America's economic disaster

David Walker is not running for office. He's not pushing partisan politics. He is head of the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress that audits and evaluates the performance of the federal government. He's the comptroller-general of the US, the nation's accountant-in-chief.

David Walker is sounding an urgent warning: America is headed down a path to financial ruin. Says Walker, "This is about the future of our country, our kids and grand kids. We the people have to rise up to make sure things get changed."

While America's politicians debate the wisdom of the war in Iraq, and which party is tougher on terror, and whether or not to cut taxes, what they don't talk about is a dirty little secret that everyone knows. The vast majority of economists and budget analysts agree that the US is now on a disastrous course, and will hit economic disaster if nothing is done to correct it.

There's a good reason politicians don't like to talk about the nation's long-term fiscal prospects. The subject is short on political theatrics and long on complicated economics, scary graphs and very big numbers. It reveals serious problems and offers no easy solutions. Anybody who wants to deal with it seriously would have to talk about raising taxes and cutting benefits, bad news that will likely doom any politician.

David Walker is committed to touring the nation through the 2008 elections, talking to anybody who will listen about the fiscal black hole Washington has dug itself. He's dubbed his campaign the "Fiscal Wake-Up Tour". He decries the recklessness of borrowing money from foreign lenders to pay for the operations of the US government. The overwhelming "tsunami" (he calls it) will come when the baby boom generation begins retiring.

Walker's basic message is this: If the United States government conducts business as usual over the next few decades, a national debt that is already $8.5 trillion could reach $46 trillion or more, adjusted for inflation, and could paralyze the US economy. According to some projections, just the interest payments on debt that big would be as much as ALL the taxes the government collects today.

Walker says the US can be likened to Rome before the fall of the empire. America's financial condition is "worse than advertised" and it has a "broken business model." It faces deficits in its budget, its balance of payments, its savings, and its leadership. And every year that nothing is done about it, the problem grows by $2 trillion to $3 trillion.

Nobody denies what David Walker is saying, not even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. The presidential candidates shy away from the subject, as if it was simply not there. Who will do anything about it? And when? Watch this 60-Minutes' video and open your eyes to the sober truth:



Now don't take this video to mean Bill Clinton was right and George W Bush is wrong. BOTH are destroying our country. But there are two advantages for Clinton: the majority of his term was held by the opposing party majority in Congress, the majority of Bush' term was held by the same party majority in Congress; and Clinton was president in the 1990s, Bush is president in the 2000s (i.e., Baby-Boomers will start to retire in 2008). If Hillary becomes president (I hope and pray she doesn't!), she won't have the advantages her husband did.

National debt clock to the micro-second

Now it's getting disgustingly repugnant!!

The Gross National Debt

Aaron Russo, R.I.P.

I'm sad to tell you that this morning, Aaron Russo lost his fight with cancer. Moment of silence - God rest a patriot's soul! - How sad. May he be honored for doing what he could to restore the Constitution.

The Lone Lantern Society of America and Restore the Republic are two sites closely affiliated with Russo. They are reporting that he had passed away after a long battle with cancer today. Russo was best known in the patriot movement for creating the film America: Freedom to Fascism which exposed the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Reserve as frauds (which I have many posts supporting). Prior to making A:FTF, he made several big budget Hollywood films including The Rose, Trading Places and many others. He also ran for governor in Nevada and for president as a Libertarian in 2004.

Read more about Aaron Russo via his Wikipedia page. There is no doubt that this is a sad day, but we should focus on celebrating his life and the contributions he made to help restore the Constitution and defeat the New World Order. Celebrate Russo's legacy by doing everything you can to fight the coming tyranny, that's what he would have wanted. Our prayers are with Russo's family.

We appreciate you! In his epitaph Russo would prefer, it would be this: "All your freedoms, all the time!” Russo has started millions to see the truth about the battle for liberty, now we will continue the fight.

Now I know why Ron Paul is different

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Jim Gilmore, Newt Gingrich: what do they have in common? According to my research they are all members, are candidates, or are backing the Council On Foreign Relations. Folks this is BAD! The goal of the CFR and its members is to set up an all-powerful One World Government (Wikipedia's "Conspiracy theories" section of the CFR is for real!). Bill Clinton is a member. Bush before him also . . . remember his famous speech referring to a New World Order [4th paragraph from the end]? President Bush is a member. Dick Cheney used to be CFR's director; he was caught on video bragging about hiding it from Wyoming voters while running for Congress. Educate yourself on the CFR; don't be in the dark!

