social norm. UNder the mounting illusion of debt society drifts into outright criminality perpetrated by everyone against everyone. From there it is a short step to seeing war and conquest of other nations' weath as the only remaining solution to the debt problem. In short, the predations of private central banking lure society into trading what is best in human nature in exchange for those paper and ink tickets until civilization itself is at risk.

Private Central Banking is not about banking, or even about money. It is about Control. Private Central Banking is about rule by enforced servitude to artificially created debt. No different from other hoaxes played by the rich on the poor, such as Rule by Divine Right, or Rule by Chattel Ownership of your Body (slavery). As a human civilization we have outgrown these hoaxes and realize they are illegitimate forms of governance. So too shall it be with Rule by Debt. Those previous systems only worked as long as the subjugated population believed that those systems were real; the way the world was supposed to be. When the people broke free of the slavery of belief, those forms of enslavement collapsed. For the few to feel rich, everyone else must be poor. As the availability of currency declines, it does not matter how hard people are willing to work; there must inevitably be homeless, joblessness, and hunger.

Modern banking is not a science. It is a religion, simply a set of arbitrary rules and assumptions that favor the masters of that belief system, which we are brainwashed in school to think is something tangible and real...MORE
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fedponzi.php

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/SMALL_BITOFPAPER.jpg

Again, how has private central banking worked out for the US citizen?

[heavenlyboy34]

The Constitution gave the federal government few and defined powers.

Ron Paul called himself the "Champion of the Constitution" so go ahead and keep attacking the Constitution if you want.
I will. And all the other forms of statism and tyranny the world has to offer. :) :cool:

Is your appealing to authority supposed to impress me or change the facts about the highly centralized nature of the constitution? If so, you've failed. Since you want to appeal to authority, I'll play that game too. Patrick Henry-

http://www.academicamerican.com/revolution/documents/HenryConst.htm


Patrick Henry's Opening Speech: “A Wrong Step Now and the Republic Will Be Lost Forever”
June 4, 1788
Mr. Chairman—The public mind, as well as my own, is extremely uneasy at the proposed change of Government. Give me leave to form one of the number of those who wish to be thoroughly acquainted with the reasons of this perilous and uneasy situation—and why we are brought hither to decide on this great national question. I consider myself as the servant of the people of this Commonwealth, as a centinel over their rights, liberty, and happiness. I represent their feelings when I say, that they are exceedingly uneasy, being brought from that state of full security, which they enjoyed, to the present delusive appearance of things. A year ago the minds of our citizens were at perfect repose. Before the meeting of the late Federal Convention at Philadelphia, a general peace, and an universal tranquillity prevailed in this country;—but since that period they are exceedingly uneasy and disquieted. When I wished for an appointment to this Convention, my mind was extremely agitated for the situation of public affairs. I conceive the republic to be in extreme danger. If our situation be thus uneasy, whence has arisen this fearful jeopardy? It arises from this fatal system—it arises from a proposal to change our government:—A proposal that goes to the utter annihilation of the most solemn engagements of the States. A proposal of establishing 9 States into a confederacy, to the eventual exclusion of 4 States. It goes to the annihilation of those solemn treaties we have formed with foreign nations. The present circumstances of France—the good offices rendered us by that kingdom, require our most faithful and most punctual adherence to our treaty with her.
We are in alliance with the Spaniards, the Dutch, the Prussians: Those treaties bound us as thirteen States, confederated together—Yet, here is a proposal to sever that confederacy. Is it possible that we shall abandon all our treaties and national engagements?—And for what? I expected to have heard the reasons of an event so unexpected to my mind, and many others. Was our civil polity, or public justice, endangered or sapped? Was the real existence of the country threatened—or was this preceded by a mournful progression of events? This proposal of altering our Federal Government is of a most alarming nature: Make the best of this new Government—say it is composed by any thing but inspiration—you ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for instead of securing your rights you may lose them forever. If a wrong step be now made, the republic may be lost forever. If this new Government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they should be disappointed—their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. I repeat it again, and I beg Gentlemen to consider, that a wrong step made now will plunge us into misery, and our Republic will be lost. It will be necessary for this Convention to have a faithful historical detail of the facts, that preceded the session of the Federal Convention, and the reasons that actuated its members in proposing an entire alteration of Government—and to demonstrate the dangers that awaited us: If they were of such awful magnitude, as to warrant a proposal so extremely perilous as this, I must assert, that this Convention has an absolute right to a thorough discovery of every circumstance relative to this great event. And here I would make this enquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late Federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated Government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated Government is demonstrably clear, and the danger of such a Government, is, to my mind, very striking. I have the highest veneration for those Gentlemen,—but , Sir, give me leave to demand, what right had they to say, We, the People. My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, who authorised them to speak the language of, We, the People, instead of We, the States? States are the characteristics, and the soul of a confederation. If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated National Government of the people of all the States. I have the highest respect for those Gentlemen who formed the Convention, and were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of my esteem for them. America had on a former occasion put the utmost confidence in them: A confidence which was well placed: And I am sure, Sir, I would give up any thing to them; I would chearfully confide in them as my Representatives. But, Sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct.—Even from that illustrious man, who saved us by his valor, I would have a reason for his conduct—that liberty which he has given us by his valor, tells me to ask this reason,—and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason: But there are other Gentlemen here, who can give us this information. The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. It is not mere curiosity that actuates me—I wish to hear the real actual existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps so dangerous in my conception. Disorders have arisen in other parts of America, but here, Sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult, has happened—every thing has been calm and tranquil. But notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. I see no landmark to guide us. We are running we know not whither. Difference in opinion has gone to a degree of inflammatory resentment in different parts of the country—which has been occasioned by this perilous innovation. The Federal Convention ought to have amended the old system—for this purpose they were solely delegated: The object of their mission extended to no other consideration. You must therefore forgive the solicitation of one unworthy member, to know what danger could have arisen under the present confederation, and what are the causes of this proposal to change our Government.
...

