Have nothing to do with the [evil] things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out to the light... [For] when all things are brought out into the light, then their true nature is clearly revealed...

-Ephesians 5:11-13

Tag Archives: Gary North

Amazing Nullification News from Wyoming

wyoming welcomes you

(Photo credit: tango.mceffrie)

A modest little bill, H.B. 0104, called the “Firearms Protection Act” has the potential to re-ignite the whole states’ rights issue that  many think was long settled by the Civil War. All it says is this:

Any official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not less than one (1) year and one (1) day or more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), or both.

That’s all. Simple. Easy. Clear. And profoundly important in the freedom fight. Alex Newman, writing for The New American, says it exactly right. This is “nullification legislation that would void unconstitutional infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, even providing prison time for any federal agents who may try to enforce Washington, D.C., gun control in the state.”

The key word here is

Keep Reading…

How I’m learning to love Mayor Bloomberg and Senator Schumer

And it’s not because I’m originally from the east coast, either. As my bumper sticker used to say: “I’m not a native but I got here as fast as I could.” No, it’s because their actions are wonderfully self-defeating. Bring it on!

They want to ban guns. More precisely they want to keep private citizens from

Keep Reading…

Idaho to allow private online classes to teach the kids

This is a wonderful breakthrough:

Starting next fall, Idaho students could have the option of taking math, history  and other online classes provided by the Khan  Academy, the online content nonprofit that provides courses free to anyone,  anytime and anywhere.

Eric Kellerer, a spokesman for Northwest Nazarene University (NNU), tried to downplay the implications:

Keep Reading…

Establishment Economist Greg Mankiw Speaks Some Truth

N. Gregory Mankiw

N. Gregory Mankiw (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Economist Greg Mankiw is a study in contradictions. His establishment credentials are impeccable: a graduate of Princeton – summa cum laude – with a degree in economics, then on to MIT and Harvard Law. He chaired President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors, advised Mitt Romney, and now teaches economics at Harvard.

But every now and then he speaks the truth, or at least some part of it. In his article in the New York Times, Mankiw was clear about who’s paying the taxes in the country: the rich, by a country mile:

In 2009, the most recent year for which data are available, the richest 1 percent of Americans paid 28.9 percent of their income in federal taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office. (That includes income taxes, both individual and corporate, and payroll taxes.) Members of the middle class, defined as the middle fifth of households, paid 11.1 percent of their income in taxes.

Some of this difference in tax rates is attributable to temporary tax changes passed in response to the recent recession. But not all. In 2006, before the financial crisis, the top 1 percent paid 30 percent of their income in taxes, compared with 13.9 percent for the middle class.

These data suggest that the rich are not, as a general matter, shirking their responsibilities to support the federal government.

Wow! Considering the source, this is an amazing admission. The rich are paying more than their fair share! And then he goes on to explain that even if Obama has his way with Congress – which he is largely getting – the proposed increases on the richest Americans will

Keep Reading…

Eliminate the Debt Ceiling altogether, says Senior Fellow at Brookings

Isabel Sawhill, Senior Fellow at The Brookings Institute, wrote on Tuesday that “the fiscal cliff…is not the most worrisome economic issue facing the country. The real cliff is the debt ceiling, and if we go off that cliff, it will be catastrophic.”

At $16.4 trillion, the current debt ceiling is likely to be hit before the end of the year but with “extraordinary measures” the Treasury can put off the day when it will no longer be able to pay the government’s bills until the end of February. That will give the Congress plenty of time to consider getting rid of the regular debt ceiling charade altogether.

Said Sawhill,

Those who believe that a refusal to raise the debt ceiling will somehow put limits on spending and shrink the size of government are confusing the need to pay obligations already incurred by Congress with the need to rein in future expenses…

The debt ceiling itself is an anachronism.

This is precisely the point made from the other side of the political spectrum. Peter Schiff, author of numerous books about the current economic crisis and the head of a precious metals company, recommended doing away with the debt ceiling “drama” altogether by giving in to the suggestion that the president be given the power to raise the debt ceiling whenever it is necessary. Wrote Schiff:

Most Republicans have dismissed the proposal as a blatant executive power grab that will significantly weaken both the Congress and the minority party.

