My conversation with a couple Keynesians on Facebook

I am having a very civil and thoughtful conversation with some friends on Facebook.  I would like to invite your input into this.  Here is the transcript so far:

Example Problem-Reaction-Solution Scam: Solving the inflationary Fed with deflationary gold rather than the proper solution of a fiat which is neither inflationary or deflationary.

Yesterday at 4:58pm ·  Comment · Like

Clare Albright and Rob York like this.

Keith ∇ Gardner

it is like the false left vs. right paradigm. the deflationary gold scam was solved with the inflationary fed scam. now, there is a move to go back to the old scam. you’re given perpetually false solutions by transitioning back and forth between each polar extreme while being continually scammed, just in different ways.

Yesterday at 5:00pm

Jeremy Sofian

well said, solve the debt induced inflation from Federal Reserve Illegal Fiat with ferocious deflation from gold convertibility that lead to the Panic of 1837, the Crime of 73′ and farmers committing suicide.

Blissfully ignore history and repeat it.

Yesterday at 5:08pm

Jeremy Sofian

It’s comical that various foundation funded institutes and their talking heads associate liberty with a gold standard because their aristocratic masters already *own* most of the gold.

Yesterday at 5:11pm

Darrel Drumright

How can a fiat be neutral? Value of various property compared to each other will always fluctuate. Fiat is a faith based system that has nothing backing it up. I would love to read more about alternate solutions to the fractional reserve banking scam we have been living with. Why should one class of people have the right to counterfeit, and the rest of us cannot?

Yesterday at 5:38pm ·

Jeremy Sofian

Fiat can be neutral if there is no debt attached to it. Gold has nothing to do with a currency, the underlying economy does.

Yesterday at 5:40pm

Darrel Drumright

So a transparent production of a known and limited number of tokens to be used in a free market to help merchants and consumers negotiate prices. Is that what you are suggesting?

Yesterday at 5:51pm ·

Jeremy Sofian

I am suggesting money be spent debt free into the economy via infrastructure spending as opposed to debt induced lending or borrowing thus making it a permanent part of the monetary supply and representation of monetized wealth.

To avoid inflation merely set a 8-9% expansion cap per year and to avoid deflation by a measure that requires the per capita supply of money never falls (thus guarding against depression-inducing contractions)

Yesterday at 5:56pm

Keith ∇ Gardner

you manage the amount of paper in supply and not attach it to debt. you determine how much to remove and add to supply using very broad price indexes if economic conditions result in broad inflation or deflation. you remove and add by adjusting state revenue/expediture. you can make it transparent and most evenly distributed with a citizen dividend.

Yesterday at 7:45pm

Keith ∇ Gardner

pegging it to a commodity like gold is a bad idea since inflation and deflation is influenced by both broad economic conditions and by the commodity market itself. gold has two edges of volatility.

Yesterday at 7:50pm

Keith ∇ Gardner

yes, you convert existing fed notes for a public note. then, you add and remove on state expenditure. you spend less, you remove. you spend more, you add. a tax system that favors production, labor, investment, savings, and loans, and reduces the cost of living and poverty, like a land value tax, combined with a citizen dividend, is the most even…See More

Yesterday at 7:55pm

Keith ∇ Gardner

yes, darrell, not only transparent but with the rules transparent and rigid. make congress make changes to the rules by the requirement of a constitutional amendment or super majority vote for more fluid issues, such as deficit spending funded with bonds or inflation or changes to price indexes. you just issue tokens, converting existing notes 1 for 1, and you manage the tokens with transparent policy rather than the current system of managing credit supply with interest attached to it.

Yesterday at 7:59pm

Keith ∇ Gardner

super majority like a constitutional amendment, perhaps even with agreement from governors, with full terms of the deficit spending. that should help keep a balanced budget except for real emergencies where it could be justified.

Yesterday at 8:06pm

Jeremy Sofian

The major flaw with our current monetary system is that money is created via commercial bank lending the principle thus that amount is reduced from the monetary supply once it is paid back (money is destroyed) adding to the overall indebtedness of the entire society on a massive scale.

The system is naturally deflationary which forces businesses to absorb the higher costs of borrowing money via raising prices and consumers to borrow more money to afford those prices thus creating monetary inflation.

