phreedomphan

Ideas Posted

-63

phreedomphan

Kill the Constitution! Yes! That's what I said. Kill the Constitution!

Somewhere along the line a new concept entered the realm of “constitutional law,” maybe better termed “unconstitutional law.” It is the concept of a “living Constitution,” a Constitution that can be reinterpreted at will to fit “the times.” But the Constitution was not written to govern times. Times change, but men do not and it was written to govern men, “bind them down with the chains of the Constitution.” The “living Constitution concept destroys those chains. It subjects us all to the momentary whims of those in power.

We hear much of “Government of Man by Law.” But that only applies when there is a bedrock law that the governed and the governing must obey. That law need not be immutable, but change must be a labor some process. Mere re-interpretation will not do. What a “living Constitution” gives us is Government of Men Above the Law--by Outlaws. As a wise person has observed, “The only good constitution is a dead constitution.”

This brings us to the point of this thread, collaboration between the federal, State, and local governments. “Collaboration” might be a fitting term. In the empire of Nazi Germany, those who aided the empire were called “collaborators.” I think it fitting to call those States and local governments that “collaborate” with the federal government just that—collaborators.

For nearly a century, maybe longer, the Washingtonian Empire has sought to reduce our State and local governments to conquered provinces. It is frighteningly close to accomplishing that goal. It is time for the federal government to obey the Tenth Amendment of a dead Constitution and get out of state affairs.

The following is an excerpt from the post Regionalism – Death of the American System in my lostliberty blog. The post includes maps illustrating some of the plans to assassinate the American System:

---------------------------------------------

"If the day should ever arrive, (which God forbid!), when the people of the different parts of our country shall allow their local affairs to be administered by prefects sent from Washington, and when the self-government of the states shall have been so far lost as that of the departments of France, or even so far as that of the counties of England--on that day the progressive political career of the American people will have come to an end, and the hopes that have been built upon it for the future happiness and prosperity of mankind will be wrecked forever." - John Fiske, historian, quoted in "Our Changing Constitution" by Charles W. Pierson, Doubleday, Page & Company, 1922.

Unfortunately, God did not forbid it, and the day of control of local affairs by Washington is here. It comes in the form of "regionalism" and the weapon for imposing it is federal "revenue-sharing".

Regionalism is the consolidation of local and state governments into large regional units and the centralization of power in bureaucratic authorities, boards, and commissions whose primary function will be to administer plans and programs dictated by Washington.

We've found traces of Regionalism as far back as the 1920's, in fact, the 1922 book mentioned above dealt with the federal incursions into state and local affairs and the Constitutional perversions used to justify it.

…. it is clear that the underlying motive of the present drive for regional government is the consolidation of state and local governments into regional units under total federal control. The people will be excluded from the political and governmental processes.

The stage was set in 1913 for this federal usurpation of those powers delegated by the Constitution to the states and to the people. The Federal Reserve Act, together with the 16th Amendment permitting the graduated income tax, assured the Federal Government economic dominance of the states, and the 17th Amendment, sold to the people as a great triumph of democracy, took away state control of the Senate, thereby eliminating one of the most important Constitutional checks for maintaining the balance of power between the States and the Federal Government.

The promoters of centralization wasted no time in taking advantage of their new powers. In the revised 1923 edition of his 1915 book, "The New American Government and Its Work", (Note the term "New"--implying the replacement of an "Old"!), James T. Young says, "Whenever it appears that the Constitution hinders a transfer of power from the States to Congress, those interested seek some expedient by which to evade this obstacle...". He then cites "judicial interpretation" and "commerce regulating power" as two methods and continues, "The third, and at present most promising way is the subsidy plan. Congress grants to the States a fund under its power to tax and to appropriate for the general welfare. This fund is given only on condition that the States appropriate a similar sum and that the total amount be used for a definite purpose fixed in the Federal Law. This purpose may be, and often is, entirely outside the regulating authority of Congress." That is the principle method used today to promote "Regionalism" (Federal takeover). It is commonly known as the "carrot and stick" method. The legal term is, "Bribery and Extortion".

This might be a good point to interrupt the history of regionalism and discuss what's wrong with it. The most important thing we can think of is that it effectively removes the people from the electoral process. It does this by concentrating power in units of government that are increasingly larger and more remote from the people and by establishing commissions and authorities composed of appointed officials who do not answer to the people.

As government moves to higher levels, towns to counties to "sub-state regions" to states to "federal regions" to the federal government itself, the per capita representation goes down and the people lose all control over elections. In a small town of thousands, a few knowledgeable citizens can inform enough others to oust corrupt officials. It's almost impossible in a county with hundreds of thousands, or a state with millions. When it comes to a national government of hundreds of millions, only those who finance the nation and the elections can influence the elected officials and unelected bureaucrats.

Resuming the background, it's fairly common knowledge, certainly among those who have fought the growth of government, that centralization received a major boost in the 1930's as a result of the depression (which we were told the Federal Reserve was created to prevent -- were we lied to?). Less known today is the plan announced in the New York Times Magazine on April 24, 1935, to divide the nation into nine "Departments". Under the plan, States' rights would have been abolished. The plan, so boldly announced, undoubtedly met very stiff opposition, so nothing came of it--at the time. In fact, in 1943, Governor Carr of Colorado said he had uncovered a government plan to set up "regional dictatorships". Carr said that regional authorities would be setup "ostensibly to regulate physical resources". Of course, government officials denied any knowledge of such a plan. However, in 1972, Richard Nixon, by Executive Order 11647, divided the country into ten "Federal Regions". In typical Orwellian “Double-Speak”, he called it "decentralization". In 1979, by E.O. 12149, Jimmy Carter established Federal Regional Councils for each of those districts. This has been the pattern--announce the plan, deny in the face of opposition, continue in darkness, then slip quietly into the light again. Under heat of opposition to the reemerged scheme, Ronald Reagan, so we understand, rescinded those E.O.'s, but we have to believe that, if true, the program just slid back into the cover of darkness again.

In the 1960's, prior to Nixon's E.O. 11647, the drive had picked up momentum again in the form of various "revenue- sharing" schemes. Federal officials pointed out that, now collecting over 70% of the nations tax revenues, Washington was in a better financial position to solve the problems of the states and our local governments. The Federal Deficit was apparently not noticed. That many of the problems were caused by prior Federal meddling in state and local affairs was ignored.

Possibly the most damning piece of evidence as to the intent of "Revenue-Sharing" is the audaciously honest book "Revenue-Sharing" by Congressman Henry Reuss. Reuss, a leading sponsor of the program, makes it clear in the book that "Revenue- Sharing" should be used as "an incentive" to states to "modernize" their local governments. To qualify for the federal handouts, states would have to submit a "good faith" plan showing how they intend to implement this "modernization" of local government. Among the things to be included are: consolidation of the "too many", "fragmented", "balkanized", "minuscule", "jungle of", "outmoded", "horse and buggy" local governments; establishment of regional planning mechanisms; state constitutional changes to permit "interstate compacts"; steps to reduce the number of elected officials and to replace them with appointed ones (because being "forced" to vote for too many officials confuses the voters); and finally, to make provisions for state income taxes--the more "progressive", the better. He also wants the larger governmental units created by the program to be able to setup more "services", borrow with less state restriction, and, of course, be able to levy more taxes in addition to the increased funds from federal and state programs. The "federal" money (the carrot) will come on the condition that the states and locals use it for ends consistent with a "national purpose". If not, the funds will be withheld (the stick).

