Judge Nap: For the first Time in Modern Era We Have President Who Is Adversary of Deep State

[timosman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRZO4SiXWZQ

[Jamesiv1]

For the first time in the modern era we have a President who is an adversary of the Deep State rather than a tool of it.
The Judge nails it as he does pretty much all the damn time.

[AZJoe]

https://i.imgtc.com/4oshi65.jpg

[CPUd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkKxO2WWIwE

[Created4]

https://i.imgtc.com/4oshi65.jpg

Interesting comparison AZJ.

The difference, of course, is that Kennedy was a politician, whereas Trump is(was) not. Trump became wealthy and powerful outside of politics.

Is there an actual definition of "deep state" somewhere (non-wiki) that is generally accepted as it applies to the U.S.?

I think most here recognize that the PTB resides with bankers and controlled by the Federal Reserve. I am assuming that however one defines "deep state" that it operates below the control of the bankers. The bankers are probably OK with Trump (they have some of their key people in his administration), hence his fate is probably not going to be the same as the Kennedys.

[H. E. Panqui]

the PTB resides with bankers and is controlled by the Federal Reserve. I am assuming that however one defines "deep state" that it operates below the control of the bankers. The bankers are probably OK with Trump (they have some of their key people in his administration), hence his fate is probably not going to be the same as the Kennedys.

...i agree...trump, to my knowledge, has never uttered a cogent repudiation of 'our' :rolleyes: hideous monetary order...despite his alleged iq of 152 :rolleyes: he appears as clueless as a slow 5th grader regarding this monstrou$ $curge...same with all the numbskulls who voted for/support him and those who voted for/support any of the other numbskulls on the ballot...

...the upcoming 'debt ceiling debate' :rolleyes: would be a great time to FINALLY have an honest public di$cussion..but alas 'the media' [and everyone else] operates 'below the banksters'..and the banksters have been thorough in making sure anyone with knowledge and guts is denied the microphone...just republicrat idiot after republicrat idiot working their holes about illion$..absent an honest clue as to the hideous origin and nature of even one!...same old..

...i understand a lot of people like this 'judge napolitano'..i will note i have heard him say many things...but, to my knowledge, he has NEVER uttered a cogent, truly knowledgeble condemnation of this stinking monetary order under which we are en$laved...he appears as yet another cheerleader for the stinking republicans/conservatives who fancies himself some 'libertarian' :rolleyes: ...['democrat/liberal bad, republican/conservative not as bad'..vote republican/conservative']...ugh...

[osan]

https://i.imgtc.com/4oshi65.jpg

Rather, the CIA splintered Jack's head and scattered it to the back seat.

The correct way to defang the CIA is with troops in a coordinated apprehension and immediate shutdown, warrants in hand on a treason basis. Then immediate rendition to Gitmo and summary mass execution. Anything less and you may as well hang the "shoot me" sign your back.

Short of killing all of the key players in summary fashion, there is no point in even thinking about such things. CIA takes a decidedly grim view of any challenge to their position in the scheme of things. Any such interactions are perforce of the "kill or be killed" variety. In for a penny, in for the treasury because half-measures = death. Even full-monty is ultimately risky.

[Ender]

Interesting comparison AZJ.

The difference, of course, is that Kennedy was a politician, whereas Trump is(was) not. Trump became wealthy and powerful outside of politics.

Is there an actual definition of "deep state" somewhere (non-wiki) that is generally accepted as it applies to the U.S.?

I think most here recognize that the PTB resides with bankers and controlled by the Federal Reserve. I am assuming that however one defines "deep state" that it operates below the control of the bankers. The bankers are probably OK with Trump (they have some of their key people in his administration), hence his fate is probably not going to be the same as the Kennedys.

Kennedy was a playboy who woke up- we all know the consequences of that.

[loveshiscountry]

the PTB resides with bankers and is controlled by the Federal Reserve. I am assuming that however one defines "deep state" that it operates below the control of the bankers. The bankers are probably OK with Trump (they have some of their key people in his administration), hence his fate is probably not going to be the same as the Kennedys.

...i agree...trump, to my knowledge, has never uttered a cogent repudiation of 'our' :rolleyes: hideous monetary order...despite his alleged iq of 152 :rolleyes: he appears as clueless as a slow 5th grader regarding this monstrou$ $curge...same with all the numbskulls who voted for/support him and those who voted for/support any of the other numbskulls on the ballot...

...the upcoming 'debt ceiling debate' :rolleyes: would be a great time to FINALLY have an honest public di$cussion..but alas 'the media' [and everyone else] operates 'below the banksters'..and the banksters have been thorough in making sure anyone with knowledge and guts is denied the microphone...just republicrat idiot after republicrat idiot working their holes about illion$..absent an honest clue as to the hideous origin and nature of even one!...same old..