[Another speech]... I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: the fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing—the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. I need not take much pains to show, that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy like England, compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the latter? Is this a confederacy like Holland—an association a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a confederacy to a consolidated government. We have no detail of these great considerations, which in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition, our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see, that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost by this change so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others. Is this tame relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen? Is it worthy of that manly fortitude that ought to characterize republicans? It is said eight states have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve states and a half had adopted it, I would with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it. You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government....
Is it necessary for your liberty, that you should abandon those great rights by the adoption of this system, Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings, gave us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else! ... The Confederation, this same despised government, merits, in my opinion, the highest encomium; it carried us through a long and dangerous war; it rendered us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation; it has secured us a territory greater than any European monarch possesses; and shall a government which has been thus strong and vigorous, be accused of imbecility, and abandoned for want of energy? Consider what you are about to do before you part with the government ... We are cautioned by the honorable gentleman who presides against faction and turbulence. I acknowledge also the new form of government may effectually prevent it; yet there is another thing it will as effectually do: it will oppress and ruin the people. ... This Constitution is said to have beautiful features, but when I come to examine these features, sir, they appear to me horribly frightful; among other deformities, it has an awful squinting-it squints towards monarchy; and does not this raise indignation in the breast of every true American? Your President may easily become king; your senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed by what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue forever unchangeably this government, although horribly defective: where are your checks in this government? Your strong holds will be in the hands of your enemies.
If your American chief, be a man of ambition, and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute? The army, is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him, and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first suspicious moment to accomplish his design; and, sit, will the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens? ...
Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen.
But now when we have heard the definition of it, it is purely national. The honorable member James Madison was pleased to say, that the sword and purse included every thing of consequence. And shall we trust them out of our hands without checks and barriers? The sword and purse are essentially necessary for government every essential requisite must be in congress. Where are the purse and sword of Virginia? They must go to congress. What is become of our country? The Virginian government is but a name. It clearly results from his last argument that we are to be consolidated. We should be thought unwise indeed to keep 200 legislators in Virginia, when the government is in fact gone to Philadelphia or New York. We are as a state to form no part of the government. Where are your checks? The most essential objects of government are to be administered by congress. How then can the state governments be any check upon them? If we are to be a republican government it will be consolidated, not confederated.