Some insist a business will conveniently lower the price of their goods during a contraction however, reality proves otherwise since the business must meed a break-even point or go bankrupt.
These same people also ignore that employment opportunities are also drastically lower during these contractions while merely looking at the value of the currency in question to do the slow-down in the velocity of money.

Yesterday at 8:07pm

Keith ∇ Gardner

you could do caps the same way… giving the federal government some flexibility in over-spending, but not on the scale of trillions, but a few billion. and if you tie it to a citizen dividend too, the people are going to want the government to underspend rather than overspend if it influences how much they get from the government. the citizen dividend would encourage the end of all state social services. the less state social services, the bigger the dividend for private social services, with the most critical being able to afford your own land and land value taxes or the equivalent for private social services, if you should be disabled. if you’re disabled, family members will be more likely to give you room and board if you have a check coming in.

Yesterday at 8:09pm

Keith ∇ Gardner

good ideas like this tend to get suppressed because they make sense. hard to scam people with good ideas that are fair and work.

Yesterday at 8:11pm

Jeremy Sofian

It is utterly shocking how suppressed this has been.

Yesterday at 8:12pm

Keith ∇ Gardner

the inflationary fed was the solution for the deflationary gold. going back to the old problem is not a solution.

Yesterday at 8:13pm

Keith ∇ Gardner

i thought they killed rfk and mlk just because rfk and mlk was going to run for president. it was more than that. mlk and rfk was starting to promote this idea.

Yesterday at 8:14pm

Jeremy Sofian

I wasn’t aware of that, however it was refreshing when i found out Dennis Kucinich atleast revived it’s idea in Congress.

Yesterday at 8:16pm

Keith ∇ Gardner

cynthia mckinney even spoke favorably of it. david nolan speaks favorably of it. people in ludwig von mises institute like the ideas, but they propagandize something different.

Yesterday at 8:30pm

Darrel Drumright

I think I am following, please allow me some points of clarification. How is new wealth be brought into the equation? Say I use my issued tokens and buy raw material then use my talents to change it into something very desirable and therefor more valuable. When I attempt to sell it, where is the extra credits coming from for someone to afford my improved product? What about amassing wealth through savings? Since the credits in circulation are monitored, what if everyone decided to save their credits instead of spend them, could the relative value of the credits as a circulating commodity go up simply because of this activity?

11 hours ago ·

Jeremy Sofian

“How is new wealth be brought into the equation?”
You would capture part of the money that already exists in the monetary supply – new wealth would be a natural expansion of the monetary supply since generally it only expands when wealth is monetized (for example a mag-lev rail system).

“? What about amassing wealth through savings? ”
The Wealth has to be there first before you can save it because the money reflects the wealth.

11 hours ago

Darrel Drumright

So each year, the old money would stay in circulation and the government would introduce new money according to their spending projects and a per capita distribution? How would the government take money back out of circulation? If I did not spend my yearly tokens could accumulate them for my children when I die? I am trying to work this through and appreciate your patiences with me on this.

11 hours ago ·

Jeremy Sofian

“How would the government take money back out of circulation?”
They don’t because each dollar represents physical labor and monetized wealth as opposed to “Promises of future labor”

The government of course would tax, but those taxes would obviously be used to cover whatever expenses and debts the federal government had. “If I did not spend my yearly tokens could accumulate them for my children when I die?”

Of course they are merely going to be dollars like you have now but as opposed to being a usurious debt based system each dollar is a permanent part of the monetary supply.

11 hours ago

Darrel Drumright

Bare with me here, so each year an amount of tokens is added to the economy equal to or greater than the year before? How many years would it take to completely flood the economy with these tokens making their relative value compared to finite commodities like real estate go down? Why wouldn’t supply and demand economics make the value of the growing number of nonparishable tokens diminish? I am asking these questions because like you, I think we can devise a better way to interact with the free market than gold or debt based dollars.

11 hours ago ·

Jeremy Sofian

How many years would it take to completely flood the economy with these tokens making their relative value compared to finite commodities like real estate go down? Why wouldn’t supply and demand economics make the value of the growing number of nonparishable tokens diminish?

Population and economy expands, tokens expand.