...i understand a lot of people like this 'judge napolitano'..i will note i have heard him say many things...but, to my knowledge, he has NEVER uttered a cogent, truly knowledgeble condemnation of this stinking monetary order under which we are en$laved...he appears as yet another cheerleader for the stinking republicans/conservatives who fancies himself some 'libertarian' :rolleyes: ...['democrat/liberal bad, republican/conservative not as bad'..vote republican/conservative']...ugh...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUUZ4D7OcT4

When he had his show Freedom Watch we saw a lot more of him.

[juleswin]

This man is chipping away at the very little credibility he has left. This is way too early for anyone to be making such declarations about Trump. Sad that he has drank the koolaid of this new president.

[donnay]

This man is chipping away at the very little credibility he has left. This is way too early for anyone to be making such declarations about Trump. Sad that he has drank the koolaid of this new president.

Chipping away at the very little credibility he has left? Drank the koolaid? :rolleyes:

[H. E. Panqui]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUUZ4D7OcT4

When he had his show Freedom Watch we saw a lot more of him.

...see this is what i mean..at around 1min. 16 sec. the republican-cheerleading monetary ignoramus/mythologist, 'judge nap,' asks rhetorically [and ignorantly], 'So why is it that people who advocate for a free market in everyhing else don't support a free market in money? Ask yourself why we don't allow the government to set the price of shoes or bread or chocolate but we do allow the government to determine the price or the value of money...."

....napsters and other republicrat monetary ignoramuses, i refer you to art 1, sec. 8, clause 5 of the very constitution about which judge nap frequently bloviates:...[The Congress shall have Power] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

[juleswin]

Chipping away at the very little credibility he has left? Drank the koolaid? :rolleyes:

What I am trying to say is that the man has jumped the shark. He is behaving like we haven't been through this before. A man comes onto the stage, makes promises on how he is different from everybody else then says something radical while his actions are in line with the people who he has denounced on his way to the throne. This story has been played out a 100x over, a more sensible person would hold off his praises until he actually impresses him with actions.

Also, I don't have any heros or heroines in the life anymore apart from my parents, nobody else gets a pass from me. I would use the same level of scrutiny when assessing their work and action that I reserve for people like McCain and Bush.

[Zippyjuan]

This man is chipping away at the very little credibility he has left. This is way too early for anyone to be making such declarations about Trump. Sad that he has drank the koolaid of this new president.

Trump has certainly filled his cabinet with the usual generals, insiders, and Wall Streeters. Actually he has more of them than usual. He isn't opposed to the old guard- he has many of them working for him. Every president promises change. Reagan, (GW Bush was pretty much a continuation of Reagan), Clinton, Bush, Obama. They were going to create more jobs, be friends with Russia, end wars, cut taxes. Get tough on immigration.

[anaconda]

Nap should be on the SCOTUS or AG.

[anaconda]

Gotta love Lou Dobbs.

[anaconda]

Say what you will about Trump. I did not consider him an acceptable candidate. But this nasty stuff is finally becoming main stream. And it's hugely significant. It's almost like we got Cynthia McKinney as President. Could do a HELL of a lot worse.

[anaconda]

Kennedy was a playboy who woke up- we all know the consequences of that.

Agreed. Looks like this was the case.

[anaconda]

Trump has certainly filled his cabinet with the usual generals, insiders, and Wall Streeters. Actually he has more of them than usual. He isn't opposed to the old guard- he has many of them working for him. Every president promises change. Reagan, (GW Bush was pretty much a continuation of Reagan), Clinton, Bush, Obama. They were going to create more jobs, be friends with Russia, end wars, cut taxes. Get tough on immigration.

Respectfully, you may be lumping Trump into a community of yes men where it is not a very good analogy. For better or worse, Trump appears to be going completely rogue. This is rather unique.

[dannno]

What I am trying to say is that the man has jumped the shark. He is behaving like we haven't been through this before. A man comes onto the stage, makes promises on how he is different from everybody else then says something radical while his actions are in line with the people who he has denounced on his way to the throne. This story has been played out a 100x over, a more sensible person would hold off his praises until he actually impresses him with actions.

Also, I don't have any heros or heroines in the life anymore apart from my parents, nobody else gets a pass from me. I would use the same level of scrutiny when assessing their work and action that I reserve for people like McCain and Bush.


He has met personally with Trump on several occasions and has had long, private discussions with the man. The Judge is a great guy. Infallible? No, but if this is what he thinks people here should take it seriously.

He might not be right, but I would suggest you guys hedge yourself more because he has a lot better insight into the man than you or cpud does..

[nikcers]

Respectfully, you may be lumping Trump into a community of yes men where it is not a very good analogy. For better or worse, Trump appears to be going completely rogue. This is rather unique.
ah yes Rogue that's why he let the neocon Pence get installed as VP. That's why he is promoting the House GOP bill. That's why he has locked up Hillary Clinton. That's why he has drained the swamp. That's why he has brought all the troops home from overseas. That's why he told the congress he would not sign any spending bills that do not balance the budget. That's why he said he wouldn't sign anything raising the debt ceiling.

[CPUd]

He'll bring those troops home just as soon as they wipe out ISIS, hopefully.

[Ender]

I love the Judge but I do not agree with his POV on Trump.

Time will tell..........

