During the 2008 Presidential election, the Democrats rallied against the war and Republicans, except for one who said these wars will help contribute to bankrupting our nation, all approved of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That one individual who everyone knew just wanted to “bring our troops home,” was Ron Paul (this is the part where neo-conservatives reading this cringe).

As we all know, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us over $1 Trillion since their beginning and Obama hasn’t ended any of the wars as promised, but escalated them by sending more troops to Afghanistan. Not to mention, of course, the countless innocent victims and the deaths of thousands of our armed forces.

The following is one of those forwarded emails from a friend and my polite discussion with him that follows. I know why he thinks like he does because he has family who has served in the Armed forces. Many of us typically follow the patterns set by our parents, whether we are aware of them or not.

For quick proof of this, I’ll bet most reading this are of the same party, democrat or republican, as their parents were. To this I simply ask why? Do you agree with the basic platform of the party? Is there a real reason why you are one or the other? Or do you hate the other side just because, well, they’re the other side? Are they really the “other side?”

In the weeks and months to come, I want to start challenging democrats and republicans, from a Christian perspective as to why they think the way they do, and in particular, see if this thinking is Biblical in its structure.

Here’s the discussion I had with my friend, starting with the email he sent, and my replies. All of these discussion took place on 4/22/2009.

My friends comment to this email was: “I agree with her sentiments completely!!”

My reply:

Hey Mike….(if I may respond my friend….)

Did you know that Osama bin Laden is not being sought after by the FBI for 9/11?

Personally, as a Christian, I don’t like the attempt by the author of this piece associating Jesus Christ with “soldiers.”  Jesus Christ, according to the New Testament, never utilized wars to justify his message.  He was the “Prince of Peace!”

The reason I reply to these kinds of email is because I’m writing about it in my book…, exposing how Republicans used to be against war, but this new “neoconservative” Republican party is pro-war. It was their downfall in the 2006 mid-term elections and is their downfall today with Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz (who calls him self a libertarian, but isn’t), Michael Medved, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levine and even Ba Ba O’Reilly spreading their propaganda in support of war to this day.

Most Republicans have not researched the Bible, let alone just war theory.  And believe it or not, this war was never “declared” as our Constitution mandates.  Neither was the Vietnam war or the Korean war (both started by Democrats) and we both know how those ended up with over 50k U.S. soldiers killed.

The goal of that section of my book is “To Love Thy Neighbor!”

IMO, it is the Left and the Right that are bankrupting our Country.  I’ve been saying this for some time as you know mi Amigo….

Peace!

Doug

P.S.  Always open to your thoughts.  I debated Republicans (I’m not a democrat by the way) on this all last year leading up to the election of Obama. Now all of a sudden, free markets are important again to them, but they still don’t get the pro-war issue.  I’m more of an old school Republican, not this new version.  I won the debates and recommended people read the book, “The Betrayal of the American Right” by Murray Rothbard, which showed that this “new” Republican party’s roots can be traced back to Irving Kristol and company, father of Bill Kristol, a guy who really, really likes war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyDx1WJiSRw

His Reply;

Doug, good thoughts and I agree with the bulk of what you say … certainly the sentiments.  I do agree however that we can’t fight the irrational global terrorism machine without firm tactics.  The key question is what to use and how far to go.  The answer is not backing off all together!  Independent of if this is a “War” or not, we have a solid responsibility to protect American lives both here and abroad, especially from those who have openly declared War on us and who’s sole purpose is to kill Americans!  Any other theoretical argument is secondary to stepping up to this severe threat across many fronts.  The Bible does say “eye for an eye” (among many other passages that related to confronting evil )… does it not?!

My Reply:

Hi Mike…appreciate the feedback and conversation!  It’s not easy to talk about some of these emotionally charged issues….

Yes, the Bible does speak about an “eye for an eye.”  However, I’ll quote how that Bible Verse should be interpreted;  “It was saying that the penalty imposed on a person should be in line with the damage that they caused. If they killed a cow, they were to repay the value of the cow. If they burned a field, they were to repay the value of any crops of future production lost from the land. If they damaged a person’s tooth, they were to pay the cost of any medical bills, etc. connected with the injury. If they damaged an eye, they were to pay medical bills and any loss of income. If they harmed another person, they were to repay that person the value “a cow for a cow, a field or a field, a tooth for a tooth, and an eye for an eye.”

By the time Jesus came along, people had begun to misuse that scripture, and to claim it gave them the right to take revenge on another person. They were twisting the quote (as people often do even today) to mean that “if you damage my tooth, I can damage yours.”

The old testament is full of war. When God’s people were with Him, they won the wars. When they were against him, they lost.

With the introduction of the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus Christ, came this verse; “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Keep in mind that this is different than if one is attacked where you are allowed to defend yourself.

Luke 22: 35-36: Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”  “Nothing,” they answered.  He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”

Iraq did not attack us. Afghanistan did house the Taliban who were blamed for the attack (not individually). But congress were derelict in their duty by not “declaring” war per the U.S. Constitution, Article 1 Section 8.

What’s interesting is that most of the hijackers from 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, a country that houses the most radical terrorist organization on earth, the Wahibbi’s. The Wahibbi’s definition of rape is that 4 males must witness “penetration,” and he women can’t testify.  Not 3, not 2, but “4!” They also say that “if you don’t believe what I believe, then I have a right, according to their interpretation of the Qu’ran, to kill you.”

So why didn’t the U.S. go into Saudi Arabia?  GW and his father have deep ties with the Saudi Royalty.  It wasn’t in their best “interest.”  You never hear anything from Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. about Saudi Arabia and the Wahibbi’s.  Why is that?

The other ironic thing is we have our troops protecting 130 other countries borders, at the taxpayers expense, but leave our borders unprotected.

Lastly, “worry” is a sin according to the Bible.  My goal in the book I’m writing is to stop believing the propaganda that is espoused by the media that plays on ones fears.  As a Christian, “don’t worry, be happy” and go about doing His work. The worst that can happen, if you are a believer, is you die and go to heaven.  How cool is that?

