Should We Kill the Fed?

Leave a comment

I have my own observations about ending the FED.  Actually I think it has been in the plans all along and is being sold now as some saving act that will restore our country.  It will simply throw us totally under the World Bank bus…..which is right where they intended us to go to begin.  Still, this article lays out some of the lesser known facts about the Great Depression.    Marti


by Patrick J. Buchanan Posted 04/03/2009 ET
Updated 04/03/2009 ET


For the financial crisis that has wiped out trillions in wealth, many have felt the lash of public outrage.

Fannie and Freddie. The idiot-bankers. The AIG bonus babies. The Bush Republicans and Barney Frank Democrats who bullied banks into making mortgages to minorities who could not afford the houses they were moving into.

But the Big Kahuna has escaped.

The Federal Reserve.

“(T)he very people who devised the policies that produced the mess are now posing as the wise public servants who will show us the way out,” writes Thomas Woods in “Meltdown.”

Already in its sixth week on the New York Times best-seller list, this eminently readable book traces the Fed’s role in every financial crisis since this creature was spawned on Jekyl Island in 1913.

The “forgotten depression” of 1920-21 was caused by a huge increase in the money supply for President Wilson’s war. When the Fed started to tighten at war’s end, production fell 20 percent from mid-1920 to mid-1921, far more than today.

Why did we not read about that depression?

Because the much-maligned Warren Harding refused to intervene. He let businesses and banks fail and prices fall. Hence, the fever quickly broke, and we were off into “the Roaring Twenties.”

But, the Fed reverted, expanding the money supply by 55 percent, an average of 7.3 percent a year, not through an expansion of the currency, but through loans to businesses.

Thus, when the Fed tightened in the overheated economy, the Crash came, as the stock market bubble the Fed had created burst.

Herbert Hoover, contrary to the myth that he was a small-government conservative, renounced laissez-faire, raised taxes, launched public works projects, extended emergency loans to failing businesses and lent money to the states for relief programs.

Hoover did what Obama is doing.

Indeed, in 1932, FDR lacerated Hoover for having presided over the “greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history.” His running mate, John Nance Garner, accused Hoover of “leading the country down the path to socialism.” And “Cactus Jack” was right.

Terrified of the bogeyman that causes Ben Bernanke sleepless nights — deflation, falling prices — FDR ordered crops destroyed, pigs slaughtered, and business cartels to cut production and fix prices.

FDR mistook the consequences of the Depression — falling prices — for the cause of the depression. But prices were simply returning to where they belonged in a free market, the first step in any cure.

Obama is repeating the failed policies of Hoover and FDR, by refusing to let prices fall. Obama, with his intervention to prop up housing prices and Bernanke with his gushers of money to bail out bankrupt banks and businesses are creating a new bubble that will burst even more spectacularly.

The biggest myth, writes Woods, is that it was World War II that ended the Great Depression. He quotes Paul Krugman:

“What saved the economy and the New Deal was the enormous public works project known as World War II, which finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs.”

This Nobel Prize winner’s analysis, writes Woods, is a “stupefying and bizarre misunderstanding of what actually happened,”

Undoubtedly, with 29 percent of the labor force conscripted at one time or another into the armed forces, and their jobs taken by elderly men, women and teenagers with little work experience, unemployment will fall.

But how can an economy be truly growing 13 percent a year, as the economists claim, when there is rationing, shortages everywhere, declining product quality, an inability to buy homes and cars, and a longer work week? When the cream of the labor force is in boot camps or military bases, or storming beaches, sailing ships, flying planes and marching with rifles, how can your real economy be booming?

It was 1946, a year economists predicted would result in a postwar depression because government spending fell by two-thirds, that proved the biggest boom year in all of American history.

Why? Because the real economy was producing what people wanted: cars, TVs, homes. Businesses were responding to consumers, not the clamor of a government run by dollar-a-year men who wanted planes, tanks, guns and ships to blow things up.

“The Fed was the greatest single contributor to the crisis that unfolds before us,” Woods writes of today, and “more dollars were created between 2000 and 2007 than in the rest of the republic’s history.”

After 9-11, the Fed kept interest rates low — in one year as low as 1 percent. That money flooded into the housing and stock markets. And in 2008, as the Fed tightened, the bubble burst.

Now the money supply is again expanding, to rescue us from a crisis created by the previous expansion. Of Nicholas Biddle’s Bank of the United States, the great Andrew Jackson was eloquent.

“It has tried to kill me,” he said. “But I will kill it.” And he did.

Should not this creature from Jekyl Island, for all its manifold crimes and sins against the republic, also be summarily put to death?