[loveshiscountry]

...see this is what i mean..at around 1min. 16 sec. the republican-cheerleading monetary ignoramus/mythologist, 'judge nap,' asks rhetorically [and ignorantly], 'So why is it that people who advocate for a free market in everyhing else don't support a free market in money? Ask yourself why we don't allow the government to set the price of shoes or bread or chocolate but we do allow the government to determine the price or the value of money...."

....napsters and other republicrat monetary ignoramuses, i refer you to art 1, sec. 8, clause 5 of the very constitution about which judge nap frequently bloviates:...[The Congress shall have Power] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;


Congress not the Federal Reserve.
Coin. Isn't it about the value of the metal in the actual coin and not about paper money?

[UWDude]

This man is chipping away at the very little credibility he has left. This is way too early for anyone to be making such declarations about Trump. Sad that he has drank the koolaid of this new president.


Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling…makes no difference. The degree is arbitrary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another, I’d rather not choose at all. Geralt of Rivia



Also, I don't have any heros or heroines in the life anymore apart from my parents, nobody else gets a pass from me. I would use the same level of scrutiny when assessing their work and action that I reserve for people like McCain and Bush.

But I am quoting a video game character, as if it is relevant to real life.


He has met personally with Trump on several occasions and has had long, private discussions with the man. The Judge is a great guy. Infallible? No, but if this is what he thinks people here should take it seriously.

Ron Paul and themselves are the only people half the people here think are qualified ot be president.
And interesting thread was when I asked member who they would install into cabinet positions.
It was frankly a pathetic display of how many here know how to do nothing but complain, without even having any real world solutions.

[Ender]

Congress not the Federal Reserve.
Coin. Isn't it about the value of the metal in the actual coin and not about paper money?

No.

A dollar used to be backed by gold plus there was no fractional banking until the FED. A paper dollar was backed by gold.

Also- metal in the coins of today is pretty worthless. The most valuable coin is actually the nickle, which is still worth more than 5 cents.

[loveshiscountry]

No.

A dollar used to be backed by gold plus there was no fractional banking until the FED. A paper dollar was backed by gold.

Also- metal in the coins of today is pretty worthless. The most valuable coin is actually the nickle, which is still worth more than 5 cents.I was talking about back in the day, the founders intentions.

[Ender]

I was talking about back in the day, the founders intentions.

Paper dollars were around then and were still backed by gold.

[agitator]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6gMkKmQSW4

[juleswin]

He has met personally with Trump on several occasions and has had long, private discussions with the man. The Judge is a great guy. Infallible? No, but if this is what he thinks people here should take it seriously.

He might not be right, but I would suggest you guys hedge yourself more because he has a lot better insight into the man than you or cpud does..

Talk is cheap, I think trump is taking the naive judge for a ride. You put yourself and your reputation at risk by saying something this extreme just 3 months into his presidency. His statement may end up to be true but he doesn't really have any concrete evidence backing him up.

I am hedging myself when it comes to Trump, the memory of calling the elections wrong is still fresh in my memory. I think he would be a sh*t president but I would hold off on my criticisms until he says or does something stupid. With him saying something stupid, I would take his word for it as opposed to when he says something good. At that point I will wait for the evidence of follow through action before praising him

[CPUd]

No.

A dollar used to be backed by gold plus there was no fractional banking until the FED. A paper dollar was backed by gold.

Also- metal in the coins of today is pretty worthless. The most valuable coin is actually the nickle, which is still worth more than 5 cents.

those coins are being hoarded by oyarde. Pick up some colonial scrip instead.

[loveshiscountry]

Paper dollars were around then and were still backed by gold. Paper dollars were not government deemed legal tender for private debts. Although I'm sure it was used as such by individuals.
Backed by gold. Ease of exchange with paper, that's all.

[Ender]

Paper dollars were not government deemed legal tender for private debts. Although I'm sure it was used as such by individuals.
Backed by gold. Ease of exchange with paper, that's all.

On February 3, 1690, the Massachusetts Bay Colony issued the first paper money in the U.S., in order to pay for its war. Massachusetts was a truly pioneering colony when it came to money. They were also the first to mint their own silver coins in 1652, despite a British law against it. The paper money created in 1690 was called a bill of credit, and represented the colony's obligation to the soldiers. The soldiers could spend/trade the colony's IOU just like silver and gold coins.

During the revolution of 1775, the colonial leaders tried to repeat Massachusetts' paper experiment on a wider scale, but the newly christened continentals lacked any backing, such as silver or gold. On a small scale it may have worked, but so much money was printed that rapid inflation stripped them of all their value.

Less than 100 years later, two competing currencies were used to finance the opposing sides of the Civil War. Their values fluctuated with the fortunes of war. It wasn't until the National Banks Act after the civil war that the U.S. government introduced a monetary system where banks could issue paper notes based on their holding of government bonds. These disparate currencies were taxed out of existence in the following decades and replaced with national bank notes, giving the U.S. its first uniform paper currency.

