Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee says execution is the appropriate punishment for the leaker who provided thousands of State Department documents to the website WikiLeaks.
“Whoever in our government leaked that information is guilty of treason, and I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty,” Huckabee, a likely presidential candidate, told reporters Monday during a stop at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Library to sign copies of his new children’s book, “Can’t Wait Till Christmas!”
There’s been a backlash against airport screening procedures. Passengers object to scanners that reveal their naked bodies, and to enhanced pat-downs that would be considered sexual assault anywhere else.
We object to the TSA’s new procedures. But they are just the latest in a long list of indignities imposed upon you since 9/11, such as . . .
* Being forced to remove your belt and shoes when screened
* Seeing your toothpaste and nail clippers confiscated
These violations presume that you sacrifice your Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures when you want to board a plane, but the politicians didn’t amend the Constitution to achieve this. They just ignored it.
Congress created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to screen passengers and baggage after 9/11. But the TSA was ill-conceived. Potential terrorists already residing in the U.S. have little incentive to use airplanes in their plots. There are too many other, easier targets. Please take note . . .
Airline-related terrorism attempts since 9/11 — such as the shoe bomber and the underpants bomber – originated overseas, outside the TSA’s jurisdiction.
The entire TSA scheme is like trying to close the barn door after the cows have already escaped.
by Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital, and host of The Peter Schiff Show, broadcasting live from WSTC Norwalk CT from 6pm – 8pm Eastern time every weeknight, and streaming at www.schiffradio.com
Given the opposing views of the potentially parsimonious new Congress and the continuously accommodative Federal Reserve, there is a movement afoot among Republicans to eliminate the Fed’s “dual mandate.” Prior to 1977, the Fed only had one job: maintaining price stability. However, the stagflation of the 1970s inspired politicians to assign another task: promoting maximum employment. This “mission creep” has transformed the Fed from a monetary watchdog into an instrument of social policy. We would do well to give them back their original job.
The imposition of the “dual mandate” was informed by the Keynesian belief that inflation and unemployment don’t mix. An economic concept known as the ”Phillips curve” postulates that low levels of one cause high levels of the other. But, like many things in modern economics, the curve is a fiction. There is no real reason why low inflation would produce unemployment or full employment would create inflation.
On paper, at least, the Fed has appeared to strike the balance that Congress demands. But this is a fool’s errand. The Fed’s dual mandate is the equivalent of asking a corporate CEO to maximize shareholder value by giving away as many free products as possible to consumers.
The best way for the Fed to ensure maximum employment is to focus on its one true job – creating price stability. The irony of the dual mandate is that by trying to satisfy both, the Fed ensures that we will get neither.
by Michael Pento, Senior Economist at Euro Pacific Capital (www.europac.net)
Certain deflationists have recently gone on record saying that the increase in the Fed’s balance sheet is meaningless with regard to creating inflation because our central bank can’t print money, it can only create bank reserves. The problem with their view is that it both disregards the definition of money and ignores the process of creating bank reserves.
Money is commonly defined as “a medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquefiable account.” The Fed creates a “readily liquefiable account” when creating excess bank reserves, so it is also creating money. Since inflation is properly defined as an increase in the money supply, the Fed unquestionably creates both money and inflation when it creates reserves.
The deflationists’ error is to suppose that because the amount of currency has not grown, the money supply hasn’t grown. But the Fed never creates currency – all the printing is handled by Treasury; instead, it creates bank deposits which are held at the Fed. In ignoring this “base money,” the deflationists make no distinction between having the Fed’s balance sheet at $800 billion or $3 trillion. Doing so is a huge mistake for both making investment decisions and predicting asset price levels.
In short, for deflationists to be correct, they must contend that only money which is currently in circulation can be considered inflationary, i.e. lead to rising prices. Therefore, they must also believe that all increases in demand and time deposits should not be included in the money supply and should not be considered inflationary. This isn’t just wrong, it’s grossly wrong.
They say, “To cook a frog, don’t toss it into boiling water, put it into cool water and turn the heat up slowly”.