---------------------------

In conclusion, I recommend that we resurrect the Constitution to death. End the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax that gave the federal government economic dominance over the States to restore the fiscal solvency of the States. Put the election of the Senate back into the hands of the States that it may once again play its proper role as a check against federal usurpation. Kick the federal government out of the States and the “collaborators” out of the Union.

Rick
http://PhreedomPhan-lostliberty.blogspot.com

Comments (16)Between Federal, State, and Local Governments

Displaying 1 - 25 of 4205 Ideas

12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10….168 169 Next »

Comments Posted

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Well put, yarmulka. I kind of had him pegged as a blowhard early on. He seemed to be rather intolerant toward those who challenged his pronouncements. Not letting you post on his forum if you call him sounds typical.

I have to admit. After more thought, I may have been unjust in saying he is not an American. It is totally possible he doesn't know what he's saying. I've long believed that anyone who says that another who disagrees with him is “intellectually challenged” is intellectually challenged. Anyone who suggests that another has been drinking too many beers before posting and claiming it shows, is probably drunk as a skunk when he's posting. Maybe such a person doesn't mean what he says. Maybe he doesn't even know what he says.

I do recall Jefferson saying debts should not be passed on from one generation to another, but I don't recall him saying that about the Constitution. I thought he had warned against those who would change its meaning through construction. Just as is being done with the “living” Constitution. The Constitution doesn't have provisions for amending it, so each generation can put its stamp on it if it wishes.

You misunderstood the intent of my “Kill the Constitution.” I'm referring to killing the “living” Constitution concept, to restoring the Constitution to its word and spirit.

I disagree with you on the same point I disagreed with jere. I don't want a complete rewrite. I have no illusions as to who would control the rewriting of a “new” constitution. Those who have been violating the Constitution all these years would use the rewrite to legalize all of their past crimes. Take any changes one amendment at a time to give people a chance to understand it and any who might oppose it time to organize and have their objections heard.

Just a thought in passing. I don't believe the Constitution deals with term limits of Congressmen. All I could find was the provision for election every two years. If I'm right. If the Constitution does not deal with term limits for Congressmen, then I wonder if mAximo will have the courage to walk into Congress and tell all Congressmen who have served three or more years of the last six to get out. While the election every two years does not imply a two year limit, the Articles expressly limit a delegate to Congress to serving no more than 3 years in 6.

Does anyone know if the Constitution expressly permits more than the 3 years in 6?

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Npoliment,

Certainly, if you want to give those seeking to legitimize their crimes of the past century or more the opportunity to do so, I can see why you would take jere's side.

I see nothing wrong with my characterizing him as not an American in his philosophy. I admit I made a mistake earlier when I thought him too lazy to read. I thought that was his reason for giving a thumbs down to my idea of “killing” the living Constitution. He's now made it plain that he doesn't want to restore our Constitution, he wants to throw it out. I can accept that. I'm fine with people saying no to my ideas because they don't agree with them, I just have a problem when they say no because they're too lazy to read.

You are right about the anger and frustration. I always get angry when I see socialists hiding behind the words of men like Jefferson to promote their European totalitarian ideas.

Take a good look at what the man says. He wants to “weave” the ideals and philosophies of Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, etc. into conditions that exist today. He either forgets or ignores the fact that the Constitution wasn't meant to govern “conditions.” But, forgetting that, he lists goals that “we” want to achieve today. What are they? Better representation. Well, we had that with our State and local governments until those seeking to undermine them invoked the “living Constitution” to allow them to reduce the States to conquered provinces of the Washingtonian Empire. Why do we need a new constitution? He wants a more level playing field. Who can argue with that? But, again, restore the Constitution as it was written. The giant corporations that have so reduced our economic liberty could not exist. Sure jere knows that one of Jefferson's objections to the creation of Hamilton's National Bank was that he saw nothing in the Constitution to permit Congress to create such a corporation.

Then he slides in his purely socialist ideas like universal education and healthcare. It's true that Jefferson believed in the former. It's the one fault I find with him. He was a brilliant man, but his forte was history. He knew his history. He could oppose a union of the power of the state with the power of the church because it would lead to tyranny over man, body and soul. He had plenty of history to show that. What he didn't have was a history of the combined powers of state and education to create a tyranny over man, body and mind. What is the mind? I see it essentially as a man's soul. Jefferson had 20/20 hindsight, but in this instance his foresight was lacking.

If we are to have “univeral education,” whatever that means, let it be done at the State and local levels so that a variety of thought can flourish rather than at the federal level where only the official line is taught and all variant thoughts can be suppressed.

How does jere's idea fit into those who want to “modernize” education by setting up government pre-Kindergarten? Let's not forget this idea that I've seen attributed to both Hitler and Mao: Give me the child at three and he's mine for life.

I'd also like to know just how jere plans to work “more equitable distribution of the earth's resources” into a Constitution for these United States. I have seen the idea before. It was “woven” into a plan for a “New World Moral Order” in 1941/42. A plan for world government. The plan, with an accompanying map, is said to have been financed by Carnegie money.

So we have jere “weaving” socialist ideas imported from England and Europe with globalist ideas that will undercut our national sovereignty. Was I unfair to say that jere is not an American? Maybe I should have added “in spirit.”

jere then follows all with a smörgåsbord of ideas designed to get all cheering and deflect attention from his less American ideals. One that might escape the attention of most was his “DE-centralization of government services.” That's what Nixon said when he divided the country into ten administration regions. He was “decentralizing.” A great example of Orwellian double-speak.

I think the idea that fascinates me most is that of “humane population controls.” I'd love to know what sort of Malthusian scheme he's hatching and how he intends to incorporate it into his new constitution. Maybe he'll have everyone form into groups of ten. Each group would select one person to go on to the next level and one person to be humanely euthanized. This would be repeated at each level. Or, maybe he has some other idea.

I'd also like to know what the point would be. We're a long way from being overpopulated. Sure, if you live in the cities it may seem that way, but just drive out into the country, to the forrests, to the mountains, to the plains. We still have lots of “Lebensraum.” No need to set up “humane” extermination camps yet.

Then after all his high sounding rhetoric, jere gives us an ultimatum. Accept and implement his ideas or see what we have “go down in flames.” In its place will be a “new”, centralized, totalitarian, worldwide economic power with the international central bankers at the helm. I don't know where jere has been all these years, but that's exactly what we have now. The “living Constitution” was the instrument used to draw us under it. Any wonder why these bankers would like to rewrite the Constitution to legalize their crimes before the people wake up? Does jere want us to think he's blind to all of this?