Read more: When did the U.S. start using paper money? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/paper-money-usa.asp#ixzz4b5Rw3av6
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

[KEEF]

On February 3, 1690, the Massachusetts Bay Colony issued the first paper money in the U.S., in order to pay for its war. Massachusetts was a truly pioneering colony when it came to money. They were also the first to mint their own silver coins in 1652, despite a British law against it. The paper money created in 1690 was called a bill of credit, and represented the colony's obligation to the soldiers. The soldiers could spend/trade the colony's IOU just like silver and gold coins.

During the revolution of 1775, the colonial leaders tried to repeat Massachusetts' paper experiment on a wider scale, but the newly christened continentals lacked any backing, such as silver or gold. On a small scale it may have worked, but so much money was printed that rapid inflation stripped them of all their value.

Less than 100 years later, two competing currencies were used to finance the opposing sides of the Civil War. Their values fluctuated with the fortunes of war. It wasn't until the National Banks Act after the civil war that the U.S. government introduced a monetary system where banks could issue paper notes based on their holding of government bonds. These disparate currencies were taxed out of existence in the following decades and replaced with national bank notes, giving the U.S. its first uniform paper currency.

Read more: When did the U.S. start using paper money? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/paper-money-usa.asp#ixzz4b5Rw3av6
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
+1 Thanks for the history lesson, love to learn!

I just need to spread some rep around first. Could someone hook him up for me?

[loveshiscountry]

On February 3, 1690, the Massachusetts Bay Colony issued the first paper money in the U.S., in order to pay for its war. Massachusetts was a truly pioneering colony when it came to money. They were also the first to mint their own silver coins in 1652, despite a British law against it. The paper money created in 1690 was called a bill of credit, and represented the colony's obligation to the soldiers. The soldiers could spend/trade the colony's IOU just like silver and gold coins.

During the revolution of 1775, the colonial leaders tried to repeat Massachusetts' paper experiment on a wider scale, but the newly christened continentals lacked any backing, such as silver or gold. On a small scale it may have worked, but so much money was printed that rapid inflation stripped them of all their value.

Less than 100 years later, two competing currencies were used to finance the opposing sides of the Civil War. Their values fluctuated with the fortunes of war. It wasn't until the National Banks Act after the civil war that the U.S. government introduced a monetary system where banks could issue paper notes based on their holding of government bonds. These disparate currencies were taxed out of existence in the following decades and replaced with national bank notes, giving the U.S. its first uniform paper currency.

Read more: When did the U.S. start using paper money? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/paper-money-usa.asp#ixzz4b5Rw3av6
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
We are talking Federal as well as the united states.
The confederate currency wasn't taxed out of existence. People didn't want it as it had no value.

[enhanced_deficit]

If this is confirmed, Trump could face more attacks from the deep end.

[UWDude]

Chipping away at the very little credibility he has left? Drank the koolaid? :rolleyes:

Wow. Trump is a lithmus test. Throw away Napolitano.

[UWDude]

Talk is cheap, I think trump is taking the naive judge for a ride. You put yourself and your reputation at risk by saying something this extreme just 3 months into his presidency. His statement may end up to be true but he doesn't really have any concrete evidence backing him up.

I am hedging myself when it comes to Trump, the memory of calling the elections wrong is still fresh in my memory. I think he would be a sh*t president but I would hold off on my criticisms until he says or does something stupid. With him saying something stupid, I would take his word for it as opposed to when he says something good. At that point I will wait for the evidence of follow through action before praising him

If Trump fails, it's GG. He has already been wounded by the big Russia lie. Very well planned propaganda campaign, by the way. It demonized Russia any way you cut it, and made it very difficult for Trump to negotiate with Russia without howls of "SEE, I TOLD YOU SO! I TOLD YOU SO! HE IS IS IN LEAGUE WITH THE RUSSIANS!" Because he should be. Putin is one of the very few adults left in a world of clowns, aka entertainers aka actors aka professional politicians.

Some just cant see the propaganda campaigns, and their aims. When you see propaganda, it will clearly spell out the objective for you eventually. War pigs want war. Big war, big bloody billion buck battles.

United States has been on a bloody and wreckless, and ultimately doomed path for 70 years. I find it hard to believe we can avoid pain. Live by the sword, die by the sword, and all that.

[CPUd]

1000% CIA support confirmed


Trump Gave CIA Power to Launch Drone Strikes

New authority departs from Obama-era policy under which only the Pentagon conducted the operations

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump has given the Central Intelligence Agency secret new authority to conduct drone strikes against suspected terrorists, U.S. officials said, changing the Obama administration’s policy of limiting the spy agency’s paramilitary role and reopening a turf war between the agency and the Pentagon.

The new authority, which hadn’t been previously disclosed, represents a significant departure from a cooperative approach that had become standard practice by the end of former President Barack Obama’s tenure: The CIA used drones and other intelligence resources to locate suspected terrorists and then the military conducted the actual strike. The U.S. drone strike that killed Taliban leader Mullah Mansour in May 2016 in Pakistan was the best example of that hybrid approach, U.S. officials said.