[enhanced_deficit]

Ron Paul also views Obama and Bush as War criminals. I think I'll just stick with Ron Paul.

In a thread in FP section couple of weeks ago I got the impression that you may not be fully aware of Ron Paul's views on foreign policy. So you agree with Ron Paul's views below on mideast policy?

Quote:
Ron Paul says Israeli embargo of Gaza that is almost like a concentartion camp is equivalent of an act of war and US is morally responsible because we finance Israel's occupation of Palestinians. And that it creates blowback economic/emotional drainage for US and contributes to global instability.

Insightful words on foreign policy. Perhaps straight talk like this is the reason that neocons and religious extremists/dogmatic rapture ready fundies would never support his non-interventionist foreign policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTpJOVhIxWc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08gTWqWrI4M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb3vF6Vcjr0

[heavenlyboy34]

+rep for Peace Piper :cool:

[heavenlyboy34]

I stand with Ron Paul.

Side note: Ron Paul is against Nationalizing the Banking System.
RP favors congressional oversight of the FED in the short term until it can be abolished. This is not far removed from nationalizing the banking system.

[FrankRep]

Labels help people avoid thinking for themselves. What is scary is how a single word (label) can make some people turn their brains off like a light bulb.


Clare Daly joined a Socialist coalition party. She's still a Socialist.


The United Left Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Left_Alliance) is an electoral alliance of left-wing political parties and independent politicians in the Republic of Ireland, formed to contest the 2011 general election. The grouping originally consisted of three existing political parties, the Socialist Party, the People Before Profit Alliance (PBPA), and the Workers and Unemployed Action Group (WUAG), as well as former members of the Labour Party.

Ideology:

Democratic socialism
Anti-capitalism
Trade unionism
Trotskyism

[FrankRep]

RP favors congressional oversight of the FED in the short term until it can be abolished. This is not far removed from nationalizing the banking system.
Ron Paul never suggested that the U.S. should Nationalize Banks.

[Sola_Fide]

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=82

Money, Freedom, and the Bible
John W. Robbins


It seems odd to twentieth century secular men to suggest that the Bible has anything important to say about money and freedom; it seems even more odd to suggest that we ought to believe what it says. The secular man has his bias, and I do not wish to argue against that bias here; I have done so in various other places. What I wish to accomplish today is to give you some idea of what the Bible says about money and freedom, and largely let the argument for believing what the Bible says remain for another place and time. Suffice it to say that in former times many men believed, as John Wycliffe expressed it, that “All law, all philosophy, all logic and all ethics are in Holy Scripture.... In Holy Scripture is all truth.”

The modern age, of course, denies this; the modern age denies that there is such a thing as truth, and asserts that if there were, the Bible ought to be the last document to be considered true. Even many persons calling themselves Christians deny that “in Holy Scripture is all truth.” But it was a common opinion of former times.

It was in those former times that many of the institutions that have granted us political and economic freedom and permitted us to prosper were created; they were not based upon secular assumptions. It is unlikely that in 1989 any representative group of men could be assembled within the United States who could draft a constitution for a government as carefully constructed as the one we received in 1787. This is not because modern men are more ignorant than the men of the 18th century; as far as quantity of information goes, the secular 20th century far surpasses the 18th. No, it is because modern men no longer believe what Americans of the 18th century believed. This is an important point in both talks I will give at this conference, and I wish to underscore it. Understanding what the Bible says about money and freedom, then, may help even modern men understand the foundations of the society in which they live.

Money is mentioned frequently in the Bible. A quick look at a concordance indicates that the words money, weight, denarius, talent, etc. occur scores, if not hundreds, of times and in most of the books of the Bible. Christ himself used money as illustrations in several of his parables. There is the parable of the talents, the parable of the woman who lost a silver coin, and of a man who found a treasure buried in a field. Christ used money as an illustration because nearly everyone is familiar with money, and nearly everyone places value upon it.