I'm sorry if you don't like my “labeling” jere, but I'm not a poser. I'm not a dissembler. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I call a spade a spade.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

-What is really needed is a complete modern revision of our constitution, or some kind of constitutional convention made of of the kinds of superior statesmen, philosophers, that wrote our present constitution. That's what is needed. The question is how to achieve it -jerehough

He knows full well it can't be.

Now I understand his objection to my idea. He doesn't want to restore the Constitution. He wants to play along with those who have been perverting it. They have for years been calling for a convention to write a new constitution. They would love nothing more than to make legal their crimes of the past century. I have to conclude jerehough is no “patriot”. He is no American. Much of what he concludes we need is European.

Some who voted against my idea were willing to man up and admit they'd made a mistake, but he wasn't. He still wants to make it look like it was my fault that he was too lazy to read it or lacked the guts to want to tear it apart. He still cowers behind “kill the constitution” taken out of context.

Now he shows his true colors. He doesn't want to restore the Constitution. He wants to “modernize” it. That's the mantra of those trying to destroy Constitutional government. I can't emphasize enough that the Constitution was not intended to govern times or conditions. Granted, both change, but the Constitution was meant to govern men, and men don't change.

Now where have I heard this business of “updating” State and county constitutions or similar words before. Oh, yes. It was Congressman Henry Reuss, one of the leading sponsors of “Revenue-Sharing,” a federal scheme to destroy our State and local governments. He wrote a book by that name and made it clear in his book that "Revenue-Sharing" should be used as "an incentive" to states to "modernize" their local governments. Reuss includes mandatory State constitutional changes to facilitate those changes.

I don't care how complex, simple, or “democratic” he makes the selection of those who make up the delegates to his proposed convention. Realism forces us to conclude that those who wield the power over the government now will wield the power over such a convention and its outcome. Anyone who suggest otherwise is either naïve or a shill. Let's not forget that the first "Constitutional Convention" was only supposed to revise the Articles of Confederation.

Frankly, when such a person masks his schemes with an invocation of the spirits of the founders of American liberty, I can only conclude he or she is a wolf in Jeffersonian clothing.

It's hard to come up with logical arguments against many of jerehough's rants. They are so absurd as to defy logic. The intent of some are, however, quite clear. He talks of weaving the ideals and philosophies of Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Madison, Adams, and other "giants of that time" into today's conditions. But many of the goals he suggests indicate that what he really means is to weave them into the ideals and philosophies of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky. When the Fabian boot stands on the face of mankind forever as predicted by Orwell, you can bet jerehough doesn't picture his face under the boot. He pictures the boot on his foot.

He finishes his post with high sounding rhetoric denouncing tyranny of the bankers, but there is no substance. He offers what amounts almost to an ultimatum. Follow his lead or face economic ruin. The ruin is on us now and it isn't because we need a new constitution—it's because we didn't follow the old one.

Unlike jerehough, I don't pretend my words are those of the gods. I only ask one thing of readers and posters here. Before you accept his ideas or make a final judgment on my idea of killing the modern concept of a “living” Constitution and restoring our Constitution, as written and intended, to the supreme law of the land, please read the Regionalism – Death of the American System of Government post in my lostliberty blog. The destruction of our States and local governments has been planned since the early part of the last century. If you have time or can get back to it later, read the New World Order – Death of America post in that same blog. You'll find that much of what is going on globally has been planned since before our entry into WWII. If you want to know who some of the people perpetrating all of this are, take a look at my americasenemies blog. Some of this is readily available on the internet and you probably know it already, but some is not.

Rick
18th Century Liberal
21st Century Reactionary
http://PhreedomPhan-lostliberty.blogspot.com
http://phreedomphan-americasenemies.blogspot.com

phreedomphan 9 months ago

That's no problem, badhack. I swim best in the deep end.

That may be true to a limited extent, but when it comes to preserving what little liberty we have left or to restoring that which we've lost, I'll go with the interpretations of those who were responsible for the bill of rights.

Too, I don't see what is so "philosophical" about the Constitution. Maybe you can come up with a "philosophical" perversion to make words mean the opposite of what they say, but it's still a perversion.

How about this, badhack. I believe that the Constitution as reported out of the Convention was a blueprint for tyranny of the wealthy class. Only the alertness and wisdom of such as Jefferson, Methacton Smith, and Richard Henry Lee forced the inclusion of the Bill of Rights that preserved a bit of liberty for a time. "Philosophical" distortions have twisted many of those to mean other than what they expressly say.

There have been "philosophers" who would not hesitate to wipe out half the human race to give the other half more room to live. I'll take a doer over a philosopher any day.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

I don't know if the posts I put on this site and in the "Coffee Shop" at google blogger about lostlibert being blocked had any effect, but a short time ago it was back up.

I did make a request for review. Google said it could take up to 2 days to review and reinstate. Maybe they didn't have many to review and got to it very quickly. Maybe mine was the only one flagged.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Well, within less than an hour of my posting this and within minutes of my naming google as an enemy in its coffee shop, my lostliberty blog is back up. That may have nothing to do with those posts. I did request a "review" but google said it would be reviewed within 2 days. Maybe they didn't have many requests because mine was the only one flagged.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Cathy, thank you for being one of the few who have had the courage to admit your mistake.

A number of people have suggested I repost, but what's the point? Please understand that I have done a lot of posting in various political discussion groups in the past. A title like "Kill the Constitution" would have raised the bloodpressure of all but the little siblings of Big Brother in those groups. They would have read it with the express purpose of tearing it apart paragraph by paragraph. Once they got the real intent, they probably would have read it for the information provided and probably have gone to the blog for the additional info.

To be honest, I never considered the ease with which someone here could click thumbs down and feel they'd done their patriotic duty. On the other hand, if I gave it a title people would like, they still probably would just click thumbs up without taking the time to read it. My purpose would be lost. I'm certainly not deluding myself into thinking Obama would be influenced even if it scored 1000 to 0 in favor.

Apparently, though, the government has taken notice. I've had my lostliberty blog up for about seven months. I was just notified by google that it has been flagged as spam. People, including me, can't access it now. That's pure bull. I'd heard that google was part of the mob that rules us. Now I know. If I wasn't on the "Enemies of the State" list before, I am now.

As of a few minuts ago, my americasenemies blog was still working. If something isn't done about lostliberty quickly, google will be added to that blog.

Rick
http://PhreedomPhan-lostliberty.blogspot.com
http://phreedomphan-americasenemies.blogspot.com

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Fascinating! I'd heard google was a part of the mob that runs America and I just received proof. Google has flagged my lostliberty blog as spam. Nobody, including me, can view it. Nothing like this ever happened before I started posting here. I guess the Fedstapo has ordered it shutdown. No doubt having referenced it here has gotten me on the "Enemies of the State" list if I wasn't already on it. Maybe that's what this whole site is about.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

I agree 100% +, cathy. I would go beyond most proposals that allowed vouchers for people with children in private schools. I would allow all taxpayers to choose to give at least a portion of their taxes for education rather than higher teacher salaries in "public" (government) schools.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Thanks, Tony. I agree wholeheartedly with what you said, with these exceptions.

