Showing posts with label Corporatism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corporatism. Show all posts
March 27, 2012
February 1, 2012
January 10, 2012
November 15, 2011
November 14, 2011
The Compromise of the Organic Foods Industry
Big Agra is busy taking over as many organic food companies as possible. The chart below shows some of the organic companies that have been acquired by the big food companies:
October 23, 2011
European Debt Crisis Is Still Burning
Blogger Charles Hugh Smith has a nice summary of the situation The European Financial Crisis in One Graphic: The Dominoes of Debt, Of Two Minds Blog (Oct. 24, 2011). Read More......
October 21, 2011
October 18, 2011
September 6, 2011
September 1, 2011
Constitutional Legal Tender Model Legislation
Current federal law make gold and silver subject to federal capital gains taxation. Therefore, one negative element of the State legal tender statutes are that the federal government imposes a tax on the appreciation of the gold and silver.
Gold and silver tend to appreciate as the Dollar is debased by the printing of money. Therefore, as the value of the Dollar declines because of its fiat status, gold and silver appreciate relative to the Dollar. That appreciation is subject to federal taxes. Legislation pending in the House, HR 1098, would repeal the capital gains tax on appreciation of gold and silver currency.
Nevertheless, Utah has enacted the nation's first Constitutional Legal Tender law establishing gold and silver as a legal tender in that State. Utah is also the home to the September 26, 2011, Utah Monetary Summit.
In the South Carolina House of Representatives, Representatives Reps. Pitts, Atwater, Toole, Chumley, Delleney, Hosey, D.C. Moss, G.R. Smith, Williams, Willis, Huggins, Bingham, Quinn and Bedingfield are sponsoring H 4128, Gold and Silver as Legal Tender.
In the South Carolina Senate, Senators Thomas and Bright are sponsoring S 862, a bill by the same name.
Contact your Representative. If he is one of these, thank him for his work to nullify the Federal Reserve. If she is not, encourage her to become a cosponsor.
Read More......
August 30, 2011
Consumer Confidence Erodes: We Need a Leader
The Conference Board issued an index of consumer confidence this morning. The data is reflected on this chart published today on ZeroHedge, a financial blog site.
The consumer confidence index, published by a Nielsen Company affiliate, is closely watched by Wall Street, and the information in the index is discouraging. The data cut-off was August 18. Maybe things have improved since then. The stock market certainly has improved since mid-August.
Lynn Franco, the Director Consumer Research Center, issued a statement that accompanied the report: "Consumer confidence deteriorated sharply in August, as consumers grew significantly more pessimistic about the short-term outlook. The index is now at its lowest level in more than two years (April 2009, 40.8)." Franco went on to speculate the deterioration was likely related to acrimonious debt ceiling negotiations.
Franco's hypothesis suggests we ought to blame Republican House Members for their principled opposition to the debt ceiling deal. Her theory seems flawed in that the Obama Administration was touting an allegedly historic debt ceiling deal with Republicans at the end of July. That deal came on a bipartisan vote.
I'm not going along with the Franco theory.
It seems more likely that the Index suggests that the American people are smarter than the national media. The people know that the debt ceiling deal was mere Kabuki theater for politicians. They are aware that the "historic deal" amounted to nothing more than lipstick on a pig. The people know that the debt anchor is still dragging the economy down.
The consumer confidence index, published by a Nielsen Company affiliate, is closely watched by Wall Street, and the information in the index is discouraging. The data cut-off was August 18. Maybe things have improved since then. The stock market certainly has improved since mid-August.
Lynn Franco, the Director Consumer Research Center, issued a statement that accompanied the report: "Consumer confidence deteriorated sharply in August, as consumers grew significantly more pessimistic about the short-term outlook. The index is now at its lowest level in more than two years (April 2009, 40.8)." Franco went on to speculate the deterioration was likely related to acrimonious debt ceiling negotiations.
Franco's hypothesis suggests we ought to blame Republican House Members for their principled opposition to the debt ceiling deal. Her theory seems flawed in that the Obama Administration was touting an allegedly historic debt ceiling deal with Republicans at the end of July. That deal came on a bipartisan vote.
I'm not going along with the Franco theory.
It seems more likely that the Index suggests that the American people are smarter than the national media. The people know that the debt ceiling deal was mere Kabuki theater for politicians. They are aware that the "historic deal" amounted to nothing more than lipstick on a pig. The people know that the debt anchor is still dragging the economy down.
Read More......