“The gold standard and the inflation argument that was used to justify it were based on the classical “quantity theory of money.” The foundation of classical monetary theory, it held that inflation is caused by “too much money chasing too few goods.” When “demand” (the money available to buy goods) increases faster than “supply” (goods and services), prices are forced up. If the government were allowed to simply issue all the Greenback dollars it needed, the money supply would increase faster than goods and services, and price inflation would result. If paper money were tied to gold, a commodity in limited and fixed supply, the money supply would remain stable and price inflation would be avoided.

A corollary to that theory was the classical maxim that the government should balance its budget at all costs. If it ran short of money, it was supposed to borrow from the bankers rather than print the money it needed, in order to keep from inflating the money supply. The argument was a “straw man” argument — one easily knocked down because it contained a logical fallacy — but the fallacy was not immediately obvious, because the bankers were concealing their hand. The fallacy lay in the assumption that the money the government borrowed from the banks already existed and was merely being recycled. If the bankers themselves were creating the money they lent, the argument collapsed in a heap of straw. The money supply would obviously increase just as much from bank-created money as from government-created money. In either case, it was money pulled out of an empty hat. Money created by the government had the advantage that it would not plunge the taxpayers into debt; and it provided a permanent money supply, one not dependent on higher and higher levels of borrowing to stay afloat.

The quantity theory of money contained another logical fallacy, which was pointed out later by British economist John Maynard Keynes. Adding money (“demand”) to the economy would drive up prices only if the “supply” side of the equation remained fixed. If new Greenbacks were issued to create new goods and services, supply would increase along with demand, and prices would remain stable. When a shoe salesmen with many unsold shoes on his shelves suddenly got more customers, he did not raise his prices. He sold more shoes. If he ran out of shoes, he ordered more from the factory, which produced more. If he were to raise his prices, his customers would go to the shop down the street, where shoes were still being sold at the lower price. Adding more money to the economy would inflate prices only when the producers ran out of the labor and materials needed to make more goods. Before that, supply and demand would increase together, leaving prices as they were before.”

11 hours ago

Keith ∇ Gardner

you only add if there is economic deflation. it isn’t every year. and it should be managed on a monthly or quarterly basis. more difficult to do such management with a gold standard since you’re having to buy or sell gold.

10 hours ago

Keith ∇ Gardner

not sure the ellen brown argument holds. if supply inreases or demand falls, the pressure would be deflationary, thus, you’d add tokens. if supply falls or demand increases, the pressure is inflationary, which you remove tokens. the changing supply and demand can be from numerous reasons, including population changes, employment, commodity cycles,new technology, etc. the trend would be deflationary largely from growing employment and productivity increases. growing employment can result from increased population though growing population can induce inflationary effects if suppy doesn’t keep up with demand. however, there is a lag in inflationary and deflationary pressures as ellen brown suggested, so simply adding or removing tokens should be done with caution. i’m not sure of the details of issues involved though the fed already does monitor and try to address such issues indirectly with setting the prime rate so i’m sure the science is well understood.

10 hours ago

Jeremy Sofian

The Ellen Brown argument merely points out the fallacy of the quantitative theory of money by highlighting that merely printing money is not inflationary so long as the aggregate production output keeps pace with the monetary supply.

10 hours ago

Keith ∇ Gardner

it is correct to say that it is more complex than mere supply and demand. capitalization, savings, loans, and employment are more heavily weighted concerns.

10 hours ago

Keith ∇ Gardner

for example, you can’t correct the problem of an oil shortage causing an inflationary situation in the economy. however, you can correct problems from the other factors causing an inflationary or deflationary influence on the currency, such as population, bank runs, or productivity. it tends to be complex, and you can’t completely do away with inflation and deflation because they serve a purpose to correct markets. however, you can correct broad inflation and deflation caused by other factors.

10 hours ago

Keith ∇ Gardner

meaning, add tokens if there are more people chasing more supply, or remove tokens if there are less people chasing less supply. prices will still increase and decrease and cascade from changing markets. you can’t address that nor do you want to try to address that.

10 hours ago

Jeremy Sofian

I am not so sure it’s necessary to remove currency from the system but rather set a cap on the monetary expansion rate depending on the inflation level (if there is inflation)… initially 8 or 9% but if there is indeed an inflationary phase set the cap lower.