Personally, I don’t live in fear.  I don’t believe a word a politician or media pundit says and I am “Fed Up!” with where they have taken this great nation and I’m trying to “enlighten” those who will listen (there’s much more to it than just this issue).

I’m also having fun with it….and I pin much of what is happening on the Federal Reserve and Congress, because without “golden handcuffs,” they have the ability to print as much money as they want to fund their wars.  Take away that ability, and they won’t go “marching off to war” as they’ll have to choose between spending money on unnecessary things like war and rather where it is needed at home on infrastructure and things of that nature.

Hope that clears things up a bit Mike….and I don’t claim to know everything…but I do feel the wool has been pulled over my eyes long enough in countless ways, and I’m exposing it as much as I can.  It takes much convincing to reverse the years and years of propaganda touted by media, government and especially our education system (that I was a victim of).  I really think you’ll like the book! (not a sales pitch, lol…but I can’t wait to get it out to the public!)….

Peace!…and thanks for the exchange as I’m always open to opinions…..

Doug

My friends reply;

Doug, I really appreciate the range of your ideas!  Can’t wait for the book.

End

While neo-conservatives or this “new” republican party may mock Ron Paul and those who are against these unnecessary wars, I challenge them from a Biblical basis for their infatuation with death and destruction. If anyone wants to take the position that an “eye for an eye” is justified Biblically, then let them show what Bible verses from Jesus teachings in the New Testament back up this point of view. I’m all willing to listen to that for which I do not know.

I am still working on the book that I mentioned in that email exchange. I have just completed my first book, “Buy Gold and Silver Safely” that is available soon on Amazon.com or my website; http://buygoldandsilversafely.com

Since that book is finished, I can start concentrating on this political/Christian book and hopefully make a difference in this world.

I’m not sure if I’ll keep the name “Fed Up!” as Texas governor Rick Perry is coming out with a book of the same title later this year. Being that Rick Perry was a big spender governor, it doesn’t make sense that he’s “Fed Up” with big government. Yet he’s writing about the problems of big government despite having “doubled state debt and accepted almost $23 billion in stimulus dollars.”

I do have a second title that I think will work. I’ll keep it a secret for now.

Related posts:

1. Conversations With A Neo-Con, Circa 2010
2. The Left and Right Love and Need War

During the 2008 election, I battled it out with the neo-con’s on Michelle Malkin’s site. The moment I mentioned anything about the war, they immediately tried to paint me as a democrat (of course they can’t do that any longer).

I learned that before making comments on these types of neo-conservative sites, I need to write a disclaimer for each reply. The moment I mentioned Ron Paul’s name, the same disclaimer had to be expanded to include; “I’m not a conspiracy nut, don’t wear a tin foil hat, and I’m not a racist, let’s debate the issues.”

With that said, I weeded out 95% of the responders. The other 5% and I had good “discussions” with. Which leads me to the topic of this post; how to approach the neo-cons circa 2010.

Since facebook is more prevalent than it was in 2008, this is a good place to have these types of discussions. The importance here is to keep it as a discussion, and not an argument. Human emotion takes control of us sometimes and a simple reply of malice intent can ruin the whole effort to convert to your point of view.

It is not easy to enlighten some of the neo-cons. I consider the following facebook conversation (see below) with a friend of mine, to be a perfect example. Not too many people reply to his constant, pro-Republican, pro-war, pro-Israel posts. He knows where I stand on things because I do reply. While he tries to spin my comments into a mocking of myself (I’m sure if he were in charge, I would have been accused of being a heretic and burned at the stake if in another era), I try to keep on track and make my points with solid facts. Because of our friendship, I don’t reply to ALL his posts…but pick and choose.

I haven’t won him over, but with some of these neo-conservative types, it won’t be possible to do so. But the important thing is, all of his 100 or so friends are reading what he and I are writing. And that I believe is a good way to win people over…without ever meeting them.

If I choose to make him look like a fool, which I could easily do, it is I who looks like the fool to all HIS friends.

This is the message I’d like to convey moving forward. Keep your cool and have a good discussion. Keep the friendship…and know others are watching (also, when they make a comment like “I’m done,” which has happened with a couple of these people I have spoken with, take it as a silent victory, and don’t gloat!).

Here was my latest conversation – he already knows I’m a Ron Paul supporter from prior conversations – and so do his friends (last names withheld):

Jim (first post):
New UK Prime Minister David Cameron gets it: succeed in Afghanistan, secure economic growth and fight protectionism. Any chance we can trade Obama for Mr. Cameron? We will likely need to throw in some cash and a player to be named later.

Doug:
Succeed in Afghanistan while Rome burns?

Jim:
Isolationism is not a solution.

Doug:
At a cost of over $1 Trillion since the war began, our politicians choose non-declared war interventionism against no country, but a group (al-qaeda). The Russians tried fighting this group and it bankrupted their country. At some point we will walk away from these wars and some in power will claim victory. The question is, will it be before or after said bankruptcy that is hurried along by the Obama administrations spending spree (including increasing the presence of the troops in Afghanistan). Hey…that’s something you and Obama do agree on! lol
Time will tell Jim…

From a Christian standpoint…and the thesis of my second book, I will state the case against the wars despite Billy Kristol’s (not Billy Crystal to anyone reading this) best efforts. The same goes for Warlord Sean Hannity.

Isolationism and non-interventionism are two separate things. I’m all for trading with “all” neighbors…we could use some of them buying our stuff to help out GDP!

Jim
Islamic extremists have declared WWIII. We can ignore them and continue to pay the consequences, or stick our head in the sand because they are an untraditional enemy without defined borders. Losing this war will cost exponentially more in dollars and lives than the cost of fighting back. Semantics aside, your “non-intervention” strategy is a loser on every level.

Doug:
Moving stuff into storage now Jim…obviously we see things differently. But you already know that. Will reply later…

Doug:
Islamic extremism is today what communism was in decades past. The elite always need a cause to “defeat” in order to keep their well funded military industrial complex well oiled (if you get my drift).