The Obama administration put the military in charge of pulling the trigger to promote transparency and accountability. The CIA, which operates under covert authorities, wasn’t required to disclose the number of suspected terrorists or civilian bystanders it killed in drone strikes. The Pentagon, however, must publicly report most airstrikes.

Mr. Trump has indicated he wants to accelerate the fight against Islamic State and other militant groups. The CIA first used its new authority in late February in a strike on a senior al Qaeda leader in Syria, Abu al-Khayr al-Masri, U.S. officials said. The strike in northern Syria on Mr. Masri, a son-in-law of the late al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, had been reported, but it wasn’t previously known that the CIA had carried it out under the new authority. U.S. officials are still assessing results of the strike.

Spokesmen for the Pentagon and the CIA declined to comment.

While U.S. officials said Mr. Trump’s action specifically applied to the CIA’s ability to operate in Syria, it means the agency eventually could become empowered under Mr. Trump to once again conduct covert strikes in other places where the U.S. is targeting militants in Yemen, Libya, Somalia and elsewhere.

Syria may not be the only place where the CIA is now authorized to conduct drone strikes. Earlier this month, a U.S. drone reportedly targeted two men in a village in Pakistan near the border with Afghanistan. The Defense Department didn’t acknowledge conducting the operation, as it typically would.

Whether the CIA’s new authority might expand remains unclear. The CIA, the Pentagon and the White House are negotiating a longer-term approach to conducting counterterrorism operations and determining who has the authority to do what, U.S. officials said.

Mr. Trump provided the authority to the CIA not long after meeting with intelligence officials at the agency headquarters on Jan. 21, the day after he was inaugurated, the U.S. officials said. Mr. Trump’s nominee for director of the CIA, Mike Pompeo, had yet to be confirmed.

A White House spokesman declined to comment.

The Trump administration is also giving the military more authority to conduct operations on its own without first getting a signoff from the Pentagon or the White House.

The new president’s unexpected decision to give the CIA the strike authority created ferment inside the U.S. government within days of his visit, as U.S. military officials scrambled to respond to the new directive, according to the U.S. officials.

Mr. Trump’s new policy is sure to reignite the debate over targeted killing. Human rights groups believe the Defense Department, with its culture and legal requirement to be more publicly transparent and accountable, is where drone operations should be rooted.

“There are a lot of problems with the drone program and the targeted killing program, but the CIA should be out of the business of ordering lethal strikes,” said Christopher Anders, deputy director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Mr. Anders said the Pentagon should be used for such strikes because it is more publicly accountable to policy makers, members of Congress and the American public.

“It does not mean the CIA cannot have a role in assisting in the use of force in locating targets, but that decision on whether to strike or not to strike and that order should be coming from through the military chain of command,” he said. “The CIA should be a foreign intelligence gathering and analysis organization—not a paramilitary one.”

Under pressure by the ACLU, other human rights groups and others, Mr. Obama in 2013 began to push for more drone operations to be conducted by the Defense Department.

But the efforts to move those operations to the Defense Department ran into problems—a combination of interagency squabbling, budgetary competition and bureaucratic inertia.

Some members of Congress also resisted the effort to move drone operations into the sunlight. Members of the intelligence and armed services committees in the House and Senate traditionally have been eager to maintain their separate oversight of drone operations.

Members of the intelligence committees, for example, generally favor a paramilitary CIA role, and believe they are best positioned to conduct oversight of secret operations, while members of the armed services committees argue the military should control the mission.

In the meantime, Mr. Trump’s move has fueled the competition that exists between the CIA and Pentagon over conducting lethal counterterrorism operations, according to the U.S. officials.

Both agencies take steps to determine the validity of targets before striking. When it comes to vetting targets, the CIA uses a higher, or “near certainty,” standard, while the Defense Department relies on “reasonable certainty” in war zones, though it adheres to the higher standard when operating elsewhere.

As a result, providing more authority to the CIA to conduct strikes could undermine Mr. Trump’s directive to accelerate the fight against Islamic State, al Qaeda and other militant groups because the CIA is thought to be more deliberative in its process, according to current and former U.S. officials.

It is also possible, however, that the pace of strikes could increase as the CIA is given a freer hand to operate on its own and not rely on the military to conduct a strike.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-gave-cia-power-to-launch-drone-strikes-1489444374

[H. E. Panqui]

Congress not the Federal Reserve.
Coin. Isn't it about the value of the metal in the actual coin and not about paper money?

...'the legal value' of the metal/gold 'dollar' or 'dollar of gold' is declared by 'fiat'...just like 'the paper dollar,' 'the digital dollar,' etc.,..

...but again, one very important point NEVER honestly discussed by republicrats is 'WHO GETS TO USE ANY NEWLY-CREATED MONEY IN THE FIRST ROUND OF SPENDING' (hint for republicrats, etc. assorted monetary ignoramuses and mythologists: ...getting to use the money in 'the first round of spending' and having exclu$ive in$ide information as to the future condition of the money supply, etc., is a $weet gig for 'the bankster$'..)