My first step would be to "kill the Constitution." Put an end to the "living" Constitution concept that permits reinterpretation at the whim of politicians, bureaucrats, and judges. End "constitutionality" de Jour.

"The only good constitution is a dead constitution." Resurrect the "dead" Constitution that meant what it said and what was intended. Amend it to repeal the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments. Do that and many of your other ideas will fall into place automatically.

I do disagree with your fifth suggestion. I know of nothing in the "dead" Constitution that permits federal involvement in health care. Most of what it does should be handled by the States if at all. I find federal meddling with our health to be unhealthy for our liberty, State sovereignty, and probably for our health.

Well, I clicked "Post Comment" and nothing happened. Just as well. I meant to add this.

Take a look at my blogs if you get chance, Tony, and let me know what you think.

Rick
http://PhreedomPhan-lostliberty.blogspot.com
http://phreedomphan-americasenemies.blogspot.com

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Don't be so hard on luvwith, fisher. He/she has matured considerably in the year since his/her fifth birthday.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

dan, I don't think many people here will fall victim to your nonsense.

Government today, and maybe even since before the Secessionary War of 1775, is a manifestation of the power of the bankers.

Of course it's Socialism. Socialism, Communism, and Fascism are just variant forms of the ultimate capitalist monopoly in which the State owns or controls everything and the capitalists own or control the State.

Is Ellen Brown anti-capitalist? I am, but I'm pro free enterprise. I hate that capitalism is equated to free enterprise. I think a proper definition of a capitalist society or economy would be one dominated by capitalists who form the ruling class. A free enterprise system is dominated by the ingenuity of the people. Under that system there can be no ruling class because the innovator of today will be replaced by the innovator of tomorrow. In a free enterprise system there are no special laws to give immortality to corporations, unions, or any other form of collective so they cannot make themselves a permanent institution and come to dominate. All are free (and forced) to compete on their own for their lifetimes. I'm 67 years old and have never lived under a free enterprise system but would have loved to.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

I've read books by goldbugs, bi-metalists, greenbackers, and others. One thing they all have in common is that they all believe theirs is the perfect monetary system. All can point to some problems caused by the others. But from what I can see, it hasn't been the systems that failed and caused financial failures. It has been the manipulation of the system by those with the wit and power to do it. Personally, I like a monetary system based on pebbles and seashells.

No matter what the basis of the monetary system is, unscrupulous schemers will find some way to manipulate it to their advantage and the majority of people won't pay enough attention to stop them. I think we need a system that will discourage monetary manipulation and that can only come in the system of law. Specifically, I favor extending the Code of Hammurabi to the crime of monetary manipulation.

Most people think of the Code of Hammurabi as it is usually presented -- "An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth." But a far better summary would be "Shall be put to death." I think that should be the fate of those who commit the crime of massive manipulation of the monetary system. They shall be put to death. If nothing else, it might make these people think twice before committing the crime.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

dan, as long as people buy into the "stupidity," "accidental," or "Darwinian Natural Evolution" theories of government and history, we will never break free of rule of man by money. What is happening to us is by plan, and not by misguided plan either.

If you read history from a wide variety of views and avoid the sanitized "In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue" versions, you begin to realize that those who control the economy usually control the politics and use that for greater contol of the economy to funnel the wealth to their own vaults. Generally speaking, the services of the smartest of the intellectuals, who are generally not producers and must rely on other sources of income than labor, are bought by the wealthy. In modern times, they are assembled in "think tanks." They are charged with formulating the plans of extreme wealth to dominate us and reduce us to serfdom. It is also their responsibility to cloak those plans in "humanitarian" and "progressive" terms to get our support and enlist us in the effort to forge our own chains.

Unfortunately for the American people and other peoples of the industrialized countries, extreme wealth now operates on an international level. They want government to lie there too. They could never get the American people or other peoples with high standards of living to accept the redistribution of their wealth in a world state, so they are redistributing it in advance so we'll have little to lose.

China buying up raw materials can by of great advantage to us. Let them built huge stores and then, if the "environmentalists" like Waxman are sincere, they can cripple the most egregious polluter in the world by putting a 50% tariff (maybe more) on Chinese imports. Understand, I'm a Libertarian and should favor free trade. I do, but only in a free enterprise system which we have not had for a century--if we ever really had one. The only ones who benefit in a "free trade" system are the traders (sp? traitors?). Money favor tariffs when money's interests were national. Now that they've transferred the businesses all over the world, including China, they want free trade to sell us suckers the goods we should have been making.

Out of business strategy. Is GM closing its overseas operations? Is it closing the new plant it built in Russia to build cars for the European market? I doubt it. It has been reported that GM took the "bail-out) money from the taxpayers and used it to increase its overseas capacity to the equivalent of four U.S. assembly plants. Yeah! Misguided.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

badhack, my understanding of the system relies on my memory, but as I recall, the Fed doesn't "allocate" money to the banks when it sets interest rates and reserve requirements, it gives them the license to create money. Contrary to the belief of some, it doesn't create it out of thin air. Thin air is more substantial. Today, it is created out of a far more ephemeral flash of electrons as balances are created and transferred to the accounts of the borrowers. You could call it "currentcy."

In issuing receipts in excess of the gold they held, the bankers of the middle ages began the modern era of fractional reserve banking.

I'm sure not all bankers are evil. The unfortunate thing about this world is that evil, having no moral compunction to play by rules of fairness, tends to dominate. The first thing I said when the Savings bank fiasco broke was, "Who's going to tell George Bailey that it's not such a wonderful life here in the United Pottervilles of America." Mr. Potter had finally destroyed the Savings and Loan.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Gregory, I tend to reread things to see what I may have missed the first time. I missed the word "mandate." I can't go along with government mandates. The only way out of this mess is for the people to pull us out. Government mandates will only get us deeper.

BTW, there are a lot of people here with very short attention spans. If you post something for intelligent people to read, it might be best to create a second post summarizing what you say in two or three sentences for the short spanners. Otherwise you put them to sleep.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

badhack, as I've said, I'm not an economist and frankly it's been over twenty years since I read most of what I have read on economics and banking, but I still say that when a bank makes a "loan" though through a bookkeeping entry, it's creating money. It doesn't hand out cash. If it did, then a "fractional reserve" system would not exist. The circulating "currency," such as it is may be in the form of checks or just an exchange of bookkeeping entries transferring the demand deposit to another bank or account. When the merchant/banker of the middle ages, the forerunner of today's banker, issued gold receipts in excess of gold he had in his vaults, he was creating money. It may have been fraudulant money, but it flowed as money and, although it may not have represented real wealth, the interest the banker collected did. The same is true of the "bookkeeping" entries made by today's banks that create demand deposits for the borrower. The banks are loaning money they don't have and by so doing are creating money.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Gregory, I won't claim to understand everything you wrote here, but I do agree with what I think is the general thrust. Our economic collapse is being stage managed.