Under the advocated system a high inflation rate is very unlikely at a 8 or 9% annual expansion cap thus I’d find it hard to imagine any broad inflation in the first place. I suppose making it a possibility wouldn’t hurt but i don’t see it actually occurring in the first place.

10 hours ago

Keith ∇ Gardner

you’re right. if deflation is the overall trend, you would be adding to supply. if inflation is created, the corrective action would be to reduce expansion rather than reverse it, since the overall trend would correct it.

9 hours ago

Keith ∇ Gardner

a neutral managed fiat is better than i thought. revenue isn’t needed to manage it. you can manage it strictly on the expenditure side.

9 hours ago

Darrel Drumright

wow, thanks for hangin with me here. I completely agree it is the government’s job to print the fiat, NOT private interests.

I still have a couple questions if you don’t mind.

1. In 1920s the global population was expanding rapidly. In 2010 the opposite is occurring. How does this model work in a contracting population?

2. As a trained physician I trade my finite time for a means to support my family. It is much cheaper for me to negotiate direct trades without using a third party token. What would entice me to use one government token over another?

3. In a system described above the government gets to print and bring the money into the economy right? As a business man, it doesn’t take long to figure out the best way to get to the new credits is a government contract. How does this system promote innovation and individual empowerment?

Thanks again for walking through this.

The Man Who Humbled the Federal Reserve

Pls send this ON, let The Light of the Truth Shine n ask WHY the money changers never dared to appeal.