...as one wag put it, "If Congress has the right under the constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to be used by themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations."

...merely declaring 'gold as money' or 'going back' :rolleyes: to some mythical 'gold standard' :rolleyes: will result in the population MORE drained by the fang of vampiric bankster$ and their bizarre and demonic puppet$ galore....

...what drew me to ron paul as much as anything was his apparent desire for COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY regarding 'government'...and i will vociferously contend that the original issuance of 'money' is 'the supreme prerogative of TRANSPARENT 'government,' NOT SECRET-SQUIRREL BANKSTERS'..

[Mordan]

most people here complaining are old anarchists. Like the left, they will criticize Trump for not doing enough.

How can Trump take head on the federal reserve????? Half the country including some libertarians are adamant Trump is a Putin puppet.

Trump's cabinet is very friendly to Bitcoin, the closest we have for Competing Currencies. Even Ron Paul acknowledged that recently in a Youtube video.

I sit and enjoy Trump. He will be the greatest president. The fact he has to earn it by having half the country and 90% of the media against him, solidify his legend. Take a look at youtube videos about how Trump won against all odds.

[MallsRGood]

This man is chipping away at the very little credibility he has left.

I could let it slide if I thought he was playing this strategically, as Rand clearly is, but he's not.

Napolitano isn't a strategic thinker, or a sell-out.

He genuinely believes this.

...which makes him hopelessly naive.

Much like Woods or Raimondo.

...very disappointing.

[nikcers]

I could let it slide if I thought he was playing this strategically, as Rand clearly is, but he's not.

Napolitano isn't a strategic thinker, or a sell-out.

He genuinely believes this.

...which makes him hopelessly naive.

Much like Woods or Raimondo.

...very disappointing.
I think he is arguing the logical conclusion, this whole Trump narrative plays right into what Napolitano has been saying, except he was getting censored and labeled as a crank for saying it, now he is getting vindicated. If Trump can convert people into anti deep state because he is trying to cover up his deep stateness then Napolitano can still be anti deep state and pro Trump because all this does is vindicate what he has been saying if you watch his "what if" speech you will see even if Trump gets outted he gets even more vindication.

[Zippyjuan]

He'll bring those troops home just as soon as they wipe out ISIS, hopefully.

And Iran and Korea and the other "Axis of Evil" countries dealt with. Wait- wasn't that a Bush thing? (Trump isn't using the "Axis of Evil" term but threatens the same countries).

[AZJoe]

I could let it slide if I thought he was playing this strategically, as Rand clearly is, but he's not.

Napolitano isn't a strategic thinker, or a sell-out.

He genuinely believes this.

...which makes him hopelessly naive.

Much like Woods or Raimondo.

...very disappointing.

Malls is stuck in a false dichotomy that one must be a libertarian advocate in order to be an adversary of the deep state. That of course is false. One can be a power loving power monger and still be an adverse to the deep state. It has become blatantly obvious that the deep state is adverse to Trump. There is no doubt that Trump is an adversary (perhaps unwillingly) of the current deep state - between the media hysterics, the conniption spasms of the neocons, the discredited Russian accomplice conspiracy, the deep state selective leaks for targeted political assassination, and their deep state PR mouthpieces the WaPo and NYT. This does not mean Trump does not desire to wield centralized power. It does not mean he is a libertarian avenger. It merely means he does not wish to simply do the bidding of the deep state. Rather he wishes to use power in means that do not align with the deep state desires.

For instance breaking up international bureaucratic managed trade agreements, instituting protectionists measures that do not align with the prior deep state measures, promoting nationalism, the America First motto, while still warmongering in the middle east advocating piece with Russia which really gets grates the deep state, limiting immigration - particularly illegal immigration, calling out the CIA, calling out the wiretapping (not that he wants to get rid of the Patriot Act or the NSA - he proposes increased funding, but using it in means that don't correlate with current deep state objectives.), not to mention the criticism of the Fed, statements to audit the Fed, positive comments about gold money, gold backed currency, criticism of NATO, - all these things that do not coincide with the deep state's path to date. It is a hodge podge of populist style objectives without consistent principals. Some of these are beneficial, some are detrimental. Nevertheless they do not correlate with the fixed deep state path we have witnessed over these past decades.

This does not make Trump a libertarian advocate, nor a good president; Merely far less bad than Hitlary and many others. What this does makes Trump is indisputably an adversary of the current Deep State.

Do not let your personal emotional dislike of the man, blind you to the reality that the deep state also shares a hatred for Trump. The good Judge Napolitano is absolutely correct in his statement. Being an adversary of the Deep State, however, does not make one automatically a friend of liberty. The enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend. But it can still be a tool to be used- a tool to help break the deep state. The deep state threat is of course far greater than a single elected president. Criticize Trump where he is incorrect, like protectionist trade barriers. But there is no shortage of criticism of Trump between the Deep State itself, the entire mainstream media, the neocon syndicates, the Democratic Party (who have now become champions of the neocons, CIA, FBI, military industrial complex), at least half of the Republican party elite, as well as the libertarians. As an inadvertent benefit, at least now the fake antiwar "only when its not a democrat war" left will be back to make noise over some of the foreign engagements. Another inadvertent benefit is maybe even Congress will take some action to reign in executive power. I'd like to see them take back their unlawful delegation of war power. A third inadvertent benefit of the Trump presidency is we are starting to see leftists embrace state sovereignty and tenth amendment. Of course for the leftists unfortunately, it is an embrace of convenience for temporary political objectives, not for either Constitutional or libertarian understanding.