August 17, 2011
Cigarette Health Warnings
Cigarettes stink and the product is terrible.
However, the American people already know the risks of cigarette smoking. To compel cigarette manufactures to post graphic and emotional images such as the image to the left, compels cigarette companies to engage in coerced speech. Such heavy-handed government action constitutes a violation of the First Amendment.
The FDA alleges authority for this tyrannical action under "The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act" (Smoking Control Law). In 2009, the Smoking Control Law was enacted by a Democrat House and Senate, and signed into law by a Democrat President (Obama). The Smoking Control Law required nine new larger textual warning statements to appear on cigarette packages and in cigarette advertisements. The Smoking Control Law also authorized the FDA to issue regulations on graphic labeling to accompany the textual labels. That provision of the Smoking Control Law states, in part, "the Secretary shall issue regulations that require color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking to accompany the label statements." Section 15 U.S.C. 1533(4)(d). The FDA has taken on this statutory authority with a vengance.
The FDA is a federal agency under the authority of an even bigger federal agency, the federal Department of Health and Human Services. HHS is headed by Obama appointee Kathleen Sibelius. Her FDA did not fool around with its graphics requirement. It issued a series of utterly gut wrenching emotional graphics. Pursuant to the Smoking Control Law, these images must be included on all cigarette packages sold in the United States beginning on no later than October 22, 2011.
The problem with Smoking Control Law is that Congress lacks authority to enact a statute that violates the freedom of speech liberty contained in the First Amendment of the Constitution. The First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the government from coercing speech from citizens. In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), the U.S. Supreme Court stated:
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.
Five American cigarette companies have now filed a federal lawsuit alleging the FDA regulation violates the First Amendment. Judging the extremity of the FDA images, it would seem the cigarette companies have a good test case. One would hope federal courts would uphold American free speech liberties.
Read More......
July 12, 2011
Debt Limit Crisis?: Chance to Rescind Previously Appropriated Funds for ObamaCare
Most thinking people realize that the government does not have to default on loans if the debt limit is not raised. There is more than enough income to pay our obligations. Plus, you have the Federal Reserve, whose borrowing the government need not pay back at all.
What gets dicey about not raising the debt limit, however, is the continued funding to pay for already enacted programs. Federal government programs will definitely risk losing a percentage of funding if the debt limit law is not passed soon. So the actual question is not whether we will default, but whether we should allow the government continue to fund lavish government programs?
Clearly, that answer to the true question is a resounding NO. Programs like ObamaCare are colossally dangerous spending programs for which the United States simply cannot afford to pay.
Unlike most laws, the 2,700 page ObamaCare law contained provisions that funded $105 billion for its implementation. M. Brownfield, Rep. Bachmann Helps Expose Secret Stash of Obamacare Cash, The Foundary (Mar. 7, 2011).
One big step in the right direction for handling the allegedly disastrous debt ceiling crisis (a manufactured crisis) is H. R. 1213. H.R. 1213 rescinds the previous appropriation of ObamaCare funding for its implementation.
Raum Emanuel, the former Obama Chief of Staff, advised us that one should never "let a crisis go to waste." With Tim Geithner and others in the Obama Administration alleging that the United States will plunge the world into financial Armageddon without passing a debt ceiling law, perhaps its time for Republicans to take Emanuel's advice. This "crisis" is a perfect time to argue for defunding the unpopular ObamaCare law. If we don't pass H.R. 1213 immediately, then our world will end.
June 30, 2011
Quick and Easy Way to Save 1.6 Trillion Dollars
The Federal Reserve does nothing of value to electronically print up money. The Fed is nobody. Why do we have to pay them off? Just don't pay the Fed back. How did they pay for it? They printed it.
Read More......
June 26, 2011
Herman Cain: Dissembling About the Federal Reserve
It is true that Ron Paul Chairs the Domestic Monetary Policy Subcommittee. In December 2011, after the Republicans gained a majority in the House of Representatives, Ron Paul was appointed by Speaker Boehner to become the Chairman. The Subcommittee has jurisdiction over monetary policy, currency, commodity prices, and matters related to the Federal Reserve Bank generally.
Cain's argument seems facially valid unless one realizes the Federal Reserve Act statute grants to the Fed an enormous swath of secrecy. Congress is limited from prying into certain areas of Fed activities including, "transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or nonprivate international financing organization." Additional grants of secrecy in the Federal Reserve Act are listed at the following link. See Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009.