When the Pharisees came to Christ trying to trick him, and asked him whether it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, he spoke of tribute money. The Greek word here translated money is the word from which we get our word numismatics, nomisma. A Greek word used in the New Testament, argyrion, is translated both as silver and as money. A common word for money in the Old Testament was shekel, which was a standard measure of weight. After coins were invented, the name became attached to a coin in a process similar to the evolution of the British pound. Today, if I am not mistaken, the Israeli unit of account is the shekel, although being a government creation, it is not nearly as sound money as the market shekel of ancient Israel. As far as soundness of money goes, modern Israel is primitive, and ancient Israel advanced.

The “talent,” in the Old Testament, the scholars tell us, was a round weight of gold, silver or iron. In Israel a talent is supposed to have weighed about 75 pounds. The “mina” is supposed to have weighed about 50 or 60 shekels, and 60 minas equaled a talent. Of the smaller weights, the “pim” equaled about two-thirds of a shekel, the bekah about half a shekel, and the “gerah” about one-twentieth of a shekel.

In New Testament times the talent varied significantly in weight, although its average seemed to be about 75 pounds. At least one Roman coin is mentioned in the New Testament, the denarius, which seems to have been a silver coin worth less than a quarter. It was the common daily wage for a working man. The Emperor Nero showed his contempt for the common man, even while he was showing his hatred for Christians by using them as torches to light his garden parties, by debasing the denarius until it was worth less than half its value when he took power. It was this denarius that Christ spoke of when he said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

Those who think that the use of gold or silver as money evolved relatively late in human history might learn something from the history of Abraham. About two thousand years before Christ, he paid for a field by weighing out 400 shekels of silver. The account is given in Genesis 23. There does not appear to be any evidence of coins appearing in Israel much before they did in Lydia, however.

Our concern, however, is not to study the parables alone, or the passages in which coins are mentioned, for while they may be of historical interest, they are not normative for us today. Just because ancient Israel used gold and silver as money, we are not required to do so, any more than our weights are required to be named talent, mina, and shekel. What we must do is to understand how the Bible as a whole regards money, and specifically how it views the relationship between money and government. Is it a function of government to manufacture money, according to the Bible? The answers to these questions may surprise a lot of people, including secular men who get their information about the Bible second or third hand, never having actually read the book themselves.



Honest Money


I would like to use as a foil for my remarks today a book published in 1986 by Gary North, a name that may be familiar to many of you. In that year he wrote Honest Money. The Biblical Blueprint for Money and Banking. By considering what North says, and comparing it with what the Bible says, we may be able to get a good grasp of what the Bible has to say about money.

In a section entitled “The Most Marketable Commodity,” North makes an excellent point: “There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that gold and silver became money metals because Abraham, Moses, David, or any other political leader announced one afternoon: ‘From now on, gold is money!’... the State didn’t create money” (22). This is quite true. The Bible is the oldest and most reliable history book we have, and there is nothing in it to indicate that the state originally created money. Rather, the evidence is that stamped money and coins originated in the market, when merchants offered their own coins in trade.

This historical argument from the Old Testament, an argument that supports the idea that the origin of money was the market, not a government decree, is complemented by a moral argument from the New Testament. In the thirteenth chapter of Romans, the apostle Paul gives one and only one purpose of government. He writes: “He [the ruler] is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoers.” Paul does not regard government as provider of income, health care, education, national parks, money, or any of the other services common to our modem welfare states; its function is quite simple: to punish wrongdoers. Exactly which wrongs to punish and which punishments to impose must be settled by appeals to other Biblical texts, but it is clear that Paul has something like the much despised night watchman state of 19th century liberalism in mind.

This is a major teaching of the Bible about money. The Bible is our oldest and most reliable history book, and it indicates that money did not develop, at least in Israel, from government action but from the market. Second, in the New Testament this lack of participation by the government in furnishing money is reinforced by Paul’s failure to include management of monetary policy as one of the purposes of government.