On the flip side, however, we should also encourage whenever Trump happens to push, spout or stumble into something correct. Separate the man from individual issues. Support peace with Russia. Support the criticism of the Fed and calls to audit it. Speak out and support movements forward to constitutional money, or the recognition of gold or other hard currencies that cannot simply be generated at will. But most of all to take advantage of the conflict between the Trump nationalists and the Deep State, support any actions to expose the NSA, CIA, MIC, deep state, and any actions to limit their power, reign in their abuses, and, extra-constitutional activities both in the USA and worldwide, any actions to discredit and destroy the neocon establishment. Any limitations to the deep state and its rogue agencies is a positive. However if nothing else came of this administration except to avoid conflict with Russia, that is still a great success for humanity. The deep state threat is of course far greater than a single elected president, who is minuscule by comparison. Push the focus and limelight on the Deep State, CIA, NSA as much as possible.

[nikcers]

Malls is stuck in a false dichotomy that one must be a libertarian advocate in order to be an adversary of the deep state. That of course is false. One can be a power loving power monger and still be an adverse to the deep state. It has become blatantly obvious that the deep state is adverse to Trump.

Since when does the deep state make things obvious for us? I get what you are trying to say though, just because Trump hates diet coke, but really drinks diet coke. Judge napalitano is more effective if he just talks about how much they both hate diet coke. Infact he would probably be censored if he tried to say Trump loves diet coke.

[enhanced_deficit]

Speaking in metaphors for a minute, why Trump does not like deep dish pizza but other recent presidents, including the most recent one, seemed to like it.

[nikcers]

Speaking in metaphors for a minute, why Trump does not like deep dish pizza but other recent presidents, including the most recent one, seemed to like it.

I guess its just more rational that Napalitano has changed his mind now and doesn't think that the two parties are the same and designed to divide us into groups so they can not lose power. I guess he no longer thinks that they would silence people who are a threat to their power like they did him & Ron Paul...

[Gumba of Liberty]

Malls is stuck in a false dichotomy that one must be a libertarian advocate in order to be an adversary of the deep state. That of course is false. One can be a power loving power monger and still be an adverse to the deep state. It has become blatantly obvious that the deep state is adverse to Trump. There is no doubt that Trump is an adversary (perhaps unwillingly) of the current deep state - between the media hysterics, the conniption spasms of the neocons, the discredited Russian accomplice conspiracy, the deep state selective leaks for targeted political assassination, and their deep state PR mouthpieces the WaPo and NYT. This does not mean Trump does not desire to wield centralized power. It does not mean he is a libertarian avenger. It merely means he does not wish to simply do the bidding of the deep state. Rather he wishes to use power in means that do not align with the deep state desires.

For instance breaking up international bureaucratic managed trade agreements, instituting protectionists measures that do not align with the prior deep state measures, promoting nationalism, the America First motto, while still warmongering in the middle east advocating piece with Russia which really gets grates the deep state, limiting immigration - particularly illegal immigration, calling out the CIA, calling out the wiretapping (not that he wants to get rid of the Patriot Act or the NSA - he proposes increased funding, but using it in means that don't correlate with current deep state objectives.), not to mention the criticism of the Fed, statements to audit the Fed, positive comments about gold money, gold backed currency, criticism of NATO, - all these things that do not coincide with the deep state's path to date. It is a hodge podge of populist style objectives without consistent principals. Some of these are beneficial, some are detrimental. Nevertheless they do not correlate with the fixed deep state path we have witnessed over these past decades.

This does not make Trump a libertarian advocate, nor a good president; Merely far less bad than Hitlary and many others. What this does makes Trump is indisputably an adversary of the current Deep State.

Do not let your personal emotional dislike of the man, blind you to the reality that the deep state also shares a hatred for Trump. The good Judge Napolitano is absolutely correct in his statement. Being an adversary of the Deep State, however, does not make one automatically a friend of liberty. The enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend. But it can still be a tool to be used- a tool to help break the deep state. The deep state threat is of course far greater than a single elected president. Criticize Trump where he is incorrect, like protectionist trade barriers. But there is no shortage of criticism of Trump between the Deep State itself, the entire mainstream media, the neocon syndicates, the Democratic Party (who have now become champions of the neocons, CIA, FBI, military industrial complex), at least half of the Republican party elite, as well as the libertarians. As an inadvertent benefit, at least now the fake antiwar "only when its not a democrat war" left will be back to make noise over some of the foreign engagements. Another inadvertent benefit is maybe even Congress will take some action to reign in executive power. I'd like to see them take back their unlawful delegation of war power. A third inadvertent benefit of the Trump presidency is we are starting to see leftists embrace state sovereignty and tenth amendment. Of course for the leftists unfortunately, it is an embrace of convenience for temporary political objectives, not for either Constitutional or libertarian understanding.