Submitted by questministries… on December 14, 2009 – 1:31am.
NaturalNews) Jerome Daly is one of the few men to take on the might of the Federal Reserve in the courts and win. 40 years ago, a Minnesota bank attempted to foreclose on Daly`s mortgage but he humiliated them, thanks to his profound knowledge of Fractional Reserve Banking and a courageous, scrupulously honest judge. The judge delivered a dynamite decision that blasted the Federal Reserve and National Banks as unconstitutional and fraudulent. Understandably, the bankers have tried to bury this case and keep the controversial decree from public knowledge.
Those of you who may be facing the grim prospect of foreclosure on your mortgage, or if you know someone who is facing foreclosure, then the incredible story of Jerome Daly will delight and amaze you.
Jerome Daly was an attorney in Minnesota in the 1960s. In May, 1964, he took out a mortgage for $14,000 with The First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota, on a property described as Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota.
Somehow, three years later, Mr. Daly fell behind on his mortgage payments and the bank initiated proceedings to foreclose. The case was heard before a jury in Credit River Township, Scott County, Minnesota, at 10 a.m. on December 7th, 1968. The trial justice was Martin V. Mahoney, a remarkable, no-nonsense man of great integrity and fair-play.
Jerome Daly, being a lawyer, defended himself. The main witness for the prosecution was a Lawrence V. Morgan, President of The First National Bank of Montgomery.
The main issues were whether or not the loan transaction constituted a legal `consideration` and whether or not Mr. Daly waived his rights to complain by having paid his loan for three years.
For any loan transaction to be legal and binding a lawful `consideration` must be brought to the table by both parties. Mr. Daly said that as a consideration he put up his property of Lot 19, Fairview Beach. Mr. Daly further asserted that the bank provided no consideration but merely created the money out of thin air!
Under cross examination by Jerome Daly, Mr. Morgan the bank president spoke candidly and truthfully. Nevertheless, his evidence astonished the judge and jury.
Mr. Morgan admitted that by making a book-keeping entry the bank created the money out of nothing but that this was standard practice exercised by his bank in conjunction with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private bank. When questioned by Daly he also conceded that he knew of no United States Law or Statute that gave the bank authority to create money out of nothing.
The court was gobsmacked. Justice Mahoney was heard to say, “That sounds like fraud to me.”
The bank went on to claim that the Defendant, Daly, accepted the ledger book credit and by paying his mortgage for almost three years he waived his right to complain about the consideration and was legally estopped from doing so.
At 12.15 p.m. the jury returned a verdict. They unanimously found for the Defendant, Jerome Daly.
Justice Mahoney`s Judgment and Decree makes for fascinating reading. Here are some of his major points.
1. The Plaintiff (the bank) was not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach
2. Because there was no lawful consideration the Mortgage was Null and Void
3. The Bank parted with absolutely nothing except a little ink
4. The Plaintiff had no right, title, interest, or lien on the property
5. Defendant is awarded costs in the amount of $75
In his Memorandum Justice Mahoney went on to say, “The jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing.”
He also said, “Even if the Defendant could be charged with waiver or estoppel as a matter of Law this is no defense [sic] to the Plaintiff. The Law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them.”
And incredibly… “Plaintiff`s act of creating credit is not authorized by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, is unconstitutional and void, and is not a lawful consideration in the eyes of the Law to support any thing [sic] or upon which any lawful rights can be built.”
Amazing! A properly accredited U.S. judge actually said this in a properly convened U.S. court!
“…It has never been doubted that a Note given on a Consideration which is prohibited by law is void. It has been determined, independent of Acts of Congress, that sailing under the license of an enemy is illegal. The emmission [sic] of Bills of Credit upon the books of these private Corporations, for the purposes of private gain is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States and is unlawful…”
Then the case took another incredible turn.
The bank appealed, as was their right to do so; but a lawful appeal must be made within 10 days and accompanied by fee of $2. If the Clerk of the Court does not receive the appeal and the appropriate $2 fee within 10 days, as is required by the strict Appeals Statutes, then the District Court does not acquire Jurisdiction upon Appeal.
When the Notice of Appeal and the $2 fee arrived on Justice Mahoney`s desk for him to make his return to the District Court the judge made a second landmark decision. After examining the two $1 bills he saw that they were Federal Reserve notes. Justice Mahoney refused the notes and refused to allow the Appeal upon the grounds that the notes were without any lawful consideration and void for any purpose.
Justice Mahoney would not accept the Federal Reserve notes to pay for the Appeal process because they were not true money but represented instruments of debt. If the bank had paid in silver dollars, half-dollars, quarters, dimes, nickels, or even pennies, their appeal would have been legitimate and would have been heard.
Justice Mahoney offered the bank a hearing on the issue but they failed to request one. Then the District Court ordered Mahoney to show cause as to why the Appeal should not be allowed. Mahoney then ordered a hearing on January 22nd, 1969, for the purposes of making Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
But no representative of the First National Bank of Montgomery turned up in court, nor was there any continuance requested by the bank or its attorney.
In his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Justice Mahoney made some extraordinary observations. The following 12 points are quoted directly from his report (…)…
1. The Federal Reserve Banks and National Banks create money and credit upon their books and exercise the ultimate prerogative of expanding and reducing the supply of money or credit in the United States. The creation of this money or credit constitutes the creation of fiat money upon the books of these banks.
2. When the Federal Reserve Banks and National Banks acquire United States Bonds and Securities, State Bonds and Securities, State Subdivision Bonds and Securities, mortgages on private Real property and mortgages on private personal property, the said banks create the money and credit upon their books by bookkeeping entry. The first time that the money comes into existance [sic] is when they create it on their bank books by bookkeeping entry. The banks create it out of nothing. No substantial fund of gold or silver is back of it, or any fund at all.
3. The Federal Reserve Bank obtains Federal Reserve Notes [no matter what denomination] for the cost of printing of each note which is less than one cent. The net effect of the entire transaction is that the Federal Reserve Bank obtains Federal Reserve Notes comparable to the ones they placed on file with the Clerk of the District Court…for the cost of printing only.
4. From 1913 down to date, the Federal Reserve Banks and the National Banks are privately owned. As of March 18, all gold backing is removed from the said Federal Reserve Notes. No gold or silver backs up these notes.
5. The Federal Reserve Notes in question in this case are unlawful and void…being contrary to Article 1, Section 10, of the Constitution of the United States…are not lawful money of the United States; are in violation of the Constitution of the United States and are not valid for any purpose.
6. Said Notes are fiat money, not redeemable in gold or silver coin upon their face, not backed by gold or silver, and the notes are in want of some real or substantial fund being provided for their payment in redemption.
7. The sole consideration paid for the One Dollar Federal Reserve Notes is in the neighborhood of nine-tenths of one cent, and therefore, there is no lawful consideration behind said Notes…As a matter of fact, the “Notes” are not Notes at all, as they contain no promise to pay.
8. The activity of the Federal Reserve Banks…and the First National Bank of Montgomery is contrary to public policy and the Constitution of the United States and constitutes an unlawful creation of money and credit and the obtaining of money and credit for no valuable consideration. The activity of said banks in creating money and credit is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States.
9. The Federal Reserve and National Banks exercise an exclusive monopoly and privilege of creating credit and issuing their Notes at the expense of the public, which does not receive a fair equivalent. This scheme is for the benefit of an idle monopoly and is used to rob, blackmail and oppress the producers of wealth.
10. The Federal Reserve Act and the National Bank Act is in its operation and effect contrary to the whole letter and spirit of the Constitution of the United States; confers an unlawful and unnecessary power on private parties; holds all of our fellow citizens in dependence; is subversive to the rights and liberties of the people. It has defied the lawfully constituted Government of the United States. The two banking Acts and Sec. 462 of Title 31, U.S.C. pages 41 and 42, are therefore unconstitutional and void.
11. This fraudulent Federal Reserve System and National Banking System has impaired the obligation of Contract, promoted disrespect for the Constitution and Law and has shaken society to its foundations.
12. No rights can be acquired by fraud. The Federal Reserve Notes are acquired thru [sic] the use of unconstitutional statutes and fraud.
This is a thoroughly amazing legal decision, unprecedented in the history of the United States. Justice Mahoney was not a man to mince his words. He was courageous in the extreme, perhaps even reckless, to deliver such a decree against the Federal Reserve.
But the great fortitude of this remarkable judge may have cost him his life.
Less than 6 months later, in June, 1969, Justice Martin V. Mahoney died in a mysterious boating accident. Those close to him say his body was heavily poisoned.
Justice Mahoney`s decree still stands and has not been challenged or overturned to this very day.
We owe it to the memory of this brave man to get his audacious milestone judgment out into mainstream public awareness.
Some citizens, facing foreclosure, have quoted this case as a precedent but ended up losing their cases. Not every judge in America possesses the integrity and decency of Judge Mahoney. Isn`t it time to stamp out this fraud and corruption that is so endemic in the legal, business, and political institutions of our world today?
Those interested in examining the original documents of this monumental legal decision will find scores of documents at:
Minnesota State Law Library DOCKET SERIES
Law on the Edge:
the Credit River Case Files