Dr. North, unfortunately, even though he seems to understand the view just described, nevertheless advocates policies that contradict it. For example, on page 126 he urges the minting of “every ounce” of the federal government’s gold stockpile into “small gold coins.” Now the government owns approximately 263 million ounces of gold; if that stockpile were minted into one-half ounce coins, there would be 526 million such coins on the market, a number far greater than the total number of gold coins minted by the U.S. government from its inception to 1988. How such an enormous number would be sold is a mystery, and North seems to see the problem, for further down on the same page he makes this proposal: “simply take the 265 [sic] million ounces of gold, melt the gold into one-quarter ounce gold coins, and send four per person to every U.S. citizen. Any coins left over could then be sold.” It is likely that a market glut like this would simply result in a massive coin melt. However, a letter from Gary North as Secretary of the Treasury would be received far more enthusiastically than any number of letters from Ed McMahon promising a million dollars. Of course, understanding how things work in Washington, it would be the Members of Congress who would mail the coins out, not Gary North, and they would each take credit for this coin giveaway program.

What is more important, however, is that North advocates getting the government into the gold coin business in a big way. Had he stuck to the Biblical blueprint, he would have advocated the denationalization of the government’s gold stock as is, auctioning the ingots off to the highest bidders, and not a massive new coinage program which far exceeds the capacity of the U.S. Mint.

What is worse, I suppose, or at least equally bad, is North’s proposal for dealing with the debt problem. He writes:



We tell the bankers, “All right, boys, we all know the mess you’re in. You are sitting on top of a mountain of bad debts. You want out. The U.S. government is here to help you weather the storm. We will do a swap. You sell us your pile of Mexican and Brazilian bonds, and we will give you nice, safe 90-day Treasury bills in exchange. You get your portfolios liquid again. We will take all that lousy debt you’re sitting on, which you know will never be paid off, and you get in its place interest paying T-bills. You can even sell them if you want - there’s a market for them....”

This would bail out the big banks....

What about the small rural banks? What’s in it for them? Give them the same deal with any remaining T-bills. Swap their lousy farm mortgages for nice, liquid T-bills.



All of this comes under the heading “Increased reserve requirements.” North is a proponent of one hundred percent reserve requirements, and this bailout of the entire banking system is the quid pro quo for imposing increasing reserve requirements on the banks - 5% more each year for 20 years he suggests - until we achieve “the re-establishment of honest, 100% reserve banking.”

Unfortunately, there isn’t anything in the Bible legitimizing such massive government bailouts of banks, as we have already seen. North has strayed far from the Biblical blueprint for money and banking in his proposals. The reason is not simply that he is ignoring what the Bible says about the role of government, but also that he misunderstands what the Bible says about money and banking. Nowhere does the Bible condemn fractional reserve banking. Nowhere is government given the authority to regulate reserve requirements. When pressed on this point, North refers to one passage of Scripture which reads:

If you ever take your neighbor’s garment as a pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes down. For that is his only covering, it is his garment for his skin. What will he sleep in? And it will be that when he cries to Me, I will hear, for I am gracious (Ex. 22:26-27).

That is the only passage in the Bible that North has found that he says condemns fractional reserve banking. Unfortunately, the passage has little to do with banking, and nothing to do with fractional reserves. North himself admits that “the context of this verse is the general prohibition of interest taken from a poor fellow believer.... This is not a business loan” (80). Therefore, on North’s own premises, the Biblical blueprint for money and banking does not include any condemnation of fractional reserve banking.