We defeated communism without war. All “they” want is the reasoning and people like Billy Kristol, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity from the right and all the folks from the left who forgot what Obama’s campaign promises were are just as guilty.

Be careful what you wish for: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/nick-cle…

Jim:
So your position is that Islamic extremists are the victims of America’s elites? Suicide bombers, terrorist training camps, exploitation of women, 9/11…perpetrated by a conspiracy of Dick Cheney and his ilk…and Sharia Law is as harmless as Communism. Okay, I’m sold.

Doug:
As far as Islamic extremist go, if America wanted to, they would have gone after the 17 out of 19 terrorists who were from Saudi Arabia, part of the most radical Islamic group in the world, the Wahabbis. But instead, Bush took the war to Iraq? This isn’t a conspiracy, it’s fact.
What neoconservatives want to do is take the war everywhere to fight an enemy that is fueled further by the innocent victims seeking revenge (read the book “Blowback” to understand this). They should also study just war theory, especially those who call themselves Christian.

It’s as if these folks never played the game of Risk. Meanwhile, China, if they wanted to, will just wait for America to implode. And implode we will Jim. The right will blame Obama. The left won’t have a leg to stand on. Both the right and the left are complicit. When they come to require the youth to fight their bloody wars, that will be the last straw. The youth won’t go for it. Meanwhile, the police state grows, TSA lackies frisk 12 year old girls and Homeland Security lets gang members cross the borders by the hundreds every day. Don’t you think our priorities are a little ass backwards?

“The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.” Sun Tzu

Jim:
The 9/11 terrorists and many others are Saudis, but train in Afgan, Sudanese and Somali camps. Bush’s recognition of the Islamic threat and vision was soundly documented in his National Security Strategy documents of 2002 and 2006, and his Iraq strategy was endorsed by 17 mostly-unanimous UN resolutions over three years. Unfortunately it helps to be right AND execute well. Either way, your NeoCon conspiracy theories (and lingo) are straight out of 1996 and your isolationist solutions date back to 1916, though your extremist appeasement leanings smack of Obama 2010. I am an optimist and I trust the American people to swing the pendulum back to common sense (vs. PC), economic growth (vs. wealth redistribution) and the principles outlined by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. It’s not rocket science, it is not a conspiracy and the U.S. will not “implode” (whatever that means). Agree to disagree. I’m done.

Doug:
It’s ok Jim… I’ll let my book do the talking… But the wars were not “declared” per the Constitution. Have a good one…

(I could have easily addressed the issues of his last post, but chose to take up the battle, erm, discussion, at a later time, respecting the fact that it is his facebook page I’m commenting on).

Share your thoughts and tactics…would love to hear them…

Related posts:

1. Conversations With A Neo-Conservative From A Christian Perspective

This attack by Weiner on Beck could just as well have been attributed to many other radio and television personalities from both sides of the aisle who have relationships with unscrupulous gold dealers.

Updating Website and Introducing Gold and Silver Bullion Sales Company

I’ll also be updating my website and introducing my gold and silver bullion sales company, “Buy Gold and Silver Safely.”

The mission of the company is to offer gold and silver at the lowest possible rates in the industry. I plan on being the Walmart to the gold and silver industry because I believe everyone should own physical gold and silver.

I should return in a couple weeks. If you are new to this site, click on the “gold” tab and read my past articles where I have openly challenged CFP’s, CFA’s, financial advisors, journalists and gurus like Dave Ramsey on the negative articles they have written about gold.

My goal is to educate people so they can take the worry out of buying gold and silver.

Special Offer

If anyone wants to read the current edition of my books on gold and silver, they can purchase both for $19.97 and I’ll send them a copy of the forthcoming hard cover book free of charge once it is finished (including postage for U.S. residents only). The updated book is to bring it current for 2010 and make it ready to sell on Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble, etc.

The current gold and silver ebooks can be purchased by clicking here. Include your mailing address in the “comment” box so I know where to send the hard copy book once it’s finished.

Coming soon:

Related posts:

1. All Gold, Investment and Economic Articles Moved To New Website

Would the media be lauding the passing of this bill that would once and for all let the American people know what goes on at the Federal Reserve, or would they let the good citizens know this bill is lacking the necessary audit of monetary policy, the one thing that could prevent the Federal Reserve from causing future busts in the economic cycle.

Leave it to the mainstream media, both sides of the aisle, to misinform. Look at the following headlines for proof positive there are big money sources working against letting the Federal Reserve cat out of the bag.

Washington Post: “Victory for Audit the Fed”

Forbes: “Ron Paul Gets His Wish – The Fed Will Be Audited”

Huffington Post: “Ron Paul Backs Fed Audit Compromise”

Source

Source

Source

Every single one of those title’s is misleading and plain wrong.

What Ron Paul Really Said

Ron Paul did not approve of the Sanders amendment.  He knew it didn’t go far enough. Sure, he would have voted for it, but the Vitter amendment was the carbon copy of the original H.R. 1207 bill that received bipartisan support in the House.  This is what Ron Paul wanted to pass, but failed to win support in the Senate.

Taxpayers are sick and tired of bailing out privileged, dysfunctional institutions that should be allowed to fail in order to stop their ability to wreak havoc on our economy.  Perpetuating these corporations at taxpayer expense is not just wasteful, it is actively harmful.  It would be good to know what went on in the past, but what about accountability in the future?  A one-time disclosure now will not do us a lot of good down the road when the cycle repeats itself and friends of the Fed find themselves in trouble again.

More importantly, agreements with foreign central banks are not touched by the new Sanders Amendment language.  At a time when Greece, Portugal, Spain and other countries are experiencing dire financial crises and have their hands out to the international community, we need to know if our Federal Reserve is at all involved in bailing them out.  As weary as we are of bailing out companies, the American people would not stand for bailing out entire countries. Our government is wasteful enough in its own affairs without contributing to the waste of other countries.  Yet the Fed currently has the tools it needs to do just this, and to do it in secret.

Ron Paul Source

Is anyone else putting the pieces of the puzzle together?

What are you going to do about it come November?

Related posts:

1. An Open Letter To Sellout Congressman Bernie Sanders On Auditing the Fed
2. Senate Shoots Down Vitter Amendment; Vote the Bums Out!
3. Why Don’t The Elite Want the Fed to be Audited?

Unfortunately, what Sanders facebook fans don’t realize is this amendment does not audit monetary policy, the one thing that H.R. 1207 and the Vitter amendment would have audited. In other words, the folks at the federal Reserve are smiling, including Ben Bernanke who approved of the Sanders amendment.

To rub salt in the wound to all who have worked hard at getting the original  “Audit the Fed” bill to pass the House with bipartisan support, Senators Bernie Sanders and Judd Gregg were doing the media circuit today receiving pats on the back.  They were enjoying congratulatory remarks from all the journalists who don’t have a clue about the monetary policy of the Fed and their manipulation of interest rates being one of the main culprits for the bust to begin with.

The Federal Reserve is just a con game and We the People will pay for their past and future mistakes through higher taxes and higher inflation.  Thank you Sanders and Judd….and future generations will be thanking you too for decades to come…except not in the manner you expect!

Mr. Sanders,

People are cheering for your victory with the passing of your bill 96-0 but in reality the Paul/Grayson amendment, H.R. 1207, would have gone much further in addressing auditing Federal Reserve monetary policy. Your bill does nothing towards that end.

Even though you voted for the Vitter amendment, you are a sell out to the Dodd and Gregg power elite of the Senate who refuse to work on behalf of the People in restraining the Federal Reserve, the cause of the bust to begin with.

The result of such negligence will be seen in a weakening dollar, a Federal Reserve balance sheet full of risk and more and more power handed to the entity that wreaks havoc on the entire economic system.

Congress has no clue what will occur because they can’t see the forest through the trees. We the People can and will remove from office those who do not adhere to the principles of Sound Monetary Policy.

It’s a shame you had no fight in you to stand for the principles of H.R. 1207, Ron Paul and Alan Grayson. Our nation will reap what Dodd, Gregg and the others who voted “NAY” to the Vitter amendment sow.

Thank you for voting yes. It falls short of me recommending anyone vote for you in the future because of your succumbing to the power elite. J.P. Morgan is smiling in his grave.

Related posts:

1. Left and Right Media Misinforming Public About Auditing the Fed
2. Senate Shoots Down Vitter Amendment; Vote the Bums Out!
3. Limbaugh and Hannity Still Favor The Fed and War While Most In America Don’t

An attempt at pulling the wool over the People’s eyes I had discussed yesterday has succeeded.   See The Federal Reserve Con Game

Don’t be fooled by the media’s attempt to sugar coat any audit with a quasi attempt like what is being pushed through Congress now and supported by the White House.

Know the difference.  Contact your senator now!

Watered Down Version Passes

It turns out, the Sanders Amendment, known as the watered down version of the original Audit the Fed bill, H.R. 1207 that passed the House in a bipartisan vote, was passed with a 96-0 vote.

The concern from those who wanted the Fed to be audited was the fact the Sanders amendment would not address monetary policy.  Monetary policy is the one thing Bernanke and the Fed have been keen on keeping out of any Fed audit bill. They succeeded.

Who Was Most Vocal Against the Original Audit the Fed Bill?

Two of the most vocal against the original Audit the Fed bill proposed by House members Ron Paul and Alan Grayson were Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Judd Gregg (R-NH).  These two senators had nothing to lose with their outrage at this bill from the get go as neither of them are running for reelection in their states.

Excerpt from that video:

Gregg; You know the only thing that’s not audited is monetary policy.”

Paul; It’s the only thing that counts.”

Gregg; The only part that’s not subject to the political influence of the Congress auditing it, is monetary and open market.  Why?  Because an independent Fed is critical to a stable monetary system.

Paul; Look what you have. Where’s the stability?

Paul; The Constitution puts the responsibility of the value of the dollar on the Congress, not some secret body or international orginization to deal with our money (Paul is referring here to IMF, Special Drawing Rights to be discussed in a forthcoming article).

Result of Sanders Amendment: No Monetary Policy Audit

Good Riddance Dodd and Gregg

Dodd would have been annihilated by Peter Schiff in the Connecticut Senate race come November.  Judd was not looked upon favorably in New Hampshire.

What I really ponder is what hidden deals have these outgoing Senators have made with their corporate masters in setting up the next leg of their careers.  You can bet they will somehow be taken care of.

Please note that Senator Brown from Massachusetts voted with the Democrats….again.  Talk about your one time Senator.

Defeat Can Only Lead To Victory

In the end, the failure of the Vitter amendment to pass is not going to stop me from going after those who voted “nay” to this bill.  These people need to be voted out of office.  They are allowing an entity that is quasi-government in nature to garner more and more power while at the same time causing the bust to begin with.

At some point this will come crashing down on all of us.

Will I be writing an article at that point in time telling everyone “I told you so?”  The answer is no.  Why?  Because I’m going to be doing something about it now in completing my book “Fed Up!” with the intent of waking people up to what’s really going on with Congress and the Federal Reserve.

Don’t Vote for Any of Those Who Voted “NAY” Below Come November – Throw the Bums Out!

Grouped By Vote Position

Related posts:

1. An Open Letter To Sellout Congressman Bernie Sanders On Auditing the Fed
2. Left and Right Media Misinforming Public About Auditing the Fed
3. Limbaugh and Hannity Still Favor The Fed and War While Most In America Don’t

While people have laughed at former President George Bush’s attempt in getting a quote right in the above video, it looks like Bush is also wrong in saying “you can’t be fooled again.”

Are we Americans getting fooled again? If so, by whom?

To answer these questions, take a look at what’s been going on at the Federal Reserve that past few years and see how their quest for more power and control is just an attempt at fooling the American public into thinking they have everything under control.  In reality, the Federal Reserve has brought us to the brink of collapse.  You just can’t see it yet.

RECENT HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF FEDERAL RESERVE QUEST FOR MORE POWER

3/29/2008 -Bush Proposes More Power for Fed

On March 29th 2008, the Bush administration proposed a sweeping overhaul of the way the nations financial industry would be regulated, including recommending more powers for the Federal Reserve.

The Fed would become the government’s “market stability regulator,” given sweeping powers to gather information on a wide range of institutions so that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues could better detect where threats to the system might be hiding.

7/30/2008 – Congress Votes To Keep People in their Homes

Shortly after this Bush proposal, Congress, in a bipartisan effort, passed Nancy Pelosi’s bill, H.R. 3221, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.  The vote was 72-13, with 15 Senators not voting, including McCain and Obama.

This is the bill that was passed to keep people in their homes and try and get more individuals suckers to purchase homes with only a 3.5% down payment through an FHA program.  People who bought homes at the wrong time are thus rewarded and people who don’t have the wherewithal of knowing when is the best time to buy real estate were given free gifts from the U.S. taxpayer.  The rest of you paid for it.

Embedded in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act was the first granting of power to the Federal Reserve under Sec. 1118.

CONSULTATION BETWEEN THE DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY AND THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM TO ENSURE FINANCIAL MARKET STABILITY

9/23/08 – Stock and Real Estate Market Continue To Fall

As the stock and real estate markets continued to fall, on September 23rd, 2008, Treasury Secretary Paulson and Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke went on the record urging Senators to pass some sort of rescue plan with the intent of giving the Federal Reserve even more power to manipulate the markets.  In reality, it was the Federal Reserves  manipulations to begin with that was causing the market turmoil as Thomas Woods pointed out in his book, “Meltdown.”

Thomas Woods takes the Austrian economic approach as to why the markets failed.  In a nutshell, the Fed kept interest rates too low for too long rather than let the free market dictate.  This encouraged/fooled businesses into taking on more credit, expanding the boom period, which was followed by the inevitable bust we are experiencing now when the carpet was pulled from underneath them.

Only the pompous folks at the Federal Reserve would have the gall to ask for more power while causing the bust to begin with.  The fact that many in America don’t see the connection; “Fool me once.”

The housing and stock market continued to fall in 2008 despite the attempt by Congress and the Fed collusion in helping homeowners.  Certain derivative bets were falling apart causing the collapse of Bear Stearns, Lehman and AIG and threatening many other financial institutions while investors were running to Treasuries for safety.

Paulson, Bernanke Urge Senators to Pass Rescue Plan

10/08/2008 - “Emergency, Emergency” Gomer Pyle the Paulson, Bernanke, Geithner Show

Congress passes the H.R. 1424 – Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 aka TARP.   Almost all Democrats and 47 Republicans voted for this bill.

On a side note, does it make sense to vote for those who are in favor of such bills that would threaten the system?  Why not vote them out?  But you may not be convinced yet as to the reasons why they need to be voted out.  Digging deeper might shed some light.

This Emergency act gave the Federal Reserve even more power to stabilize the financial markets through the purchase of troubled assets:

TROUBLED ASSETS- The term ‘troubled assets’ means–

(A) residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008, the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability; and

(B) any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress.

If you own a flower shop or local restaurant and business has slowed down to a halt because of the economy, you are not deemed necessary to financial market stability and failure is your only option.  If you have given millions to politicians on both the left and the right showing loyalty to the Parties in charge, you’re allowed to survive.

Who Allows Your Business to Survive?

The Financial Stability Oversight Board was established under this bill to decide which assets were deemed troubled.  This Board is comprised of–  (1) the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System;  (2) the Secretary;  (3) the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency;  (4) the Chairman of the Securities Exchange Commission; and  (5) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Congress Is Assured Transparency and Disclosure by the Fed

This bill was also supposed to make the Federal Reserve provide some sort of transparency so the public could see what shenanigans the folks at the Federal Reserve were up to.

SEC. 114. MARKET TRANSPARENCY.

(a) Pricing- To facilitate market transparency, the Secretary shall make available to the public, in electronic form, a description, amounts, and pricing of assets acquired under this Act, within 2 business days of purchase, trade, or other disposition.

(b) Disclosure- For each type of financial institutions that sells troubled assets to the Secretary under this Act, the Secretary shall determine whether the public disclosure required for such financial institutions with respect to off-balance sheet transactions, derivatives instruments, contingent liabilities, and similar sources of potential exposure is adequate to provide to the public sufficient information as to the true financial position of the institutions. If such disclosure is not adequate for that purpose, the Secretary shall make recommendations for additional disclosure requirements to the relevant regulators.

11/11/2008 – Federal Reserve Gone Wild

Instead of transparency and disclosure, we ended up with the Fed refusing to disclose anything to anyone.  If any other entity did this, the media would be all over it exposing such a con.  Where is the media exposure?  The media for the most part has been silent, but there are some people reporting what’s going on daily. While others are doing their part to expose the truth. and the Campaign for Liberty keeps folks on track offering their own transparency of Congress and the Fed.

For the most part, who really believes Bernanke and the Federal Reserve would abide by any rules set forth to begin with?  Did the congressmen and women who voted for it believe the words of Paulson and Bernanke?  Did they even read the bills they passed into law?  The self interest of these folks is evident by their actions.  But for whose benefit, yours?

“Just the Facts”

“Fed Defies Transparency Aim in Refusal to Disclose [$2 Trillion in taxpayer loans to banks]

“The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.” … “Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn’t require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.” … ““The collateral is not being adequately disclosed, and that’s a big problem,” said Dan Fuss, vice chairman of Boston- based Loomis Sayles & Co., where he co-manages $17 billion in bonds. “In a liquid market, this wouldn’t matter, but we’re not. The market is very nervous and very thin.”” … “Bloomberg News has requested details of the Fed lending under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and filed a federal lawsuit Nov. 7 seeking to force disclosure.” … “The Fed made the loans under terms of 11 programs, eight of them created in the past 15 months, in the midst of the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.” … ““It’s your money; it’s not the Fed’s money,” said billionaire Ted Forstmann, senior partner of Forstmann Little & Co. in New York. “Of course there should be transparency.”” -By Mark Pittman, Bob Ivry and Alison Fitzgerald; Bloomberg

But it’s not just 2 Trillion the Fed is playing with.  They have managed to put the U.S. Taxpayers at risk for $9.7 Trillion in future pledges, or as Bloomberg put it, “enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation’s home mortgages.”

The $9.7 trillion in pledges would be enough to send a $1,430 check to every man, woman and child alive in the world. It’s 13 times what the U.S. has spent so far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Congressional Budget Office data, and is almost enough to pay off every home mortgage loan in the U.S., calculated at $10.5 trillion by the Federal Reserve.

Bloomberg along with the NyTimes ended up suing the Fed to get full disclosure.

A federal judge in Manhattan ruled in Bloomberg’s favor last November, and a three-member panel of appellate judges upheld that ruling in March. But last week the Fed asked the full United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to take up the case.

The Fed will go to all ends to keep the truth from U.S. taxpayers.  These same Congressmen and women who gave the Fed more powers through the bills described above are still at it today pulling the wool over your eyes by offering a watered down Audit the Fed bill instead of the original version offered by Alan Grayson and Ron Paul.

The Truth Be Known – It’s All a Con Game

When an investor makes a decision on buying company A over Company B, they do their due diligence, look at each companies financial balance sheets and make an informed decision as to whether to put their hard earned money into the company in anticipation of seeing it grow in value.

Those who are more adverse to risk, like many seniors these days, will put their money in Treasuries and assume the small amount of interest they receive will go towards paying their bills and keeping pace with inflation.

What would an investor or senior do if they didn’t have access to a companies balance sheet or didn’t know anything about the assets on the balance sheet?  Would they invest?

Well guess what folks…if you have money in a bank, money market or in Treasuries, you don’t know what’s in the Fed’s balances sheet and you are that investor. But after some digging, I did find what’s in the Fed’s wallet.

The Federal Reserve’s Balance Sheet

Since 1971, the Federal reserve has kept a balance sheet consisting of about 70% in U.S. Treasury Securities as seen in the chart below.

That started to change towards the end of 2007.  By the end of 2008, the Federal Reserve had approximately 22% in Treasuries, a 48% decrease in the levels experienced the last 40 years .   Are seniors aware of this?  Is anyone?

Author Peter Stella: Monetary and Capital Markets Department

Just What Are the Assets the Fed Carries on Their Books if Not Treasuries?  Are They Safe?

Take a look at the following chart and you’ll see that instead of Treasury Securities, 78% of the Federal Reserves balance sheet consists of approximately $2.2 Trillion of all those assets they’ve been accumulating under the TARP program thanks to Congress giving them the authority to do so.

For better viewing click here (will open in new window)

Perhaps some of you reading this today feel safe with your investments believing Bernanke and the Federal Reserve have indeed pulled us out of this recession.  But if you really sit down and analyze the green shoots pushing the stock market higher, they are fueled only by the false hopes provided by government spending.

Whether it be cash for clunkers, appliances, homes or buyouts of failed institutions, they are the same false hopes the Federal Reserve provides time and time again, the hopes that turn to fear and despair as the inevitable bust arrives.

Don’t expect anything different this time around except a harder fall.  Just look at the Fed’s balance sheet for proof.  Then add to that Fannie and Freddie’s future obligations.

Sorry GW…you can get fooled again and thanks a bunch for making sure of it. But you don’t have to be fooled twice…

If you want to see an end to this Congressional and Federal Reserve madness then you must contact your senators now and have them vote YES for Congressman David Vitter’s amendment which contains the Audit the Fed language that passed the House last fall.

Don’t be fooled by the media’s attempt to sugar coat any audit with a quasi attempt like what is being pushed through Congress now and supported by the White House.

Know the difference.  Contact your senator now!

No related posts.

I want to reiterate the point this $100 Billion was approved by congress just 8 months after receiving $700 Billion from U.S. taxpayers for TARP.  I would also like to point out that the banks who received money from us taxpayers did not use the gift to pay off toxic assets, but instead used it to shore up their cash balances and fend off the FDIC.  The banks are still in trouble.

It turns out, Ron Paul asked the question, “Where does the money come from (to fund the IMF)?” to Ben Bernanke in April of 2010.  Bernanke confirms the Federal Reserve had nothing to do with it as the money was approved by congress.  But where does Congress get the money from?  Higher taxes and/or higher inflation, caused by the Federal Reserve of course…with the help of wiling Congressmen.

So Bernanke, in this case, is right.  The money wasn’t printed out of thin air via the Treasury and the Fed, but allocated by Congress.

I wanted to know who in Congress voted for this gift to the IMF.  Was it along party lines or, like the TARP $700 billion bailout for the financial industry, was it both the Republicans and Democrats who joined together in favor of passing this bill?

When the bill, H.R.2346 came to the House of Representatives vote, it passed by a roll call vote on May 14th, 2009 with 368 Ayes, 60 Nays, 5 Present/Not Voting. 168 Republicans and 200 Democrats combined together to vote for this bill.  Ron Paul (R) and Alan Grayson (D), both who are working to Audit the Fed, voted against it.  See how each congressmen voted.

The Senate was a bipartisan vote as well with 86 Ayes, 3 Nays, 10 Present/Not Voting, passing on May 21, 2009.

Obama signed the bill into law on June 24, 2009.

Congress Is Either With Us or Against Us

There is a connection here that’s important to voters.  Which Congressmen and women are casting their votes for the Constitution and We the People and which are voting against the Constitution and the People?  Knowing the difference come election time will dictate whether we remain We the People or become We the Serfs.  Do not vote for any of the folks who voted Yes to the TARP funding or Yes to this bill.

One point that brings this all into perspective for the common man is Ron Paul’s exchange with Bernanke involving Greece.

Quote from the video above:

Ron Paul; “The irony of this promise, in the new arrangement, this increase, Greece is going to put $2.5 billion dollars in there (the IMF fund).  Only a fiat monetary system worldwide can up and have Greece help bailout Greece.”