Incredibly, not even Congress has oversight authority over the Federal Reserve. That is the reason why the American people have grown louder and louder in the insistence that Congress pass a law to require a full audit of the Federal Reserve.
A law compelling an audit the Fed still has not been passed.
If Cain knows this, why is he making public statements suggesting an audit is not necessary? Why is he deceiving the public about the Federal Reserve's lack of transparency?
Because of his background in the Federal Reserve, it seems impossible that Cain is ignorant of the secrecy provisions in the Federal Reserve Act. That means Cain can have only one objective. Deception. That brings me to the original question. Why? If Cain cannot be trusted to tell the truth about the Federal Reserve, how can he be trusted to serve as President?
Here is a video from June 2011 showing Cain making the deceptive statements about the Fed to a group of voters in Minnesota.
June 20, 2011
Inflation is a Regressive Tax on the Poor
The sooner that the American public wakes up to the concept of inflation as a tax, the sooner it will demand discontinuation of deficit spending. Ultimately, as people begin to realize that the real culprits are the unelected international bankers in control of the Federal Reserve, the sooner they will demand that the Fed be ended as soon as possible.
Inflation correlates to the supply of money in the system. The chart below shows the money supply increase since 2006. There has been a dramatic increase.
The next chart reflects the actual inflation (not the faked government statistics) since 1981. Notice that our current rate of inflation is approximately twelve percent.
Wonder why your family budget is becoming more and more stressed. It is the growing inflation tax.
The deficit spending by Congress is a primary reason why the Fed is printing so much money. If the Fed does not print the money, then the deficit must be financed by borrowing from other countries. However, other countries are looking at the same data.
Our currency has no standard. It is technically, like most other of the world's currencies, a "fiat currency." That means it is linked to nothing of value and the only restraint upon the volume is the government that is backing the currency.
As our deficits grow larger and larger, other countries are going to demand that we pay higher interest on their loans. Based upon current trends, our entire tax revenue will soon be used to pay interest. If things do not change, we will buy no guns nor butter with our taxes, but it will all be spent on interest payments to other governments. As other countries demand greater and greater interest on loans (as the risk of default rises), the U.S. government will pay larger and larger portions of the budget for interest. Very soon, the government's interest payments to foreign countries become the largest part of our country's budget.
That cannot happen. Therefore, the government turns to the only viable alternative . . . printing money. This phenomena is also called "monetizing the debt." So what? Printing money seems like a painless way to satisfy our huge deficit and national debt.
Except it is not free. It comes with the cost of the inflation. Deficits are ultimately paid by the subjects through an inflation tax, the debasement of the currency.
Inflation hits the poor and the middle class where it really hurts because we must buy food, water, rent, and fuel. The inflation tax is also obscure. People do not realize (unless they are reading this blog or others like it) where the hidden inflation tax comes from. People do not know who to hold accountable--the President, Congress?
The political class is of course accountable for the damage done by an inflation tax. However, they do not admit responsibility. They can blame the Federal Reserve. They are right.
The Fed operates based upon the Federal Reserve Act, a statute Congress enacted in 1913. The Fed is not part of the American Constitution. Congress and the President could revoke all federal reserve powers by merely enacting legislation to repeal the enabling statute.
The sooner people realize that Congress' deficit spending will cause an inflation tax, the quicker we will demand changes in the law, including repealing the Federal Reserve Act.
June 14, 2011
NLRB Hearing In Charleston Friday
On Friday, June 17, the House Oversight and Governmental Reform Committee will conduct a North Charleston hearing on "Unionization Through Regulation: The NLRBs Holding Pattern on Free Enterprise." The hearing is scheduled for 12:30 at County Council Chambers, The Lonnie Hamilton Building, 4045 Bridge View Drive, North Charleston, South Carolina. The North Charleston hearing location would seem to be an ideal site for a Tea Party liberty group meet up.
The hearing is seeking answers about why the NLRB issued an unprecedented Charge against Boeing because Boeing chose to open a new manufacturing line in South Carolina, a right to work state. The hearing will be broadcast live on the Internet and available at www.oversight.house.gov.
Fourth District Congressman Trey Gowdy serves on the Committee and will participate in questioning of witnesses. The Hearing should have some interesting testimony. Scheduled to testify are South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon.