Documents from the court’s files in First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly, Scott County, Minnesota

1968-12-10 Notice of Appeal
1968-12-11 Appeal
1968-12-18 Notice of Appeal
1968-12-20 Affidavit of TRM
1969-01-15? Motion
1969-01-17 Notice of Motion
1969-01-20 letter LEL to JD
1969-02-07 The Daly Eagle
1969-02-25 Notice of Appeal
1969-07-18 Surety Bond
1969-10-01 Order

Demand up or down vote on SB604

I am forwarding the following letter to with grate haste.  If there ever was a time to make our voices heard it is right now.  PLEASE take a moment of your valuable time and call both of your senators and firmly suggest they support SB 604 and call for an up or down vote on SB604 BEFORE they confirm Mr. Bernanke for his second term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Call Senator Bond at 202-224-5721
Call Senator McCaskill at 202-224-6154
Dear C4L Member,

C4L staffers have been working very closely with Senator Jim DeMint’s office in recent days to advance Audit the Fed (S. 604) in the Senate.

Just a little while ago, it was announced that Senator DeMint, who is the lead Senate cosponsor of Audit the Fed, has put a “hold” on Bernanke’s confirmation for a second term as Federal Reserve chairman until S. 604 receives an up or down vote on the Senate floor.

Keep reading for more details on how your immediate action could help make this vote possible.

While Ben Bernanke was handed a few softball questions from establishment politicians during today’s Senate Banking Committee hearing on his nomination, he also faced serious grilling from senators who are tired of his evasive answers and secretive practices.

DeMint is joined by Senator Jim Bunning and S. 604 sponsor Senator Bernie Sanders in pledging to block action on Bernanke’s reconfirmation.

According to DeMint, “Mr. Bernanke has been one of the chief proponents of the Fed’s easy money policy that created the current financial crisis. He ignored asset bubbles, dismissed concerns about the weakness of the dollar, and helped encourage the credit mania that led to the financial panic. Even worse, Mr. Bernanke has refused to accept any responsibility for his role in these actions prior to financial crisis.

Read the rest of his press release here.

Ultimately, Bernanke’s reconfirmation is irrelevant to the main issue, which is bringing real transparency to the Fed.