I disagree that it started with Clinton. Republicans want to blame Clinton and Democrats want to blame Bush. Both played their part in our demise, but I trace the start back to the Washington administration. That's when Hamilton successfully championed a National Bank which, if I am not mistaken, was directly tied to the bank of England. I think England has been running the country most of the time since.

If you'd like to see a map and plan for a "New World Moral Order" that goes back to 1941 and includes the idea of reducing the consumption of the industrialized nations, take a look at the "New World Order - Death of America" in my lostliberty blog.

Rick
http://PhreedomPhan-lostliberty.blogspot.com

phreedomphan 9 months ago

What would you expect from CBS -- home of the Crockumentary.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Maybe the idea is to have us all in here talking to ourselves and not out where others can here us.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

luvwith, by your own admission, you were spoiled rotten when you were five. Have you changed much now that you're six?

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Here's something along that line. I've been telling people for years that if they vote for the "lesser of two evils," they are consciously voting for evil. I liked someone else's idea too. He said the last election provided a choice of the evil of two lessers.

You lost me though when you called the RepublOcrats fools. We're the fools.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

ribond86, is that a 90% MAX increase or a 900% increase? I'm not being critical. I really want to know if I misunderstood something. If I was off that much, I'm surprised my Money and Banking instructor didn't throw me out of the class.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

No, ronandcari, Barry is continuing the "living" Constitution and doing whatever his handlers tell him to do. It doesn't matter that it flies in the face of a "dead" Constitution that means what it says. He will continue to do so secure in the knowledge that even those who believe in the Constitution as written are too lazy to read and will pose no threat to him.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

There is no question that there is a lack of education and critical thought in this country. It has been replaced by indoctrination in the schools and a conditioning of the mind to shutdown when it encounters concepts not endorsed by our rulers. As an example I would cite the knee-jerk reaction by the well indoctrinated parrot when he/she encounters a BC kook with an explanation of events and history not approved by the mind molders in charge.

The word spectrum usually refers to wave lengths, such as light, and runs the gamut from the shortest to the longest. When used to describe politics, logic dictates that the political spectrum must run from totalitarianism on one end to its opposite extreme, anarchy, on the other.

Regardless of on which end, left or right, that we put totalitarianism, it follows that all forms of totalitarianism must be on that end. Communism, Socialism, and Fascism are all forms of totalitarianism and, therefore, the logical mind must place them on the same end.

The official spectrum that has been inculcated in the minds of the well "educated" only includes one end of the spectrum, the totalitarian end. "Educators" and the media offer us only a choice between Communism on the "left" and Fascism on the "right" leaving us Socialism as a proposed "middle of the road." The choice of the many forms of limited government, such as our Constitutional Republic before the "living" Constitution came into play, are not offered. We, the American people, are given a choice of totalitarianism, totalitarianism, or totalitarianism.

If this doesn't make sense to you, don't be concerned. I'm just not as well educated as you. Once cradle to grave "education" is in place, BC kooks will be eliminated and we'll all be of one mind. One big, happy Borg.

Rick
18th Century Liberal
21st Century Reactionary
http://PhreedomPhan-lostliberty.blogspot.com
http://phreedomphan-americasenemies.blogspot.com

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Yeah! Bush was an idiot-puppet. Clinton was an idiot-puppet. Obama is an idiot puppet. These guys are so stupid they need someone to help them find the bank where they've stashed all our money. We find a steam grate that isn't taken all by ourselves. Ain't we the smart ones?

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Is it also the place to bury snide, cowardly back bites in a post that's supposed to be about the proposal? If I wanted to retaliate, wouldn't I do something really stupid like vote against your proposal without reading it?

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Thanks, wemo. I want you to know I support your idea to make apple pie illegal. I suggested making Lemon Meringue our national pie. I made a couple of other suggestions there too.

Right now I'm working on a project to make the middle finger the State Bird of Pennsylvania and get my fellow Pennsylvania citizens to use them as Carrier Pigeons to send a message to Washington.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

It is as I said, we must kill the Constitution. A new concept has crept into jurisimprudence. It is that of a "living Constitution." What this means is we are subject to the "Interpretation of the Day." In other words, whatever those wielding the power want, we get. The only good constitution is a dead constitution. One that is a bedrock law that can't be changed at whim.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

I agree with you, wemo. Let's make apple pie illegal. Make Lemon Meringue our national pie.

Making apple pie illegal would actually make legalizing Marijuana possible. The money powers could now use the smuggling of apple pie to replace lost revenues from pot smuggling. There would be no need to dismantle part of the police state because the DEA could simply be renamed the PEA. Apple pie eaters could replace the pot users in the jails.

A very workable plan!

Speaking of protecting freedom, this is a part of my regionalism post in my lostliberty blog that I did not include in "Kill the Constitution." It's from Charles Pearson's 1922 book "Our Changing Constitution."

"There is another aspect of the matter, however. The burden of federal bureaucracy is beginning to be felt by the average man. He is being regulated more and more in his meats and drinks, his morals and the activities of his daily life, from Washington. If he will only stop and think he must realize that no one central authority can supervise the daily lives of a hundred million people scattered over half a continent, without becoming top-heavy."

"In the very nature of things there is bound to be a reaction against centralization sooner or later. The real question is whether it will come in time to save the present constitutional scheme."

That was 1922! We've sunk a long way, baby!

phreedomphan 9 months ago

There was nothing terrible about the title of my post. I just misjudged the caliber of many of the people here. When I see a title like that I don't just back bite and run away. I dig into it with the intention of tearing it apart paragraph by paragraph. Those that haven't the gumption, whose attention span covers one sentence, will be of no value in the fight against big brother. It's going to be a long haul.

Just as you made an unwarranted, premature judgment of my post and are now trying to blame me for your shortcomings, you are making an unwarranted assumption that I read part of Ellen Brown's book. You also draw the moronic, unfounded conclusion that I've been drinking. I haven't had a beer in years. I hate the stuff. Unfortunately, you seem much better at making comments like that than in thinking. What is the psychological term for that, projection? You see your own character in others?

Some have the courage and character to admit their mistake. I don't include those people in the gutless group. I hope they will take the time to read the entire piece. They are good allies in the battle. You of course, do not. You continue to try to palm off your mistake on me.

Pardon my doubting nature, but I find it hard to believe someone who calls what I wrote a "tome" has actually read a book.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

I thought I'd put up a comment thanking those who suggested I re-post without the title, but declining to do so. My point was not to gather thumbs up, but to get some information out that I'd guess most people are unaware of. Seeing the reluctance of most of the people to read past the first sentence, I see nothing to be gained by reposting. Those same people might then read the first line and give a thumbs up, but they still would not read it and not learn anything.

While my title did refer to killing the "living constitution" concept, it wasn't the main point of my post. My intent was to show how the federal government is reducing the States to conquered provinces.