The NLRB General Counsel is basically a prosecutor. Prosecutors have discretion in the type of labor practice allegations are prosecuted. Solomon made the controversial decision to prosecute a highly unusual and arguably partisan NLRB Charge against Boeing arising out of the decision to open a new line in the State of South Carolina. Many view the Solomon charge as a frivolous pro-union action by the Obama Administration, an unconstitutional intrusion into the free market system, or a way for President Obama to kill even more good American jobs because of his union cronyism.
The NLRB, a quasi-judicial federal agency, makes findings of fact and determinations of law in labor disputes. It can issue injunctions, fines, and sanctions when employers or unions engage in an unfair labor practices. It has a substantial amount of power. Theoretically, it could issue an injunction seeking to block the Boeing plant in South Carolina.
The NLRB "court" has been stacked with union activists by President Obama. For example, Craig Becker, who a 2010 Democratic Party controlled Congress failed to confirm, was appointed by President Obama during a congressional recess. Becker was the former general counsel (i.e., head lawyer) for the AFL-CIO and SEIU, the massive government worker union with close ties to ACORN. Becker's recess appointment by President Obama meant Congress was not allowed any hearings on Becker's bias. No up or down vote on Becker's appointment took place before his installation as a Judge on the Board.
Solomon instituted an unfair labor practice trial today in Seattle against Boeing. The NLRB trial relates to a International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Local 751 allegation that Boeing engaged in an unfair labor practice by announcing to union employees in Washington that it intended, in part, to open a airplane manufacturing plan in South Carolina, a right to work state, to avoid strikes. Boeing opened a $900 million manufacturing plant in North Charleston which will make 787 aircraft. That new line eliminates potential union jobs on Boeing's "surge line," which the union wants as a permanent manufacturing element in Washington State.
The Local Machinists's Union's NLRB Charge alleges that a management statement favoring South Carolina because of a reduced threat of strikes there constituted a threat against the union workers in Washington State.
On June 10, 2011, Judge Clifford denied three South Carolina Boeing employees a right to appear and present evidence in case on behalf of the South Carolina workers. The NLRB Judge ruled that South Carolina workers have no interest in the case.
After Judge Clifford's decision in the case, it would likely reach the full Board of the NLRB on appeal. There, judges like Craig Becker would review the case. Because of the NLRB's pro-union membership, it has been called a "kangaroo court."
From there, an appeal would go to the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court could not possibly hear the appeal for many years.
Right to work states like South Carolina have laws that prohibit unions from forcing employees to join or pay dues or fees to a union. The right to work states are attracting many businesses that seek a level playing field in organization of work forces. Employers prefer non-union facilities because it drastically reduces the labor cost and increases productivity.
The map above shows the the remaining 23 right to work states in the United States. Coincidentally, the right to work states seem to be largely tilted in the direction of Republican leaning states. It is therefore not surprising that the Obama Administration seeks to punish right to work states by using the NLRB as its bully.
Read More......
The hearing is seeking answers about why the NLRB issued an unprecedented Charge against Boeing because Boeing chose to open a new manufacturing line in South Carolina, a right to work state. The hearing will be broadcast live on the Internet and available at www.oversight.house.gov.
Fourth District Congressman Trey Gowdy serves on the Committee and will participate in questioning of witnesses. The Hearing should have some interesting testimony. Scheduled to testify are South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon.
The NLRB General Counsel is basically a prosecutor. Prosecutors have discretion in the type of labor practice allegations are prosecuted. Solomon made the controversial decision to prosecute a highly unusual and arguably partisan NLRB Charge against Boeing arising out of the decision to open a new line in the State of South Carolina. Many view the Solomon charge as a frivolous pro-union action by the Obama Administration, an unconstitutional intrusion into the free market system, or a way for President Obama to kill even more good American jobs because of his union cronyism.
The NLRB, a quasi-judicial federal agency, makes findings of fact and determinations of law in labor disputes. It can issue injunctions, fines, and sanctions when employers or unions engage in an unfair labor practices. It has a substantial amount of power. Theoretically, it could issue an injunction seeking to block the Boeing plant in South Carolina.
The NLRB "court" has been stacked with union activists by President Obama. For example, Craig Becker, who a 2010 Democratic Party controlled Congress failed to confirm, was appointed by President Obama during a congressional recess. Becker was the former general counsel (i.e., head lawyer) for the AFL-CIO and SEIU, the massive government worker union with close ties to ACORN. Becker's recess appointment by President Obama meant Congress was not allowed any hearings on Becker's bias. No up or down vote on Becker's appointment took place before his installation as a Judge on the Board.
