On December 16, 2008, the Federal Reserve cut its key interest rate to a range between 0 and .25%, the lowest since 1954.
Why does the Federal Reserve, a group of wealthy private bankers who were unconstitutionally given a monopoly on the creation of money in the United States, think it can solve this economic crisis by doing the very thing it did to create the problem in the first place? By lowering interest rates, the Federal Reserve is attempting to inject liquidity into the market by making lending more attractive to member banks, and their member banks, all the way down to the consumer trying to buy a car or house he/she cannot afford. As if the massive debt realized by this process is not bad enough, the money that the Fed issues is printed out of thin air, and thus debases the dollar.
I suppose there is some good news: the Federal Reserve cannot lower interest rates any more! When this last ditch effort to mend the economy fails, which it is bound to do, everyone will (finally) understand that the Federal Reserve cannot simply print wealth. Everyone will understand that deficit financing and monetization of debt can only last so long. Everyone will understand what happens when an organization like the Federal Reserve is allowed to operate with no oversight, regulation, or transparency to the people of the United States of America. Everyone will finally understand that the unlimited production of fiat currency is a system that is inherently flawed and destined for failure.
Everyone will realize that Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, and so many others were right after all.
For the first time in history, on December 2, 2008, Gold December futures traded at a 1.98% discount to spot, while February futures traded at a .14% discount to spot. This phenomenon is known as backwardation, and it is indicative that people do not believe that there will be enough physical gold available for delivery, and therefore they simply are not bidding on it. Demand for gold is increasing heavily as talks about a US auto industry bailout continue and the economy slips into a deeper recession.
While Coulter made some excellent points in her article, such as the fact that we can’t blame Obama for raising taxes on the rich since McCain voted (twice) against Bush’s tax cuts because they favored the rich, and that we couldn’t go after Obama’s illegal alien aunt because of McCain’s stance on amnesty for illegal aliens, she made one point that I strongly disagreed with:
Have you ever noticed that whenever Democrats lose presidential elections, they always blame it on the personal qualities of their candidate? Kerry was a dork, Gore was a stiff, Dukakis was a bloodless android, Mondale was a sad sack.
This blame-the-messenger thesis allows Democrats to conclude that their message was fine — nothing should be changed! The American people are clamoring for higher taxes, big government, a defeatist foreign policy, gay marriage, the whole magilla. It was just this particular candidate’s personality.
The part I strongly disagree with is her assertion that in order to be conservative republicans, we must not adopt what she calls a “defeatist foreign policy”. The truth is, as I point out in my reply, that we cannot continue our current foreign policy if we are to return to the traditional conservative roots of the Republican party:
Ann, unfortunately, the Republican party can’t change as long as it advocates this imperialist, interventionist foreign policy that you apparently advocate as well. Part of changing the GOP back to its conservative roots is appreciating a sensible, non-interventionist foreign policy like traditional republicans supported, Robert A. Taft for example (Mr. Republican). Neoconservatives promote the warfare state, and neoliberals promote the welfare state. The constitution provides for neither. If we are to change the GOP, we must adopt a sensible foreign policy and it must stop with the scare tactic propaganda to promote unnecessary (and extremely expensive) war in order to achieve its imperialist agenda.
“It does not take a majority to prevail… but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams
Last night Barack Obama won by a landslide and became the president elect of the People’s Republic of Amerika, and was congratulated by Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, shortly thereafter.
Said Chavez, “the historical election of an Afro-descendant to rule the most powerful nation of the world is a symptom that the epoch change that has been gestated from the South of America could be knocking the doors of United States.”
Huh?
Anyway, I’m sure Hugo Chavez is hoping that U.S. spy planes won’t be flying in his no-fly zone anymore, but my advice to Chavez is, don’t count on it. Obama is an imperialist just like George W. Bush, except Obama wants to extend the welfare to people in the U.S. as well, and not just third world dictators like Kim Jung Il and Robert Mugabe.
Regardless, Chavez is hopeful that Venezuelan-American relations can be mended. In a press release, Chavez stated, “The Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela ratifies its will and determination to build, based on a full respect to sovereignty, a constructive bilateral agenda for the welfare of Venezuelan and North American peoples”. Yeah.
Seriousness aside, I’m sure last night was a powerful moment for socialists all around the world.
Although, not even the current GOP platform was enough to save John McCain. The GOP needs restructuring, preferably from the ground up. The GOP needs to heed the founders of this country and the framers of the Constitution. They took great care in writing the constitution and for us to ignore it is a downright shame, and it cost the GOP the election.
The choice is yours: elect a moderate Democrat, or a Socialist? (or a statesman?)
Of course, the moderate Democrat is John McCain, and the Socialist is Barack Obama. Of course, Democrats will defend Barack Obama to their grave that he is not a Socialist, but his words speak otherwise. Although Democrats have a great point that Republicans have supported Social Security, Medicare, and a progressive income tax, all socialist ideas, coming right out and saying that you want to implement wealth redistribution is rather frightening. It should be no wonder that Obama has socialist tendencies after being mentored by Frank Marshall Davis.
Republicans, however, are not off the hook. Besides the above mentioned, McCain is pro-amnesty, anti-gun, pro stem cell research, anti-free speech (McCain-Feingold), and loves to vote with Joe Lieberman, a man who also should not have a big “R” in front of his name, for obvious reasons. McCain either swindled the American people or the American people are in fact more liberal than I thought. Then again, why did both candidates have to shift right in their rhetoric in order to gain acceptance? Why did McCain have to choose Governor Sarah Palin in order to appeal to his conservative base? That begs the question then, are conservatives just plain ignorant? I think the answer is plainly obvious.
The only real choice today is a third party candidate, and preferably Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. The only real hope for America (sorry Barack) is to restore the principles of the Constitution of these United States of America.
Although the party responsible for pushing the filter forward, the “Family First” party, has good intentions - filtering internet at the ISP level is not a sound way to achieve an agenda in a (supposedly) free society. However, since guns are banned in Australia, it is not very suprising.
The filter would mandate blockage of all illegal content, including drug related sites and child pornography. The filter could also optionally block all pornography.
The problem seems to be that lawmakers can’t decide on what is “illegal”, since some of the content that would be blocked is currently legal to view in Australia.
I’m know that the Family First party in Australia has good intentions, but they ought to take a hint from the U.S. that beaurocracy can never achieve anything with the same level of efficiency as the private sector. Why make the internet 20-75% slower and have a mandated filter, rather than buying a $50 piece of software that can do the same thing?
Someone needs to tell Steve Fielding about Net Nanny.
I’m sure that the government could even issue vouchers to get the software for every citizen and it would still be cheaper (especially in the long run) than implementing a government mandated, ISP level internet filter.
Latest Entry
For the first time in history, on 
Last night Barack Obama won by a landslide and became the president elect of the People’s Republic of Amerika, and was congratulated by Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, shortly thereafter.