Our government would tell us that for the right (they call it a privilege) to fly on a commercial flight, we must submit either to a dose of radiation and provide a naked rendering of our body or submit to a government groping. . . or both. Either option, would be considered a crime if committed without a claimed “government authority”. The history of airline/airport security for the past forty years clearly shows that security is not the goal
Although airline hijackings have existed since, at least, the 1930′s, they didn’t “come into vogue” until the 1960′s with demands from hijackers to be taken to Cuba or some other political venue or for the payment of a ransom. This changed in 1970 when three airliners were hijacked by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The aircraft were forced to fly to Jordan where the passengers were ultimately released and the aircraft were destroyed. Today, this would be classified as a major “terrorist” event. In reality, they were political hijackings, which occurred only because they were allowed to occur. In 1970, as today, the existing security measures did not address the problem nor were they meant to correct the problem. At best, they were (and are) all theater meant to provide a sense of security.
Each of these hijackings could have been prevented – at minimal cost, without government involvement and without the sacrifice of personal liberties. Simple: lock and reinforce the cockpit door. Although, we’ve all been herded through metal detectors, emptied our pockets and had our bags x-rayed, nobody thought to “lock the door” for more than thirty years; until after 9/11.
John Browne, Senior Market Strategist at Euro Pacific Capital
Given all that stress that the Federal Reserve’s currency debasement program is laying on the global economy, last week’s G-20 summit in South Korea should have been the monetary equivalent of a military degradation for the U.S. dollar. The greenback should have been slapped across the face, stripped of its medals, and cashiered from the ranks of respected currencies. Instead the dollar escaped unscathed, retaining its privileged status as the world’s reserve.
However, the meeting did have its dark moments for America. The troubles starting even before the summit began with the failure of president Obama to conclude a long-planned trade deal with South Korea. Once the G-20 meetings began in earnest, the United States made scant headway with its main initiative to pressure the Chinese on Yuan revaluation. Just when it looked like the dollar would benefit from strife in Europe, a joint statement by key European leaders signaled that potential problems within the euro-zone may have been averted. In other words, nothing from this meeting should give any confidence that the dollar has a bright future.
Earlier today in a business meeting one of the participants from out-of-town complained of being groped by the TSA prior to his flight earlier this morning. He said that the TSA goon knelt down in front of him and began working his hands up his leg. The TSA goon then looked up and said, “Just warning you. I’m going to keep going until I hit resistance.” The business colleague then said, “I swear I almost felt like I was raped. It was completely uncalled for.”
I think Americans are finally starting to really get fed up. Now, Ron Paul is coming to our defense, yet again. He introduced a bill earlier today about this very problem and his speech on Capitol Hill demonstrates just how fed up he is over this complete disregard for individual rights. Check out the video below.
S.510, the fraudulently-named “Food Safety” bill, is scheduled for a cloture vote TODAY!
We want this bill defeated, but we also have a Plan B. Amendments proposed by Senators Tester and Hagan would allay many (although not all) of our concerns with the bill. Their amendments will exempt small farms and businesses from the most onerous regulations.
The continued bull market in the price of gold has been one of the staple discussions in the financial media for the better part of a decade. But, in that time, almost no consensus has emerged to explain the phenomenon. If you ask ten Wall Street pundits to explain the upward movement, you will most likely get nearly ten different answers. While most logically identify global currency debasement as a primary cause, others say that gold is driven by: fear of economic uncertainty, central bank gold hording, international political conflict, or the ebb and flow of the Indian wedding season. The truth is the main drivers for the price of gold are the level and direction of real interest rates and the intrinsic value of the dollar.
Most people (outside of Washington) understand that printing money dilutes the value of the currency being printed. When a currency drops, the nominal price of hard assets in that currency generally rises. But the relationship between gold and monetary expansion is not that simple.
The act of central bank money printing temporarily drives down nominal interest rates, while at the same time creating inflation and lowering the intrinsic value of the currency that is printed. Therefore, subtracting rising rates of inflation from falling nominal interest rates results in a falling real rate of interest. Once real rates become negative, the liability of holding gold, which offers no interest income, disappears. The more real interest rates fall, the greater incentive for investors to own gold.