It doesn’t matter who’s at the wheel of the car; they will still be driving a clunker.

Contact your senators today and tell them that before they consider either reconfirming Ben Bernanke or appointing a new Chairman, they must deliver the answers the American people want and deserve by giving Audit the Fed a standalone, up or down vote on the Senate floor.

And if you live in Kentucky, urge Senator Bunning to take an even stronger stand by cosponsoring S. 604.

You and I have come so far this past year in our battle to Audit the Fed.  Now, we have an excellent chance of seeing S. 604 debated on the Senate floor.  But we must take immediate action to turn this chance into a reality!

Contact your senators right away!

In Liberty,

John Tate


P.S. Audit the Fed has gotten further than ever before, but we need your help to achieve standalone votes in the House and Senate as we seek to turn it into law!  Click here to contribute to C4L today as we work to finish this fight!

“End The Debt – Audit The Fed” rally

November 22, 2009  12:00 Noon

End The Debt – Audit The Fedrally
38 Federal Reserve Banks.  A protest rally at every location.
In Kansas City:
Federal Reserve (across from the Liberty Memorial)
27th at Main street in Kansas City Missouri.

bring friends, signs, and a good attitude 🙂  These rallys now include many groups supporting the effort.  The KC rally coaliton includes Liberty Restoration Project, Campaign for Liberty, 912 We are Change and many Tea Party activists.

November 22 will be the 46th anniversary of the death of President John F. Kennedy.
Why do we celebrate this?  To remember the actions of a man who attempted to force our nation to follow the Constitution in regards to monetary policy.

President Kennedy signed  Executive Order #11110 authorizing the printing of United States Treasury notes to be circulated without the accumulation of debt.

This order still stands today, however is not followed due to the monopoly that the Federal Reserve Bank has on the US monetary policy.

Fast forward 46 years and there are bills in our Congress right now attempting to at least provide our nation with
oversight on that monopoly.

HR 833 would abolish the Federal Reserve board of governors entirely,
whereas HR1207 would provide for a full and complete audit on all accounting and distribution methods of the
Federal Reserve Bank and has 312 congressional sponsors.

In the US Senate a companion Audit bill, S 604 has 31 senatorial sponsors.
There is overwhelming support of bringing the Federal Reserve into some kind of boundaries
due to the recent endless debt and inflationary printing.

We plan on having a celebration of the First Amendment in support of these bills.

November 25, 2009 7 pm

The “Buchanan County Political Activist Study Group” will meet at 7 PM Wednesday November 25th at the East Hills Library.  A brief introduction regarding the mission of the group will be made plus the award winning documentary, “The Money Masters” will be shown.

The “Campaign for Liberty” and “Tea Party” groups as well as the “general public” are invited to attend these monthly study groups to share ideas and promote strategies that will assist us in electing those political leaders that will do what is best for our country.  For more information contact Larry Flinchpaugh at 676-2565.



If you ever want to sell your house, please read this

Wow!  Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!!!

Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act (HR 2454 Cap and Trade), you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act.

H.R.  2454, the “Cap & Trade” bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.  The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year.  No one is excluded.  However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost.  Thus, you Mr.  and Mrs.  Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.
But wait.  This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it.

Probably the worst one is this: A year from now you won’t be able to sell your house.

Yes, you read that right.  The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it.  But, if not, then forget it.  Even pre-fabricated homes (”mobile homes”) are included.
In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator.

To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements.  Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a “label” in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner If you don’t get a high enough rating, you can’t sell. And,
the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act.

Sect.  202:
Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America.
Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act.  You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (i.e., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years.  Oh, goody!  The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements if you meet certain energy efficiency levels.  But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants.  You should expect requirements such as “can’t have an income of more than $50K per year”, “home selling price can’t be more than $125K”, or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that’s YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants Most of us won’t get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets.  More transfer of wealth, more “change you can believe in.”
Sect.  204:
Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for “at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.” This means that within five years, 90% of all residential homes in the U.S.  must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program.  The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program.  Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year.  Oh, the label will be like a license for your car.  You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label.  And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often – maybe every year.  But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time.  Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15.  That was when the program started.  Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase.  Expect the same from the home labeling program.
Sect.  304:
Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d) that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.
H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009