Leave a comment


By Joan Veon
April 3, 2009


That is how I felt fourteen years ago when I read the 1994 United Nations Development Report. I was absolutely shocked to read the Special Contribution entitled “Global Governance for the 21st Century” by the 1969 Nobel Prize for Economics, Jan Tinbergen. He wrote,

Mankind’s problems can no longer be solved by national governments. What is needed is a World Government. This can best be achieved by strengthening the United Nations system. In some cases, this would mean changing the role of UN agencies from advice-giving to implementation. But some of the most important new institutions would be financial—a World Treasury and a World Central Bank. Just as each nation has a system of income redistribution, so there should be a corresponding ‘World Financial Policy’ to be implemented by the World Bank and the World Central Bank. Some of these proposals are, no doubt, far-fetched and beyond the horizon of today’s political possibilities. But the idealist of today often turns out to be the realists of tomorrow.

In that report, it also laid out the changes to be made to the international level of government in order to complete the necessary powers: They included:

A World Central Bank which should have five functions: (1) stabilize global economic activity, (2) lender of last resort to financial institutions, (3) calm jittery financial markets, (4) regulate financial institutions and (5) create and regulate new international liquidity.

The institution named to be the successor organization was the International Monetary Fund. This new central bank would float a new issue of Special Drawing Rights-SDRs and it would have “Global Macroeconomic Management” worldwide. It would also acquire some regular control of international banking activities.

A World Trade Organization to be the successor to the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs.

An Economic Security Council to “review the threats to global human security and agree on required action.” It would have 11 permanent members and another 11 rotating members. They would not have any veto and it would “coordinate activities of the UN agencies and watch over the policy direction of all international and regional financial institutions.”

Other components mentioned included a World Anti-Monopoly Authority, a World Bank International Investment Trust and a World Bank Intermediate Assistance Facility.” The report also called for a World Police force, an International Court of Justice and a World Treasury.

The report stated, “It will probably take some time and probably some international financial crisis—before a full-scare World Central Bank can be created.” It appears we are there. For most people, the things that I wrote about were ridiculous. Why? Because they were not reading the same documents I was reading. At the 101 global meetings I have covered around the world, these kinds. of ideas were considered exciting and were being actively discussed, as they are now.

Also in 1994, The Bretton Woods Commission which was convened by Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve Chairman and James D. Wolfensohn who was the Director of the World Bank met. Their report confirmed the 1994 Human Development Report and called for “greater economic convergence among countries.” With regard to a world monetary system, the Commission stated,

Any future international monetary system should focus on the major international currencies which dominate trade and global capital markets. For some time to come these will be the dollar, the yen and the Deutsch mark [or its successor European currency). The alternative to a new global system is to continue the present non-system of loose ad hoc cooperation, dominated by the G7 process (pages 4-5).

Furthermore the Bretton Woods Commission said the IMF “should be given a central role to play in coordinating macroeconomic policies and in developing and implementing monetary reforms.” They said that the IMF should be given surveillance in order to secure a more stable exchange rate system and that the Special Drawing Rights are needed—but not now, and should be considered at some other time.” Interestingly enough the Bretton Woods Commission was supported by numerous foreign and American Banks which included, J.P. Morgan, Kidder Peabody International, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley Group, Salomon Brothers, The Ford Foundation, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The German Marshall Fund and S. G. Warburg Group. Some of these banks no longer exist and some even had trouble earlier in our current banking crisis.

I was seeing the plan for a future world governmental structure. I used the 1994 Human Development Report as my blueprint for the future and what I should look for.

Then in February, 2004, I interviewed U.S. Treasury Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Tony Fratto at the G7 Finance Ministers meeting in Boca Raton, Florida. Part of our discussion follows:  READ MORE

The Battle In The States: Freedom Vs Protection

Leave a comment

Mark Lerner and Tom DeWeese put together this piece; which can be found at Tom DeWeese, President of American Policy Center  www.americanpolicy.org <  


Mark Lerner, Director, Stop Real ID Coalition   www.stoprealidcoalition.com <   http://www.stoprealidcoalition.com


Please pass this along to those you know.

Across the nation, state legislatures are struggling to take back their Constitutional rights as they also seek ways to protect us from outside threats. This has led to some near schizophrenic legislative sessions with laws swinging widely from left to right.

Making it more difficult to get a handle on the situation is the fact that there has been an outgrowth of near “rabid”

anti-immigration groups that have sprung up demanding near-Hitler-style tactics to “fix” the problem. While the situation is certainly serious and demands action, these groups openly admit that they are willing to surrender their liberties if that is what it takes to end illegal immigration. They may deeply regret that cavalier dismissal of liberty. Once lost, it is rarely regained.