"The Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American branch of a society that originated in England... (and) ...believes national boundaries should be obliterated and a one-world rule should be established." -Carroll Quigley, member of CFR, mentor to Bill Clinton.

"The main purpose of the Council On Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government." -Admiral Chester Ward, former CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy.

My fellow patriots, is your favorite candidate on this list? Notice who isn't. The one man of great integrity who is being blatantly ignored by the media, except the unowned Internet--Dr. Ron Paul!

"Once the ruling members of the CFR shadow government have decided that the U.S. government should adopt a particular policy [or elect a pro one-world candidate] the very substantial research facilities of (the) CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition. -Admiral Chester Ward, former CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy [brackets mine].

Caution: CFR's Corporate Membership will be ignoring, and doing everything possible to discredit Ron Paul. The following Media Sources are CFR corporate members according to CFR's website: ABC News, Time Warner, Inc. (which includes HBO & CNN), Bloomberg, and America Online Incorporated.

UPDATE: Congressman Paul just confirms yesterday morning about the NAFTA superhighway. Just for the record, the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) is a member of the CFR.

Americans' birth-right

The men who founded our nation understood that government was necessary to preserve the people's freedoms. But they also knew that government agents could not always be trusted to use their authority justly, and that government remains the single greatest threat to the rights and liberties of the people.

America's Founding Fathers knew that freedom required that the people always retain the ability to take government out of the hands of abusive officials, "to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security." This was far from just some lofty theory to the Founders. They had witnessed oppressive government firsthand and had seen this principle unfold in dramatic practice as thousands of armed citizens took up their muskets and drove the king's soldiers — their government's soldiers — back to Boston on April 19, 1775. The United States was born out of the fight against tyranny.

Most important, the Framers remembered this when they created a new Constitution. To ensure that government remains in the hands of the people, the Second Amendment guaranteed that the citizen militia would remain sacrosanct.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is the least understood of all rights mentioned in the Constitution. Few today have any idea of the true meaning and intent of this provision, and most people are more likely to deride this right either as an archaic and unnecessary remnant of an embarrassing past, or at best merely some benign assurance that "sportsmen" will be able to go hunting. Neither is true.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an important and integral part of what it means to be an American. In fact, it could be said to represent the most important and integral part of being an American. When our ancestors followed the example of half the state governments and included a "right to arms" provision in the Federal Bill of Rights, they unapologetically and irrefutably established a nation of free and autonomous individuals.

By granting legal and moral recognition to the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution — "the law of the land" — Americans made concrete in practice that every single free citizen would remain the final repository of political power. Early American statesmen were following the sage advice of such men as the Scottish philosopher and militia advocate Andrew Fletcher, who argued that "arms are the only true badges of liberty," providing "the distinction of a free man from a slave."

Without arms, the people's rights could too easily become prey to the whim of an ambitious executive, the edicts of a corrupt legislature or the proclamations of false-hearted judges. Under an armed citizenry, this becomes much more difficult. Government must proceed carefully when exercising power, lest a "long Train of Abuses and Usurpations" inspire the people to again water the "tree of liberty . . . with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

In no other culture and under no other government has the importance of an armed citizenry been made so explicit or as carefully guaranteed as it has under the American constitutional order. While both ancient Rome and the British Parliament paid statutory lip service to the value of being armed, only in the United States was being armed recognized as an inviolable right protected by the Constitution. What started with gunfire at Lexington and Concord ended with the words of Tench Coxe, a friend of James Madison: "Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. . . . [The] unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

James Madison also understood the ultimate, fail-safe role of the citizen militia. In Federalist 46, he dismissed fears of a standing army being used against the people because it "would be opposed [by] a militia. . . with arms in their hands." A few years later he would write what became the Second Amendment, with its promise that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

If the average person today wonders about his relationship to his government, the Second Amendment provides ample guidance. It represents the ideal of American political and social life: the individual, self-governing, self-motivated, self-respecting, dignified, free citizen — who takes these virtues so seriously that he will maintain the personal power to back them up.

The Federal Reserve's financial meltdown

Another wonderful article by Jacob Hornberger:

Ominous Financial Times Ahead
by Jacob G. Hornberger

The out-of-control federal spending to finance President Bush’s imperial adventuring in Iraq might be showing signs of an ominous economic crisis ahead.