On the flip side, however, we should also encourage whenever Trump happens to push, spout or stumble into something correct. Separate the man from individual issues. Support peace with Russia. Support the criticism of the Fed and calls to audit it. Speak out and support movements forward to constitutional money, or the recognition of gold or other hard currencies that cannot simply be generated at will. But most of all to take advantage of the conflict between the Trump nationalists and the Deep State, support any actions to expose the NSA, CIA, MIC, deep state, and any actions to limit their power, reign in their abuses, and, extra-constitutional activities both in the USA and worldwide, any actions to discredit and destroy the neocon establishment. Any limitations to the deep state and its rogue agencies is a positive. However if nothing else came of this administration except to avoid conflict with Russia, that is still a great success for humanity. The deep state threat is of course far greater than a single elected president, who is minuscule by comparison. Push the focus and limelight on the Deep State, CIA, NSA as much as possible.

This.

+1

[nikcers]

This.

+1
Trump+1

[H. E. Panqui]

A dollar used to be backed by gold plus there was no fractional banking until the FED. A paper dollar was backed by gold.

...this is decidedly untrue if we believe the world's greatest living monetary historian, steve zarlenga...[if anyone knows of a more knowledgeable monetary historian, please name the name]

...in his great book, 'the lost science of money' zarlenga claims the stinking banksters were practicing 'fractional reserve deposit creation' [fraud] by issuing many more 'promises to redeem in gold' than the gold they held...[i've heard stories about gold being moved to branch banks, etc. 'just ahead of the bank examiner$']..

...as one wag put it, 'control over money is business number one for 'the fux'...is and always has been..

[Ender]

...this is decidedly untrue if we believe the world's greatest living monetary historian, steve zarlenga...[if anyone knows of a more knowledgeable monetary historian, please name the name]

...in his great book, 'the lost science of money' zarlenga claims the stinking banksters were practicing 'fractional reserve deposit creation' [fraud] by issuing many more 'promises to redeem in gold' than the gold they held...[i've heard stories about gold being moved to branch banks, etc. 'just ahead of the bank examiner$']..

...as one wag put it, 'control over money is business number one for 'the fux'...is and always has been..

I'm talking pre 1913.

[juleswin]

Trump+1

Dump +2

[juleswin]

I could let it slide if I thought he was playing this strategically, as Rand clearly is, but he's not.

Napolitano isn't a strategic thinker, or a sell-out.

He genuinely believes this.

...which makes him hopelessly naive.

Much like Woods or Raimondo.

...very disappointing.

I really think it is like a mental disease. It takes a hold of your mind and strips it of any reason and common sense. He also got himself into some trouble by claiming that Obama used some British intelligence agency to spy on Trump. Ofc, he credits some anonymous source for this information.

Also, I wonder what Trump has on him? you know Trump is his landlord, maybe Trump spied on him and has some very embarrassing video of him. Just kidding, I think he is just going through some life crisis with Woods, Ramando and the other turncoats in the liberty movement.

[H. E. Panqui]

I'm talking pre 1913.

...so am i...the 'fractional gold reserve deposit creation scheme$' went on at 'the state level'...essentially state cartels turned into 'the federal cartel' post 1913...pardon the simplification...

[Occam's Banana]

most people here complaining are old anarchists. Like the left, they will criticize Trump for not doing enough.

I am an anarchist. (I may even qualify as an "old" one, by some measures.)

And so, contrary to your ridiculous assertion, I will never criticize Trump for "not doing enough."

Being an anarchist, I will instead quite naturally criticize Trump for doing far too much.

(This should be rather obvious to anyone who has the vaguest clue about what being an anarchist implies before popping off about it ...)

[H. E. Panqui]

...During the revolution of 1775, the colonial leaders tried to repeat Massachusetts' paper experiment on a wider scale, but the newly christened continentals lacked any backing, such as silver or gold. On a small scale it may have worked, but so much money was printed that rapid inflation stripped them of all their value....

...counterfeiting by the british is rarely/never mentioned by goldbugs, ludwiggers, etc. republicrats galore, as the/a true cause of the debauchery of 'the continental' ...

https://www.richmondfed.org/~/media/richmondfedorg/publications/research/region_focus/2012/q1/pdf/economic_history.pdf

"...Several months before the Colonies declared independence, the British started counterfeiting Continental currency (continentals) aboard the HMS Phoenix, a gunboat anchored in New York harbor. By April 1777, New York newspapers were running the following notice: “Persons going into other Colonies may be supplied with any Number of counterfeited Congress-Notes, for the Price of the Paper per Ream. They are so neatly and exactly executed, that there is no Risque in getting them off, it being almost impossible to discover, that they are not genuine.”...."

[undergroundrr]

Has Judge Nap made any remarks about the Syria attack yet?