Solomon instituted an unfair labor practice trial today in Seattle against Boeing. The NLRB trial relates to a International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Local 751 allegation that Boeing engaged in an unfair labor practice by announcing to union employees in Washington that it intended, in part, to open a airplane manufacturing plan in South Carolina, a right to work state, to avoid strikes. Boeing opened a $900 million manufacturing plant in North Charleston which will make 787 aircraft. That new line eliminates potential union jobs on Boeing's "surge line," which the union wants as a permanent manufacturing element in Washington State.
The Local Machinists's Union's NLRB Charge alleges that a management statement favoring South Carolina because of a reduced threat of strikes there constituted a threat against the union workers in Washington State.
On June 10, 2011, Judge Clifford denied three South Carolina Boeing employees a right to appear and present evidence in case on behalf of the South Carolina workers. The NLRB Judge ruled that South Carolina workers have no interest in the case.
After Judge Clifford's decision in the case, it would likely reach the full Board of the NLRB on appeal. There, judges like Craig Becker would review the case. Because of the NLRB's pro-union membership, it has been called a "kangaroo court."
From there, an appeal would go to the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court could not possibly hear the appeal for many years.
Right to work states like South Carolina have laws that prohibit unions from forcing employees to join or pay dues or fees to a union. The right to work states are attracting many businesses that seek a level playing field in organization of work forces. Employers prefer non-union facilities because it drastically reduces the labor cost and increases productivity.
The map above shows the the remaining 23 right to work states in the United States. Coincidentally, the right to work states seem to be largely tilted in the direction of Republican leaning states. It is therefore not surprising that the Obama Administration seeks to punish right to work states by using the NLRB as its bully.
June 3, 2011
Greenville Water Commission Race
The proponents of Agenda21 know Americans will not willingly vote for freedom destroying agenda. However, they couch their plan in terms like "sustainable growth" or "vision" plans to hide their secretive plan.
One of those groups involved in the "sustainable growth" planning is Ten at the Top. Links at that slick website, take you to another super slick site, 2030 Shared Upstate Vision. Both tout a Agenda21 style vision for our people. Phillip Kilgore is a Ten at the Top Board Member. Kilgore is a sitting incumbent on the Greenville Water Commission.
Part of the UN's Agenda21 plan involves capturing of water resources. Kilgore, an attorney who represents the largest corporations in the United States, regularly participates in secret executive session negotiations with other cities and counties about water resources.
There is no telling whether Kilgore knows he has been duped into participating in UN Agenda21 planning, or if he is knowingly doing so. However, it is clear that there is conflict of interest between his work for the Water Commission and his participation in UN vision planning.
There is an important election in the City of Greenville for Kilgore's position on the Water Commission. Rex O'Steen, who is a Constitutional conservative, is running for the position. Citizens concerned about Agenda21, need to become very active and begin making calls to their friends in the City of Greenville to get them to turn out and vote for Rex.
May 26, 2011
Medicare System Explained by Paul Ryan
I like the way he explains the problem. The solution in the Ryan Plan Budget is not as well described. Doesn't the injection of insurance companies in place of a government bureaucracy create a similar disconnect between the patients and providers. There is still a third party payer involved? And, why is the government mandating the type of coverage that must be offered by the insurance companies? Doesn't that create the likelihood that politicians will keep heaping required benefits into the law, and causing the costs to go up?
Read More......
May 6, 2011
Herman Cain: The Federal Reserve Connection
Herman Cain is a product of the most destructive economic force in America, the Federal Reserve. His campaign page biography says, "This led to my acceptance of a position on the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, and I was subsequently elected their chairman."
Of course, as real inflation (not the government propaganda figures) soars, more and more are learning just how destructive the Fed is to our current fiat monetary system. Why would we elect a person who is part of the problem rather than an agent of change?
Here is a 2010 clip of Herman Cain denying that we need to audit the Fed. This statement by Cain was issued before we found out early this year that the Fed spent billions on bailing out foreign governments and banks. Why would any prospective, independent presidential candidate advocate against a thorough audit of the Fed? This is especially true for a person who has been "in the belly of the beast."
YouTube Link Read More......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![[Valid Atom 1.0]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_s-zfetElha4HyNDelcmy1Sl1oOENNVjOrGMcGToDgS-h0XXuuKs2UsR215gmUBlqZ8wZTnuoeUh9XY1iaurbZbaSi0exA_q0-ArC9oihwQTW3PNj_PLX2yzknzddgxHfCYlw=s0-d "Validate my Atom 1.0 feed")