As I have been warning for years, the massive federal spending binge that U.S. officials have undertaken, especially since 9/11, would ultimately bring a crashing dollar. As most everyone knows, that is exactly what has been happening to the dollar in the international arena.

But yesterday, the financial situation got a bit more ominous. Fears arising from the U.S. home-loan crisis spread to Europe where both the European Central Bank and the U.S. Federal Reserve had to inject billions of dollars into the European financial system to keep it liquid.

If more funds are necessary to keep the financial system liquid (thereby discouraging runs on banks), then what is all that new, “free” money being injected into the financial system going to do to the value of the dollar? You got it — a bigger dollar crash is looming on the horizon as well.

We can add the federal dollar crisis to the crises in Social Security, Medicare, terrorism, drug war, Iraq, education, immigration, and just about everything else the feds have touched with their programs and interventions.

As I have written before, thanks to the federal government — or federal god as many American statists choose to perceive it — Americans just might be facing a perfect storm of crises, all of which are rooted in federal socialism, interventionism, and empire-building.

Meanwhile, the federals continue spending money as if there were no tomorrow, especially on their imperial adventure in Iraq. Oh well, if Americans do end up experiencing a deep financial and economic crisis, at least they’ll have the solace of knowing that their federal rulers are “rebuilding” Iraq, after destroying it of course.

Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

It's a no-brainer. If a country's government spends and doesn't tax (i.e., it borrows, or prints the money), the deficit will rise, or inflation consumes. If a country's government spends and tax to pay for it, the people will be poorer. Either way, it is not good for the people. The only way to benefit the people is to STOP SPENDING! Only Ron Paul will limit spending (i.e., bring the troops home, for starters), and thus, will not tax, and, at the same time, will make a balanced budget, and will end the Federal Reserve's monopoly over money, and will bring money backed by precious metal to America, like we did before 1913. Only Paul will do this for us.

China's "nuclear option"

Even while many U.S. conservatives and neo-conservatives still refrain from taking individual responsibility for the massive death, destruction, mayhem, and chaos their foreign policy has wrought in Iraq, one would think that they would at least take individual responsibility for trading our freedom for security here at home, including the enemy-combatant doctrine, the loss of habeas corpus, the wiretapping, and the monitoring of email and telephone calls.

Unfortunately, not so, once again confirming that holding the concept of individual responsibility up to a conservative or neoconservative is like holding a cross up to a vampire.

The same, of course, holds true for what they have done to America’s monetary system with their out-of-control federal spending to finance their overseas imperial adventures. As most everyone no doubt knows, the dollar has been crashing in international markets, and my hunch is that we haven’t seen anything yet. Of course, many people blame it on the feds because they think that inflation, like terrorism, is unrelated to federal policies.

Ever since the federal spending spree began, The Future of Freedom Foundation has been warning about the monetary dangers arising from out-of-control federal spending. As they have been repeatedly emphasizing, what the feds have been doing to pay for all this federal adventuring is borrow the money rather than raise the taxes to finance it. After all, taxpayers get angry over rising taxes but have no idea that rising prices are a direct result of inflating the currency to pay the bills.

This week, U.S. officials and the American people received a brusque and blunt reminder of the results of U.S. monetary policy (this and this). If U.S. officials don’t stop pressuring China to change its trade policy and its monetary policy, Chinese officials are threatening to dump their entire holdings of U.S. debt instruments. China, whose economy has been booming during the entire time that the U.S. government has been obsessed with building its military-industrial complex, has been using its reserves to purchase massive quantities of U.S. Treasuries, making China the second-largest holder of such securities in the world, after Japan.

Here is what a Chinese official stated in regard to what is being termed the “nuclear option”:

"The Chinese central bank will be forced to sell U.S. dollars once the [yuan] appreciates dramatically, which might lead to a mass depreciation of the U.S dollar against other currencies."

As many people will recall, conservatives and neo-conservatives used to crow about how they supposedly brought down the Soviet Union by making the Soviet government spend the nation into bankruptcy. They still claim that they brought down the Soviet Union but they no longer say how. It’s not difficult to understand why. But wouldn’t it be nice if they at least accepted individual responsibility for the debacles they have wrought, both abroad and here?

Arming the "enemy"

Here is an excellent article by Jacob Hornberger for all of the pro-war neocons out there:

Arming “the Enemy” in the Middle East
by Jacob Hornberger

The number of pro-empire, pro-war advocates who are relying on the “Muslims are coming to get us” rationale to justify the continued occupation of Iraq seems to be dwindling, but I still receive emails from some of them telling me that U.S. forces must continue occupying Iraq to protect us from the Muslim threat to conquer the world.