To believer I can only say thanks for the advice, but I don't believe it's me sending the wrong message. I believe the people who are too lazy to read the post before casting judgment on it are the ones sending the wrong message. They are telling Obama that his regime has nothing to fear from the opposition of people capable of so little effort.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

I'm no economist, but I thought badhack was off base when he said the ten fold increase was from velocity of money. I always thought that was a product of the fractional reserve system. As I understand it, the government goes to the fed with treasury paper against which the fed prints notes. This is probably an oversimplification, but the government then pays its bills, presumably by check. As these checks are cashed and funds redeposited by creditors down the line, most of the notes wind up either in the vaults of the member banks or maybe in the vaults of the fed and credited to the member bank accounts. These become the reserve to meet the requirements. But they are themselves a demand deposit. So, if $1 million is deposited in the banks, it can be expanded another $4 million in bookkeeping entries to a total of $5 million including the original notes. The bankers know, or hope, that there will be no demand for the entire sum. While the reserve notes and bookkeeping entries represent no wealth, the interest returned to the banks does represent the wealth produced by the people and it is transferred to the banks. I believe that's why so many small businesses have been gobbled up by giant corporations. As jerehough says, the wealth is transferred to the bankers. I don't agree that it's a Ponzi scheme. It's definitely a fraud and a swindle, but I think a Ponzi scheme is a pyramid racket with people at the bottom getting paid "dividends" with monies being gathered at the top until there is no one left to fill the top.

But what do I know about money? I can't even go to Starbucks anymore. My credit rating dropped and I can't get financing.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

unclebud, take a look at who is financing the socialists of all types. I've long held that Communism, Socialism, and Fascism are all variant forms of the ultimate capitalist monopoly in which the state owns or controls everything and the capitalists own the state.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

I do blame those who go along. Many years ago I was raising cane with our 8th District Democratic Congressman, who I'd named Re-Pete because he was a carbon copy of the Republican who preceded him, also named Pete. The Democratic party sent feelers to me about my interest in a job in Washington. I told them I was not for sale. I could have been a Washington fat cat with a sexcretary on each knee, but I'm not the type to go along. I ask no reward for sticking to my principles other than that, when they bury me in Potter's Field, someone put a little marker on my grave that says, "Here Lies PhreedomPhan -- Owner of His Soul."

I don't know about McCain. I suspect he knew he was to be sacrificed at the altar of the new Messiah. Palin may not have known. On the other hand she may have been promised something in the future for being a sacrificial lamb now.

Back in the seventies I used to have some fun with regulation loving friends. They liked to parrot the then popular mantra, "Big business controls government." I would tell them I agreed comletely, which I did and do, and would ask "What's the solution?" Almost invariably, "Give Congress more power to control big business." Well, Duh!! If big business controls the government and you give more power to the government, who are you giving the power to? I think that's part of the reason the growth of the big corporations seemed to parallel the growth of regulation. That also ties in with the growth of Marxism. I have long said that Communism (Russian & Chinese), Fabian Socialism (British & American), and Fascism (German & Italian) were just slightly variant forms of the ultimate capitalist monopoly. Under them the state would own or control everything and the capitalists would own the state.

I'm enjoying the exchange too. Do you have a blog? I'd like to see it. If your interested, I have two. I think you might find some things that might interest you there.

http://PhreedomPhan-lostliberty.blogspot.com
http://phreedomphan-americasenemies.blogspot.com

Rick
BTW, you're not related to the Bob Steele that tamed the wild west with Hoot Gibson and Ken Maynard are you?

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Thanks! I can empathize. I'm an atrociously slow reader. Add to that making notes in margins and notes with page references on blank pages front and back makes a book a project. On the other hand, I retain a lot more than the average reader.

I haven't read her book, but I like what she writes in various newsletters on the Net.

It took about fifty years for some of the WWII documents to be declassified that proved FDR's complicity in the Pearl attack. Men like John T. Flynn, Admiral Kimmel, and Rear Admiral Theobald who wrote books about it and were, of course, shouted down were finally vindicated. I suspect it will take at least fifty years to see answers to the altogether too many questions left unanswered.

Naturally, the one-eyed-jack Democrats who will readily accept Bush complicity in 9/11 can't accept the guilt of FDR and the one-eyed-jack Republicans who glory in the revelations about FDR will swear by the innocence of George Bush. Each can see only one side of the story. They are blinded to the whole truth.

If you get chance, go to the New World Order -- Death of America post on my lostliberty blog to see how things are planned in advance. Not all things are accomplished and some probably change, but to see what has come to pass can open the other eye on some people.
http://phreedomphan-lostliberty.blogspot.com/

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Don't worry about a shortage of doctors, roxy. There'll be an abundance of waiting lists.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Personally, I don't think there is an ounce of decency in the man. He is the consummate politician. He knows the route to power, even if it is only the exercise of it for someone else. He gets to be the man the naive think is running America.

Ironically, I switched from Libertarian to Democrat just to vote for him, or really, to vote against Hillary. I didn't want to see the Rhodes Scholar back in the White House, even as first gentlemen. I hoped that at least we would not have another Anglophile driving us to war for Mutha England. I was told by Patrick Wood who co-authored "Trilaterals Over Washington" with Antony Sutton that I'd made a mistake. Obama was the annointed one. I think that's why the Reps picked one of the worst candidates they could find. I often joke that Reagan was dead the last year in office but everybody thought he was sleeping and didn't want to wake him. I didn't think McCain was going to live through the campaign.

I don't lack reading material. I've got about 1000 books in my library. Many I just use for reference, many I've read, and many I've perused and didn't think worth reading, but there's about 50 to 100 I'd like to get to someday. More than likely I'll be dead before that. I also have everything that's on Yamaguchy.netfirms.com downloaded. Most of them are good reading.

I realize that the CFR is just the paid servant of the ruling class, but then, so are the "two" parties.

I don't know if you're old enough to have seen this enough times to pick up on it, but every so often one party or the other is pronounced dead giving hope to a "third" party. Somehow, I don't know if by organ transplant from the "other" party, the dead party is resurrected. This has happened several times in my life.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

We have a one party system. America's ruling party is the Council on Foreign Relations. With a membership that has probably never been higher than 15 ten thousandths of one percent of the population,it has dominated every administration since at least FDR's. It also controls the media and manages to keep itself almost entirely out of encyclopedias despite its significance in American politics. Its shock troop spin-off, the Trilateral Commission provided at least four key people to each candidates campaign. TC Henry Kissinger was McCain's foreign policy advisor and TC Brzezinski filled the role for Obama. No matter who wins the presidential elections, we lose. The same is true for most congressional elections.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Yeah, ja. He can share a cell with the Bushes, Clinton, and Carter. I think the only president since Wilson who tried to break away from his handlers and escape the web of treason was Kennedy. Look what it got him.

Maybe you can tell me. Is the Secret Service the President's protection or his jailers?

"Treason doth never prosper. What's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason." -- Sir John Harrington

phreedomphan 9 months ago

No need to apologize. Frankly, I realize it was a waste of time anyway. I tend to assume others think the way I do. If I see "Kill the Constitution" in a post title, I'm going to dissect it paragraph by paragraph in response. I just hadn't figured on the ease with which people could just give a thumbs down without having to read it and walk away feeling proud that they'd done their patriotic duty.