To address these issues, three very distinct, but widely variant legislative actions have appeared in the states.

First, legislation dealing with protecting the integrity of the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty has been introduced across the nation, passing in at least 21 states. The states are reacting to the frightening growth of the federal government through anti-terrorist legislation such as the Patriot Act and Real ID, as well as the outrageous spending included in the bailout and stimulus bills.

Second, to address the illegal immigration issue, legislation in many states would provide state law enforcement with the ability to share information through direct electronic access. Many law-enforcement agencies are eagerly supporting such legislation. Yet, this type of legislation clearly contradicts the intent of the states sovereignty effort.

Third, again racing back to the other side to protect personal privacy from federal surveillance, there is legislation introduced to prohibit the collection of biometric samples/data, social security numbers and the use of RFID chips in state driver’s licenses.

One might ask, what do these pieces of legislation have to do with one another? They each go to the heart of a battle being waged across our country to decide how much Constitutional power the federal government has to collect, retain and share the personal information of each citizen, and how much power it has to force states to provide it?

Tenth Amendment legislation is exactly what the name implies

that states have Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and powers. It puts the federal government on notice that states will not act as its surrogates. The legislation unequivocally tells the federal government that its power comes from the citizens and the states and that federal powers are limited and defined rather than unlimited and arbitrary.*Fusion Centers*

As for those patriots who believe the illegal immigration is so dire that liberty should be thrown on the bonfire, perhaps they need to better understand what they are demanding.

Legislation introduced in several state legislatures, and currently in debate, allows state and local law-enforcement agencies to have direct access to one another’s databases. Some of the anti-immigration patriots might see it is as prudent legislation until one takes a closer look.

Most states now have Fusion Centers. Fusion Centers were originally intended to allow local and state law-enforcement to work alongside federal officers so that activity suspected of being terrorist related could be identified and responded to by all three law enforcement entities in a coordinated manner. Fusion Centers have representatives of all three working side-by-side in one office.

Fusion Centers are funded primarily by the federal government. Some believe them to be an effective tool to fight terrorism with little that one could find objectionable. The problem is, Fusion Centers have overstepped their intended purpose. This is typical when dealing with the issue of technology and invasive databases. Mission creep is just too easy.

In state after state we see Fusion Centers focusing on /all /suspected criminal activity, including misdemeanors. Some would ask you to believe that the mountain of information about citizens being accumulated actually stays within the borders of a state unless a citizen is suspected of terrorist activity. However, the Fusion Center in Oklahoma has been directed to develop procedures for the sharing of information with the FBI and DHS.

This means that direct electronic access is not limited to just state law enforcement agencies and departments. Since local, state and federal authorities are working together, there is no plausible reason to believe federal law enforcement will not gain access to all information a state law enforcement or local law enforcement authority would have.

*The Missouri Outrage*     


BABY DNA ALERT – The Baby DNA Warehouse bill (SF 1478)Minnesota

Leave a comment

BABY DNA ALERT – The Baby DNA Warehouse bill (SF 1478) may be announced last minute for Monday (3:00 p.m.) or for Tuesday (3:00 p.m.). The author is having another bill heard by the committee on Monday, and could conceivably do the baby DNA bill at the same time. Need MORE petitions to Governor
Contact your Representatives. Vote could come anytime in the House. (rep.firstname.lastname@house.mn) Find your legislator on the right side of our home page: http://www.cchconline.org

Citizens Line Up to Speak

CCHC “What Happened” REPORT
– click here for more photos

Crowd Challenges Health Department’s Medical Records Grab

Yesterday, in a room filled with people who came to comment on the Health Department’s medical record grab—and their planned use of the data to centralize treatment decisions and restrict access to care—the Department stalled the conversation.

State officials used up the first hour with department presentations. Meanwhile KSTP-TV waited for the action to begin. And waited. And waited.

After I asked them to provide their definition of health care “quality” (which they refused to answer), they cut off all audience questions until the end.

After they used up the first hour with three presentations, they asked every person to limit their comments to five minutes.

Engaged Audience:
The audience, most of them wearing CCHC “My Medical Records are Mine” stickers, was very engaged once the presentations were over, occasionally shouting out vocal rebuffs of less-than-transparent answers by the Department. They also applauded various comments made by the public.

MDH may be hoping no one ever hears about the meeting. They chose not to record attendance (no sign-in sheets) or to tape record the public’s comments.

Today we publish the CCHC report of the meeting, with lots of photos, to make sure the public knows what actually happened.

Coming soon…a YouTube video of a very impassioned and noisy exchange between one woman and the Health Department officials on the constitutionality of government taking private data.

Twila Brase
President, CCHC

%d bloggers like this: