Liberty Maven

I must confess. This Ron Paul supporter suffered from a temporary bout of neo-conservatism after viewing that completely horrifying video of the young woman lying in the street bleeding to death in Iran over the weekend. I will not link to it because I don’t want to infect anyone else. My long lost compassionate conservatism gene made a return as I was filled with hatred and sadness. I thought, “Something must be done!. America needs to intervene!” A few hours and a reality check later I found myself back on firm Founding Father-style non-interventionist footing once again.

Some claim taking a non-interventionist approach on the Iran election aftermath is the height of hypocrisy from someone who claims to believe in liberty. Ron Paul is being criticized for his lone “Nay”  vote on condemning the Iranian government’s heinous actions on it’s own people. On the surface it appears Obama is taking a similar non-interventionist approach for now, although there are some arguing the opposite may be true. Hopefully, Obama stands his ground (this time) against the interventionist opposition.

Those clamoring for intervention need to answer a few questions, but there is one question that trumps them all.

What is the endgame of intervening in Iran?

Read More »

…and why it both does and does not matter.

by Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution
Originally published Sunday, June 21, 2009 at http://www.nolanchart.com/article6558.html

CARTEL – n. a combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices (per Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary) (emblem)

__________________________________

“Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits.”

- Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920s

_____________________________________________________________________

[This article is updated with more information and the March 2009 figures released from this February article in response to a couple press requests.  The figures were calculated from the FED data here, using the same method described here.]

So, who owns the Federal Reserve? Well, it certainly is not the US government, as many would suppose. In fact, I have found that quite a few – including myself last year – who are roughly aware of how the FED works but believe that the owners of the FED is a secret. Well, it is not. The FED’s Purposes and Functions (page 21/146) reads:

“As of March 2004, of the nation’s approximately 7,700 commercial banks approximately 2,900 were members of the Federal Reserve System – approximately 2,000 national banks and 900 state banks. Member banks must subscribe to stock in their regional Federal Reserve Bank in an amount equal to 6 percent of their capital and surplus, half of which must be paid in while the other half is subject to call by the Board of Governors. The holding of this stock, however, does not carry with it the control and financial interest conveyed to holders of common stock in for-profit organizations. It is merely a legal obligation of Federal Reserve membership, and the stock may not be sold or pledged as collateral for loans. Member banks receive a 6 percent dividend annually on their stock, as specified by law, and vote for the Class A and Class B directors of the Reserve Bank. Stock in Federal Reserve Banks is not available for purchase by individuals or entities other than member banks.”

So, the owners of the FED are simply other national and state banks.  What is rather interesting is that this is no normal company stock!  First, they are paid a perpetual annual dividend of 6% per the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which is not a “law” in the technical sense that the FED implies.  Second, apparently this “stock” is part of each member bank’s balance sheet as only have is “paid in” to the FED and the “other half is subject to call” by the FED.  The FED restates this here.

Read More »

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Quote of the Day: “Increasingly, we are seeing consumers join forces with farmers in letting the USDA know that NAIS is not a solution for animal health, food safety or food security.” – Judith McGeary

NAIS was a bad idea from the start . . .

• it addresses a “problem” of animal disease control that current laws and agencies already cover
• it forces small family farms to put ID tags on each animal at their own expense, something factory farms are not required to do
• even though factory farms are at greater risk of disease outbreaks than are smaller farms, and most contamination occurs at the slaughterhouse
• it would raise the price of food
• through computer hacking and counterfeit RFID tags, NAIS actually makes our food supply more vulnerable to terrorists and other criminals

No wonder, then, that NAIS has faced substantial resistance, especially since the program has already wasted $142 million since 2004 . . .

• initial plans to make it mandatory were scrapped (although the USDA encouraged states to make it mandatory, and a few have)
• the USDA has fiddled with numbers to suggest that 35% of farms and homes with livestock have been registered. The real number is probably closer to 10%
• registrations increased by just 3% last year
• on a nationwide “listening tour” about NAIS, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is hearing 90% of farmers demand that NAIS should be killed

Congress is angry about this lack of progress. The good news is that the House Agriculture Appropriations subcomittee has de-funded NAIS for 2010.

The bad news is that Congress is angry for the wrong reasons. Their real purpose is to inject the NAIS runt with growth hormones by making the program mandatory – despite the overwhelming opposition. Both subcommittee chair Rosa DeLauro and House Ag Committee Chair Clint Peterson view zeroing-out NAIS as a lever to force the USDA to make NAIS mandatory.

Please notice the disturbing fact that an Executive Branch bureaucracy has the power to make something mandatory. This is the tale wagging the dog. Only Congress should have the power to make anything mandatory.   Read More »