Yet, notice something interesting: None of the proponents of this rationale is openly protesting the recent decision by President Bush to deliver $20 billion in weaponry to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other Middle Eastern countries that are headed by Muslim regimes.

Yes, I said Muslim regimes and I also said that the U.S. government is delivering massive amounts of weapons to such Muslim regimes. Aren’t these the people that the pro-occupation proponents are saying are waging a war against Christianity and the West? If so, then why are the pro-occupation proponents remaining silent in the face of the president’s decision to arm “the enemy”?

If the “Muslims are coming to get us” crowd really believed their own rhetoric, do you think for a moment they would be sitting on their haunches and just letting the president deliver billions of dollars of U.S. weapons to enemies who were coming to get us? Not on your life! They would be in the streets of Washington, D.C., holding protests and demonstrations. They would be writing letters to the president and the Congress. They would be telling President Bush that we are at war and that it is wrong to be delivering weapons to the enemy. Why, they might even be calling for impeachment. Isn’t it treason to aid the enemy during time of war?
Moreover, think about Iraq itself. The pro-occupation proponents say that U.S. forces must stay there to continue killing the proponents of Islam, who are supposedly committed to “following us home” with an invasion, conquest, and occupation of the U.S. (Never mind that there are no ships, planes, and supplies to accomplish such a feat.)

Yet, notice something important in Iraq: U.S. forces are not warring against all Muslims, only against those who are forming the insurgency in resistance to U.S. rule. The U.S. government continues to support and deliver weapons to Iraqis who are part of the U.S.-installed Iraqi regime — and even helping to train them to use such weapons.

But wait a minute! Aren’t the Iraqis that the U.S. government is arming and training Muslims too? In fact, haven’t many Iraqi officials even aligned themselves with the extremist Muslim regime in Iran? Why aren’t the “Muslims coming to get us” crowd protesting and demonstrating against that? Why aren’t they telling the president to attack and kill them too? Why not bomb everyone in Iraq, or at least all the Muslims, rather than simply those who are resisting the occupation? Because deep down, the pro-occupation proponents know their rationale for supporting the president’s occupation is a crock — just like the WMD, democracy-spreading, and liberation rationales were a crock too.

With the continuing reality of death and destruction coming out of Iraq on a weekly basis for at least the next two years, my hunch is that the “Muslims are coming to get us” rationale will ultimately go the way of the WMD, democracy-spreading, and freedom rationales that were initially used to justify the U.S. government’s imperial intervention in Iraq.

Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

I couldn't said it better myself!

Ron Paul

Do you believe I quit my blog? Not yet--I suspended it for a while until the Ron Paul for President campaign is over. I usually vote for candidates in the Libertarian Party, but Paul is different. I usually vote for the aforementioned, but I vote for the best candidate who supports freedom, and Paul is that candidate. Now, Paul is, and is running as, a Republican. But Paul has what no other candidate has--a track record, and it's a consistent record for a free society.

As one of a major parties, Paul can actually enter the debate and fill the people's minds with a message of freedom. You can't do that if you are a minor party. And you know what? The people responded favorably! He won the majority of the debate polls, he is first in all the Internet polls, and if the people actually hear his message, they are hooked. The Ron Paul fan base are the most vocal group of all.

He sparks more webpages, blogposts, videos, and meetup groups than anybody. I have spending my time reading some of these (and participating in the meetup group in OKC), but there isn't enough time of the day reading all of them. But my favorite blog is Daily Paul. You will read that blog for a while, and you see what I mean! Even Libertarian Presidential candidate Steve Kubby said he will endorse Paul for president if he wins the nomination, and urge fellow Libertarians to vote NOTA. Kubby believes what I believe; liberty is more important than us. And I'll bet if enough people start to hear favorable things about Ron Paul and take time to read about him and his message, he could might win the presidency! He's moving up in the polls. But the greatest enemy is the establishment and the mainstream media, and they are a mighty foe. But Paul has the people! It is too early to tell, but I will be watching! The next post is when Paul has lost, or the next presidential election a year from November. I hope and pray it is the latter! In the meantime, here is a video on Paul's canidadicy for you to watch:


Add This to Your Page - Watch more at FreeMe.TV