There's no question that we're going to hell in a handbasket. Obama will continue the work of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Carter, Reagan, and all of the Presidents back at least to Wilson. All aimed at destroying America. The attack has been going on since the founding. The Constitution as reported out of the Convention was a blueprint for tyranny. Only the alertness and wisdom of men like Jefferson, Methacton Smith, and Richard Henry Lee delayed it for awhile.

I think I voted thumbs up for your idea, althoug one thing bothers me. Uncle Tom is clearly in the pocket of the One Worlders. I had expressed concern in discussion groups about what might happen if it's discovered that he is not a natural born citizen after the election. I don't see him being removed. I think it more likely the "living Constitution" would be invoked. We would be told that the provision that a president must be a natural born citizen is outmoded. Obama will continue in office and the globalists will have won a great victory. It will be known around the world that, although America is not officially integrated into the One World cesspool, her presidency is. What a coup!

phreedomphan 9 months ago

But you voted for changing the Constitution by the whim of those in power when you gave a thumbs down to my idea. Someone said, "The only good constitution is a dead constitution" in rebuttal to the idea of a "living Constitution" subject to re-interpretation at the whim of those in power. Hence I said, "Kill the Constitution." Read it! Maybe you'll realize you made a mistake in jumping to a conclusion from one sentence. If you have reasonable intelligence, one paragraph should show you that. I think I made a big mistake in over estimating the intelligence of people posting here. I guess I thought I was dealing with many Ellen Browns.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

BTW, a great source of books on money and banking from a number of perspectives can be found at:

http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com

You can find ebooks and ideas, even speeches in Congress, dating from the early 19th Century through the early 20th. All free but for the effort of copying and pasting. On the other hand, if you don't like to read, this might not be a site for you.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

You seem to have conflicting thoughts. Here it appears you support Constitutional government, but you give my idea of restoring the rights of the States and killing the "living Constitution" idea that is being used to undermine our liberties a thumbs down. Did I over estimate the intelligence of the people here. I thought I was dealing with more than one-sentence-wonders who would base their judgment on one line without reading even a couple of paragraphs of the idea. Amazing.

http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4203-4049

phreedomphan 9 months ago

stan, you and e.b. should read my idea, "Kill the Constitution," but don't do what some fools have done and just read the first line. You'll find I'm talking about ending the concept of a "living Constitution" open to re-interpretation at the whim of those in power. I show some of the programs that federal government is using to turn the States and local governments into conquered provinces. Some of that may be new to you. I even recommend that those States that "collaborate" with the federal government be kicked out of the union.

http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4203-4049

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Dan, you are obviously a one-sentence-wonder who can make a judgment based on reading one sentence. My idea was intended for intelligent people. They would have gone beyond the first sentence and learned that "Kill the Constitution" was an attack on the concept of a "living Constitution" that supports re-interpreting the Constitution to fit the latest goals of our rulers. I support a "dead Constitution" that can't be changed on judicial or bureaucratic whim. My idea opposed "collaboration" between the federal, State, and Local governments because that will only mean more compliance with federal mandates. If you have an attention span greater than a third grader, go back and read it.

Rick

phreedomphan 9 months ago

I looked up the posts and votes of most of those who gave my idea a thumbs down. From that I could only conclude that they didn't bother to read my idea or they would have given a thumbs up. Apparently they are one-sentence-wonders.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Unfortunately, that is exactly the practice followed by departments in many private companies. Could be why so many "bail-outs" are needed.

BTW, I gathered from an earlier post or votethat you might be something of a Constitutionalist. If that's the case, you voted on my "Kill the Constitution" without reading it.

http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4203-4049

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Too bad you vote without reading. Your idea and your votes on other ideas suggest you did not read my "Kill the Constitution" idea before you voted. I wish all the lazy people were on the other side.

http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4203-4049

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Shoot! I forgot to add Greenland and Central America as the next step.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Would you believe? A map and plan for a "New World Moral [Yeah! Right!]Order was drawn up before Pearl Harbor and published in Philadelphia. It is thought to be funded by the Carnegie funds and foundations. Among other things, it shows a United States of America that includes Mexico, the U.S., Canada, and, as a next step after the North American Union is achieved.

Those who think a "sick" FDR gave away Eastern Europe should check out the SSR's on the map.

You can find the map, the plan, and some analysis and thoughts on the "New World Order -- Death of America post in my lostliberty blog.

http://PhreedomPhan-lostliberty.blogspot.com

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Both Hitler and Mao are credited with saying, "Give me the child at three and he's mine for life. Maybe we should give the child more education at home before we let the government have him.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

You're sending mixed signals, Dan. Either you are for Constitutional government or you are not. We are in the mess we're in today because too many people are willing to wink at usurpation of power if it benefits them. I guess you like the "living" Constitution idea.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

You should have read my "Kill the Constitution" idea before you voted. This post of yours suggests you support a "dead" Constitution, too.

http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4203-4049

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Thomas Jefferson gives two thumbs up to Ellen Brown.

Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson
February 15, 1791.

Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bill for Establishing a National Bank.

The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among other things :—

1. To form the subscribers into a corporation.

2. To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants of land; and so far is against the laws of Mortmain.*

3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands; and so far is against the laws of Alienage.

4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a certain line of successors; and so far changes the course of Descents.

5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat; and so far is against the laws of Forfeiture and Escheat.

6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line; and so far is against the laws of Distribution.

7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the national authority; and so far is against the laws of Monopoly.

8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws of the States; for so they must be construed, to protect the institution from the control of the State legislatures; and so, probably, they will be construed.

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground : That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.

The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution.

1. They are not among the powers specially enumerated, for these are :

1st. A power to lay taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the United States; but no debt is paid by this bill, nor any tax laid. Were it a bill to raise money, its origination in the Senate would condemn it by the Constitution.

2d. "To borrow money." But this bill neither borrows money nor ensures the borrowing it. The proprietors of the bank will be just as free as any other money holders, to lend or not to lend their money to the public. The operation proposed in the bill, first, to lend them two millions, and then to borrow them back again, cannot change the nature of the latter act, which will still be a payment, and not a loan, call it by what name you please.

3d. To "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who erects a bank, creates a subject of commerce in its bills; so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State, as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Accordingly the bill does not propose the measure as a regulation of trade, but as "productive of considerable advantages to trade."

Still less are these powers covered by any other of the special enumerations.

II. Nor are they within either of the general phrases, which are the two following :

1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum, for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution.

2. The second general phrase is, "to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers." But they can all be carried into execution without a bank. A bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase.

It has been urged that a bank will give great facility or convenience in the collection of taxes. Suppose this were true : yet the Constitution allows only the means which are "necessary," not those which are merely "convenient" for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed. Therefore it was that the Constitution restrained them to the necessary means, that is to say, to those means without which the grant of power would be nugatory.