The smile that comes to Bernanke’s face at 2:29, right after Ron Paul made that statement is an acknowledgment Bernanke knows Ron Paul is spot on with his assumptions.  If only We the People could be spot on with their votes, we could wipe this smile off Bernanke’s face for good.

“Information is a treasure for our people. The promise of the journalist is not with popularity.  It is with the truth.” Daniel Coronell

Related posts:

1. Vote For Those That Voted “NO” To the Bailout Come November
2. A Solution for Ron Paul Supporters?
3. Senate Shoots Down Vitter Amendment; Vote the Bums Out!

Where does the U.S. get these funds to loan the IMF?  Where do any of these countries get the money to give them?

Congress Uses Your Tax Dollars to Bailout Greece and Other Nations

In 2009 at the Group of 20 (G20) nations summit in London, countries in attendance agreed to a “war chest” to prevent any future global financial meltdown from occurring.

Leaders of the world’s 20 largest economies earlier this month offered the IMF a $1 trillion war chest to help countries in trouble and pledged to make it the premier financial watchdog to help avoid the next global downturn.

$1 Trillion?  Are things really that bad?

The U.S. contribution to the IMF war chest was $100 billion in June of 2009. Did the U.S. just have $100 billion sitting around to give the them when just 8 months earlier the Republicans and Democrats approved a $700 Billion TARP bailout of U.S. banks?  Did Congress sell some of our gold or National Parks to raise the capital to send to the them?  Did you write a check to Congress and direct it towards them?  Well, the answer is, yes…you did, whether you know it or not.

How can a country that is over $12 trillion in debt allow Congress to loan $100 billion to the IMF? Where does this money come from?

To answer these questions, one must first resolve just who the IMF is and why Congress is so eager to give them your tax dollars.

Who Is the IMF

In a nutshell, the IMF is just a bunch of rich countries banding together to help out the smaller countries, typically of the third world variety.  Of course in doing so, the rich countries want something in return.

The International Monetary Fund was founded in 1944 at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire as a result of the financial turmoil of the 1930s. The aim was to create an institution that would help rebuild – along with the World Bank – the world economy.  The IMF is neither a world central bank nor a development bank. It acts as a monitor of the world’s currencies by helping to maintain an orderly system of payments between all countries. It is also a kind of international credit union. Member countries contribute money to the Fund, which in turn lends money to members who face severe balance of payment problems. Critics of the IMF complain that its short-term loans are accompanied by stringent conditions that often end up doing more harm than good. Original Source: AWorldConnected.Org

The IMF defined mission from their own site is:

An organization of 186 countries, working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world.

But let’s be real…it’s really the rich countries that tell the others what to do.

What Effect Do the Policies Implemented by the IMF Have?

These “stringent conditions” on the loans given to countries are further defined as:

(1) Monetary austerity: Tighten up the money supply to raise internal interest rates to whatever heights needed to stabilize the value of the local currency. (2) Fiscal austerity: Increase tax collections and reduce government spending dramatically. (3) Privatization: Sell off public enterprises to the private sector. And (4) Financial liberalization: Remove restrictions on the inflow and outflow of international capital as well as restrictions on what foreign businesses and banks are allowed to buy, own, and operate. Only when governments sign this “structural adjustment agreement” does the IMF agree to: (5) Lend enough itself to prevent default on international loans that are about to come due and otherwise would be unpayable. And (6) arrange a restructuring of the country’s debt among private international lenders that includes a pledge of new loans. Original Source: AWorldConnected.Org

In other words, it’s just a way for these nations to acquire the wealth/assets/productivity of the nations who weren’t able to manage their own affairs.

Debt is an efficient tool. It ensures access to other peoples’ raw materials and infrastructure on the cheapest possible terms. Dozens of countries must compete for shrinking export markets and can export only a limited range of products because of Northern protectionism and their lack of cash to invest in diversification. Market saturation ensues, reducing exporters’ income to a bare minimum while the North enjoys huge savings. Susan George, A Fate Worse Than Debt, (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990)

The result is something like what has happened in Jamaica as described in the documentary Life and Debt.  The citizens of these countries receive a lower quality of life as they become debt slaves to the IMF, whose mission you will remember is to “reduce poverty.”  In reality, they are the mechanism that ensures poverty so the rest of the world can buy low cost goods.

The Economist (18.9.99), not a magazine noted for radicalism, calls the IMF “an overbearing organisation with a well-thumbed book of macro-economic policy nostrums”. It goes on to argue that “the Fund and [World] Bank have been hijacked by their major shareholders for overtly political ends. Whether in Mexico in 1994, Asia in 1997 or Russia throughout the 1990s, the institutions have become a more explicit tool of western, and particularly American, foreign policy.”

They do not reduce poverty and mainly benefit the better off in poor countries; they seem designed more to benefit large corporations by giving them cheaper raw materials and access to new markets.  Kicking the Habit By Joseph Hanlon and Ann Pettifor

So How Is It the IMF Can Do What They Do?

If you think about it, the IMF is somewhat just like the FDIC.  All of the banks in the U.S. pay a fee to the FDIC to insure that if one or more of the banks has financial problems, they can be bailed out by the FDIC.  186 nations contribute to the IMF.  If one or more of these nations have financial problems, they can be bailed out by the IMF.  In reality, they are just an extension of the Federal Reserve as “lender of last resort.”

Government deposit insurance was only one of many policies adopted during the 20th century designed to suppress economic and business failures. On the theory that certain banks were “too big to fail,” the United States government transferred $2.5 billion to save the Bank of New England in the early 1990s. That was as nothing compared to what would come later.  Beginning with the Latin American debt crisis of 1982–86, the government undertook to bail out, either directly or through augmented payments to the International Monetary Fund, American banks and investors who had lent large sums to insolvent Third World governments and firms. As if to confirm the validity of the theory of “moral hazard,” the Mexican bailout of 1994 ($40 billion) was followed closely by the IMF “rescue” of the collapsing currencies of East Asia—South Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia ($120 billion). And so it goes. Historian Scott Trask, Mises Institute

Earlier I posed the question as to where the money comes from to pay the IMF.  The answer is the same place it comes from to pay the Federal Reserve; from the printing presses provided by the Treasury.  Does anyone really think a nation with a total debt of over $12 Trillion can afford to pay $100 Billion to the IMF in the middle of a financial meltdown and two wars if it didn’t have a printing press?