The distinction that North is making here, even though the passage is irrelevant to fractional reserve banking, is a useful and legitimate distinction: the distinction between charity loans and business loans. The failure to recognize this distinction in what the Bible teaches has led some to conclude that the Bible condemns all interest taking as immoral and implies that it should be illegal as well. North does not make that mistake; he makes another. According to the Bible, taking interest on business loans in not immoral, but taking interest on charity loans is.* After all, charity loans are supposed to be just that: charity. What many, although not North, sometimes fail to realize is that not everything the Bible condemns as immoral is intended to be illegal as well. Those sins that are also crimes are made clear in the Old Testament by the imposition of civil penalties for the crimes. If there is no penalty imposed, then the action, however immoral, is not a crime. Oddly enough, North realizes this, but the proposals he advocates contradict what he understands the Bible to teach. Once again he has wandered from the Biblical blueprint for money and banking. Taking interest on business loans is neither a crime nor a sin. Taking interest on charity loans, while a sin, is not a crime. There is no support whatsoever in Scripture for usury laws, or for laws regulating bank reserve requirements.

On another page, North, like many other economists, confuses bank deposit books with warehouse receipts. The two are quite different. For one thing, a warehouse does not pay interest on things left on deposit. Rather, the depositor pays the warehouse for the service it is performing. Second, a person using a warehouse expects to receive exactly what he deposited; no bank customer expects to receive exactly what he deposited. He does not expect to withdraw Federal Reserve notes with the same serial numbers that he deposited. Nor does he expect to receive the checks that he deposited either. He expects to receive either currency or a good check for the same number of monetary units (plus interest) that he deposited according to the terms under which the deposit was made. Only if he does not, or only if the bank obtains additional monetary units by political rather than economic means, is there any warrant for accusing the bank of fraud.

A third difference between banks and warehouses appears in that many banks are in the warehousing business in addition to being in the banking business: They rent safe deposit boxes. The distinction between banking and warehousing seems implicit in Christ’s parable of the talents:



Again, the kingdom of Heaven will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability [Marxists, please note.] Then he went on his journey. The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. But the man who had received the talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.

After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. “Master,” he said, “you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.” His master replied, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness! The man with the two talents also came. “Master,” he said, “you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.”

His master replied, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!”

Then the man who had received the one talent came. “Master,” he said, I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.”

His master replied, “You wicked, lazy servant! So you know what I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposits with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

“Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. And throw the worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”


It seems that the worthless servant warehoused his talent, when he should have banked it. For that he was condemned to darkness and weeping.

This particular passage of Scripture incidentally makes a point that I mentioned earlier and that bears repeating: Money in the Bible is a weight of metal. A talent was a certain weight of silver. Now this historical fact does not require money to be a weight of silver or even of metal. An ought cannot be derived from an is, despite what some empiricists tell us. Of course one of the greatest empiricists, David Hume, recognized quite clearly the illogicality of trying to deduce an imperative sentence from an indicative sentence. But it does lead to another major teaching of the Bible on money: If money consists of weights, and throughout history it usually has, then the money must be full-bodied; less than honest weights constitute fraud. There are several passages on this point in the Bible:



You shall do no injustice in judgment, in measurement of length, weight, or volume. You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin: I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt (Leviticus 19:35-36).



[Here is God’s condemnation of Israel through the prophet Isaiah:] Your silver has become dross, your wine mixed with water (Isaiah 1:22).



The Lord abhors dishonest scales, but accurate weights are his delight (Proverbs 11:1).



The Lord detests differing weights, and dishonest scales do not please him (Proverbs 20:23).



Do not have two differing weights in your bag - one heavy, one light. Do not have two differing measures in your house - one large, one small. You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you (Deuteronomy 25:13-15).


Any use of fraudulent weights was subject to the penalties imposed for theft: at least double restitution, with the ultimate penalty being required for recidivism. But again it would seem that there were no regulatory police in ancient Israel; the buyers and sellers were responsible for making sure that they were not being cheated, and if detected in fraud, a person was subject to stiff penalties. Biblical law follows the principle of punishing wrongdoers rather than trying to regulate everyone in the hope of preventing wrong doing.**

One thing that follows from the restricted Biblical role of government with regard to money and banking is the absence of legal tender laws. I wish to make clear what I mean by legal tender, since it seems to have at least two different meanings. Of course, if a government is to collect taxes or payments of any sort, it must specify acceptable forms of payment. This is one meaning of legal tender. In the early years of the American Republic, this problem was solved by the government publishing a list of monies in which it would accept payment. It did not restrict payment to one form of money, but published a rather long list of acceptable means of payment. One of the reforms that we can advocate is that the government of the United States publish such an extensive list again - in fact, that the government publish a list permitting payments not only in monies denominated in dollars, but in monies denominated in ounces, grams, yen, marks, gold standard units, or what have you. This would go far in encouraging monetary freedom.