But let us examine this convenience and see what it is. The report on this subject, page 3, states the only general convenience to be, the preventing the transportation and re-transportation of money between the States and the treasury (for I pass over the increase of circulating medium, ascribed to it as a want, and which, according to my ideas of paper money, is clearly a demerit). Every State will have to pay a sum of tax money into the treasury; and the treasury will have to pay, in every State, a part of the interest on the public debt, and salaries to the officers of government resident in that State. In most of the States there will still be a surplus of tax money to come up to the seat of government for the officers residing there. The payments of interest and salary in each State may be made by treasury orders on the State collector. This will take up the great export of the money he has collected in his State, and consequently prevent the great mass of it from being drawn out of the State. If there be a balance of commerce in favor of that State against the one in which the government resides, the surplus of taxes will be remitted by the bills of exchange drawn for that commercial balance. And so it must be if there was a bank. But if there be no balance of commerce, either direct or circuitous, all the banks in the world could not bring up the surplus of taxes, but in the form of money. Treasury orders then, and bills of exchange may prevent the displacement of the main mass of the money collected, without the aid of any bank; and where these fail, it cannot be prevented even with that aid.

Perhaps, indeed, bank bills may be a more convenient vehicle than treasury orders. But a little difference in the degree of convenience, cannot constitute the necessity which the constitution makes the ground for assuming any non-enumerated power.

Besides; the existing banks will, without a doubt, enter into arrangements for lending their agency, and the more favorable, as there will be a competition among them for it; whereas the bill delivers us up bound to the national bank, who are free to refuse all arrangement, but on their own terms, and the public not free, on such refusal, to employ any other bank. That of Philadelphia, I believe, now does this business, by their post-notes, which, by an arrangement with the treasury, are paid by any State collector to whom they are presented. This expedient alone suffices to prevent the existence of that necessity which may justify the assumption of a non-enumerated power as a means for carrying into effect an enumerated one. The thing may be done, and has been done, and well done, without this assumption ; therefore, it does not stand on that degree of necessity which can honestly justify it.

It may be said that a bank whose bills would have a currency all over the States, would be more convenient than one whose currency is limited to a single State. So it would be still more convenient that there should be a bank, whose bills should have a currency all over the world. But it does not follow from this superior conveniency, that there exists anywhere a power to establish such a bank; or that the world may not go on very well without it.

Can it be thought that the Constitution intended that for a shade or two of convenience, more or less, Congress should be authorized to break down the most ancient and fundamental laws of the several States; such as those against Mortmain, the laws of Alienage, the rules of descent, the acts of distribution, the laws of escheat and forfeiture, the laws of monopoly ? Nothing but a necessity invincible by any other means, can justify such a prostitution of laws, which constitute the pillars of our whole system of jurisprudence. Will Congress be too straitlaced to carry the Constitution into honest effect, unless they may pass over the foundation-laws of the State government for the slightest convenience of theirs ?

The negative of the President is the shield provided by the Constitution to protect against the invasions of the legislature : 1. The right of the Executive. 2. Of the Judiciary. 3. Of the States and State legislatures. The present is the case of a right remaining exclusively with the States, and consequently one of those intended by the Constitution to be placed under its protection.

It must be added, however, that unless the President's mind on a view of everything which is urged for and against this bill, is tolerably clear that it is unauthorized by the Constitution; if the pro and the con hang so even as to balance his judgment, a just respect for the wisdom of the legislature would naturally decide the balance in favor of their opinion. It is chiefly for cases where they are clearly misled by error, ambition, or interest, that the Constitution has placed a check in the negative of the President.

* Though the Constitution controls the laws of Mortmain so far as to permit Congress itself to hold land for certain purposes, yet not so far as to permit them to communicate a similar right to other corporate bodies.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant man. He saw the dangers in combining church and state, but then he had historical examples of the church/state cooperation to suppress the peasants.

Unfortunately, his hindsight was better than his foresight. He advocated public education apparently never foreseeing the government/education cooperation to suppress the mind.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

The sub-state districts of councils of government, regional councils, regional commissions, economic development districts, etc. organized in the 1960s-1970s are all part of the federal plan to make our State and local governments provinces of the Washingtonian Empire. They are designed to take the people out of the governmental process by reducing their representation and moving government further away. The sovereignty of the States will be lost forever.

For more information on this, see the Regionalism post in my lostliberty blog.

Rick
http://PhreedomPhan-lostliberty.blogspot.com

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Bull!!! If you're too lazy to fill out the forms, then you don't care about organ donation. Forcing people to "opt out" is wrong. Nobody has a right to take someone else's organs without express permission.

I'd like to know what the difference is between taking a kidney from a dead person and giving it to a person who needs it to live and taking a thigh from a dead person and feeding it to a starving person who needs it to live.

I'll never forget how that poor black man conveniently died so that the late Gov. Casey of PA could be bumped up to the front of the line and receive his organs.

phreedomphan 9 months ago

Assuming bankers are playing with their own money? The bankers have not been playing with their own money since the early merchant/bankers found that only a small portion of the gold receipts they issued for gold left with them for safe keeping were ever redeemed at any one time. They began issuing receipts against gold they didn't have and charging interest. The superfluous receipts were not wealth, but the interest they received was. A formula for the eventual transfer of all wealth to the bankers. Jefferson warned us 200 years ago that if we ever gave the bankers power to issue our money giant corporations would spring up around us and our children would be homeless in the continent their fathers occupied (sometimes given as conquered).

phreedomphan 9 months ago

The war over who was to control the money supply and hence America raged for many decades. Was it to be the people through their government or the bankers through their government. Most of the battles were won by the bankers. The writing of the Constitution to replace the Articles was a victory for them and it didn't take economic royalist Hamilton long to give them their national bank--over Jefferson's protests. But the victories were only temporary. Every ten or twenty years the bank charters had to be renewed. This held them up at least to partial light in Congress and the uncontrolled media. Occasionally they were defeated.

In 1899 M. W. Walbert wrote: “The Coming Battle : A Complete History of the National Banking Money Power in the United States.” Walbert foresaw the final battle for control looming ever closer. Unfortunately, Walbert was overly optimistic. He predicted a victory for the people. In less than a decade and a half, the Fed was created giving the bankers control in virtual perpetuity. It was no longer necessary that their charter be renewed. There was no cause for any serious consideration as to whether to renew or not. The people, and probably most of Congress, lost site of the machinations of the Fed. Since then only a few voices such as Doctor Brown's have been heard crying in the wilderness.

I think it would take more courage than President Obama has to dare to buck the powers that be. Still, to have a voice of reason in the debate might serve to open the eyes of more Americans and people around the world.

Anyone who wants to give themselves a homeschool doctorate in economics should take a look at:
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com. Do some searching through his online ebooks to find a chronology of books and writings from the early 19th Century to the early to mid-20th.

The truth is out there! – Fox Mulder
The truth is! The problem is getting it out there! – PhreedomPhan

Categories

User Activity Stream

Ideas Posted

Comments Posted