So what about the future of Greece. What does the IMF have in store for them?

What Does IMF Involvement Mean for the Future of Greek Citizens?

“This is a defining moment for Greece,” said Poul Thomsen, who heads the IMF negotiating mission to Athens. “The global economic crisis exposed Greece’s weak fiscal position. Revenues have declined significantly, while spending, especially on wages and entitlements has risen sharply.

“What the government has committed to is a tough, front-loaded program that will correct things for the future, although it will take time. Indeed, it will be a multi-year effort,” Thomsen explained. “The authorities have already begun fiscal consolidation equivalent to 5 percent of GDP and further legislative action is expected this week. There is also an emphasis on fairness, with measures to protect the most vulnerable. The authorities are asking the Greek people to share the burden fairly across all levels of society,” he added.

A nice rosy synopsis….written by someone from the IMF of course.

In January, Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou came out and said they wouldn’t need IMF help and the poor would be taken care of.  As we now know, the IMF was called in to help.  What are the odds the citizens of Greece who are poor will be unaffected as a result?

Congressman Ron Paul summarizes the effect of the IMF programs of the past on the poor;

{They are] supposed to help the poor people of the world and redistribute wealth.  They have redistributed a lot of wealth, but most of it ended up in the hands of wealthy individuals and wealthy politicians. But the poor people of the world never get helped by these programs.

Living proof of this comes from Ross P. Buckley, The Rich Borrow and the Poor Repay: The Fatal Flaw in International Finance, World Policy Journal, Volume XIX, No 4, Winter 2002/03:

According to UNICEF, over 500,000 children under the age of five died each year in Africa and Latin America in the late 1980s as a direct result of the debt crisis and its management under the International Monetary Fund’s structural adjustment programs. These programs required the abolition of price supports on essential food-stuffs, steep reductions in spending on health, education, and other social services, and increases in taxes. The debt crisis has never been resolved for much of sub-Saharan Africa. Extrapolating from the UNICEF data, as many as 5,000,000 children and vulnerable adults may have lost their lives in this blighted continent as a result of the debt crunch.

The IMF’s Real Purpose

Ron Paul goes on to reveal the real purpose of the IMF and please note, this was written in 2004.  Ron Paul has always been on top of things and it’s time people start listening to what he has to say;

The IMF provides a perfect illustration of the both the folly of foreign aid and the real motivations behind it. The IMF touts itself as a bank of sorts, although it makes “loans” that no rational bank would consider – mostly to shaky governments with weak economies and unstable currencies.The IMF has little incentive to operate profitably like a private bank, since its funding comes mostly from a credulous US Congress that demands little accountability. As a result, it is free to make high-risk loans at below-market interest rates.  The real purpose of the IMF is to channel tax dollars to politically-connected companies. The huge multinational banks and corporations in particular love the IMF, as both used IMF funds – taxpayer funds – to bail themselves out from billions in losses after the Asian financial crisis. Big corporations obtain lucrative contracts for a wide variety of construction projects funded with IMF loans. It’s a familiar game in Washington, where corporate welfare is disguised as compassion forthe poor.  In fact, IMF loans often do far more harm than good. At best IMF borrowers are governments of countries with little economic productivity; at worst the money ends up in the hands of corrupt dictators. Either way, most recipient nations face huge debts they cannot service, which only adds to their poverty and instability. IMF money ultimately corrupts those countries it purports to help, by keeping afloat reckless political institutions that destroy their own economies. Source: LewRockwell.com

The icing on the cake can be found in what the IMF is doing in helping the poor countries mitigate climate impact; giving them $100 billion.  That’s right, the IMF is giving poor countries $100 billion to help deter the effect of global warming.  Which U.S. corporations do you think will benefit from this move?  You can’t make this stuff up!

How about the IMF use that money instead to teach nations self- sufficiency? Would they ever consider such madness?

Yes, there are consequences to high priced government employees, unions and the like, resulting in living beyond one’s taxable means.   It would be the same for any individual who maxes out their credit cards where there choices are defaulting on the cards, or borrowing from someone to stay afloat a little longer.  But without a change in how one got there to begin with, the same problem will occur down the road.  As for Greece, relying on the Angel of Death represented by the IMF is no plausible solution.

So, how do you feel about bailing out Greece at the expense of our own nations needs, knowing full well it benefits a select few and will result in a worse off situation for the citizens of Greece?

Ron Paul concludes:

The IMF and other complex schemes only serve to obscure the real issue: Why should US taxpayers be forced to send money abroad? Certainly the Constitution provides no authority for foreign aid. In historical and practical terms, redistribution of wealth from rich to poor nations has done little or nothing to alleviate suffering abroad. Only free markets, property rights, and the rule of law can create the conditions necessary to lift poor nations out of poverty.

It’s time to hold your congressmen and women accountable folks.  It’s time to say “I’m Fed Up!”

Related posts:

1. Your Senate Hard at Work Spending Your Tax Dollars and Increasing the Federal Debt Again
2. Which Congressmen Voted to Give IMF $100 Billion? Vote Them Out!
3. Vote For Those That Voted “NO” To the Bailout Come November

Please bookmark it or utilize feedburner and put in your email address in the available slot on the site for articles delivered to you via email.

This site will support the forthcoming book, “Fed Up!” and become more political in nature in keeping our government leaders in check.

The new site will be in support of my new gold and silver bullion sales company “Buy Gold and Silver Safely,” where I will be undercutting the industry in price so more can obtain the U.S. Dollar portfolio insurance that only gold and silver provide.

An announcement will be forthcoming once the new website and business is fully functioning.

Until that time, all inquires can be addressed to me, Doug Digger Eberhardt through the following email for the time being:

doug@fedupbook.com

Related posts:

1. Leave of Absence To Finish My Book “Buy Gold and Silver Safely”
2. Top 5 Articles of 2009