But there is another meaning of the phrase legal tender: Usually it means that a creditor is compelled to accept whatever the government has declared to be tender as payment for outstanding debts. Each Federal Reserve note bears the words, “This note is legal tender for all debts public and private.” Those words mean that a creditor must accept them in payment. It makes little difference that the creditor may have a contract calling for payment in something else, for the courts do not, as a rule, order specific performance of contracts in 1989. Perhaps at one time they did. But today a creditor is compelled to accept the government paper as payment.

There is no warrant for this sort of legal tender in the Bible. Rather, the clear implication is that the parties to a contract may set the terms of the contract, so long as they are not illegal in themselves, and those terms must be abided by. The Bible praises the man who makes a promise and keeps it, even though he might be injured by keeping it. It condemns the man who welshes on a deal, or seeks to substitute something of lesser value for that which he promised to deliver. Legal tender laws are an institutionalized form of welshing on debts.

Finally, there is another aspect of money and the Bible that we ought to consider: money as mammon. Everyone knows that the Bible strongly condemns mammon, and many people equate mammon with money. The two, however, are not the same. Mammon is money worshipped. That is why Christ said, “You cannot serve God and Mammon.” Mammon is money become an idol, and even beneficial things can become instruments of destruction if they are regarded more highly than they ought to be. The Bible condemns all forms of idolatry, including the idolatry of money. Ayn Rand did not understand that when she wrote her books, but I am sure that she has a better understanding of it now.

In conclusion, what can we say about money, freedom, and the Bible? I’d simply like to suggest that the men who lived two centuries ago had a better understanding of money and freedom because they understood the Bible better than we do today. We are singularly blessed to live under a document that is largely based on the principles of government found in the Bible, and if we wish to restore monetary freedom, we will once again have to understand and believe the Bible.

[heavenlyboy34]

Ron Paul never suggested that the U.S. should Nationalize Banks.
READ what I wrote, Frank.

[FrankRep]

READ what I wrote, Frank.

I did read it and I think you're wrong. "This is not far removed from nationalizing the banking system." The Federal Reserve and Private banks are completely different things. The Federal Reserve (Central Bank) should be abolished, but leave the Private Banks alone.

[enhanced_deficit]

In a thread in FP section couple of weeks ago I got the impression that you may not be fully aware of Ron Paul's views on foreign policy. So you agree with Ron Paul's views below on mideast policy?

Quote:
Ron Paul says Israeli embargo of Gaza that is almost like a concentartion camp is equivalent of an act of war and US is morally responsible because we finance Israel's occupation of Palestinians. And that it creates blowback economic/emotional drainage for US and contributes to global instability.

Insightful words on foreign policy. Perhaps straight talk like this is the reason that neocons and religious extremists/dogmatic rapture ready fundies would never support his non-interventionist foreign policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTpJOVhIxWc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08gTWqWrI4M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb3vF6Vcjr0


Same question goes to Ms Palin and Obama pupms in case they are reading this.

[heavenlyboy34]

I did read it and I think you're wrong. "This is not far removed from nationalizing the banking system." The Federal Reserve and Private banks are completely different things. The Federal Reserve (Central Bank) should be abolished, but leave the Private Banks alone.
It's not what "I" think-it's what RP thinks. Hence the FED audit work. I think the FED should be abolished. I know the FED and private banks are different. That's got nothing to do with what I said. I said nationalized banks and central banking (via the FED) aren't that different in practice. RP's theory of giving congress oversight of the FED is, in practice, nationalization of banks-as the authority over the central bank would be nationalized (in the hands of congress).