While this is certainly true, Congress will only lose a power that it has never shown the slightest courage to actually use.

But in truth, the proposal has the merit of refreshing honesty. By telling U.S. taxpayers, and the world in general, that the U.S. government has no intention of ever balancing its budget or limiting its accumulation of unsustainable debt, then perhaps we can begin to have an honest discussion about our economic future.

He reiterates Sawhill’s contention that the debt ceiling has little to do with reining in government spending but instead merely allows the Treasury to pay the bills the Congress has already authorized. The debates have instead become merely a sham and a fraud, kabuki theatre that provides entertainment only, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Simply put, Schiff says, “If Congress wants to control the debt, let them do so. If they don’t care, just continue on the current path. Dropping the pretense is at least more honest.”

On Tuesday White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked at a press briefing about the debt ceiling. He responded similarly:

It’s certainly not good government … to even hint at the possibility of holding the American economy hostage again to the ideological whims of one wing of one party in Congress. That’s unacceptable. Congress has its responsibility: payment of bills that the United States incurs because Congress passes bills that incur those debts.

What Sawhill, Carney and Schiff are doing is confirming what Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said back in November, that the US should get rid of the debt ceiling as soon as possible: “It would have been time a long time ago to eliminate it. The sooner the better.”

Joe Weisenthal, in what many perceived to be a tongue-in-cheek article at Business Insider supporting the notion, said:

This almost completely prevents a debt ceiling crisis ever again, while keeping the ceremonial aspect that people like. There would still be votes, but they’ll mainly serve as a way to let politicians play politics, without putting anything at risk.

One of the last times Congress tried to throw its weight around on the debt ceiling issue was in 1995 when the House refused to raise the limit, forcing the government to stop spending money on nonessentials on November 14th. As Gary North explained:

 That stand-off lasted five days. The House then passed another [continuing resolution], but the next vote was scheduled for early January. The crisis was merely deferred.

In January, 1996, the final showdown could no longer be postponed. The House refused to increase the debt ceiling or pass a new CR. The government officially had to stop all spending over the debt ceiling. Certain checks stopped being printed. Clinton’s popularity rose. The stand-off lasted only a few days. Clinton did not capitulate. The House Republicans did.

It was over. The debt ceiling was raised. Again.

Echoes from that confrontation reverberated in August 2011 when a new congress tried to leverage its influence to force the White House to cut spending in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. The result was a decision to put off the hard work until December 2012 by setting up the current “fiscal cliff.”

The political damage done at the time to various reputations was considerable. Here, from Wikipedia, is a cogent summary:

The aftermath of the debt-ceiling crisis caused the Tea Party, which was seeing its support somewhat wane prior to the crisis to lose support among many Americans as many House Republican supporters of the movement opposed raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances…

In a poll taken shortly after the deal was signed by the President, 40 percent of Americans held an unfavorable view of the [Tea Party] movement, with only 20 percent supporting it.

Republicans were viewed as holding most of the responsibility for the dispute … The aftermath of the crisis caused the approval ratings of both the Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to drop respectively from 43 percent in July to 33 percent in August and from 27 percent to 21 percent in the same time span…

The Republican Party, [which] controlled the House, saw its approval ratings drop from 41 percent in July to 33 percent in August.

Prior to that confrontation in 2011, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) predicted the outcome:

It is predictable that Congress will once again merely delay the inevitable and raise the debt ceiling, after the usual rhetoric about              controlling spending, making cuts, and yes, raising taxes…

If the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives gives in to establishment pressure by voting to increase the debt ceiling once again, you will know that the status quo has prevailed. You will know that the simple notion of balancing the budget, by limiting federal spending to federal revenue, remains a shallow and laughable campaign platitude.

If the debt ceiling legislation enacted back in 1917 to keep government spending in check is repealed, the president is hopeful that it will send a message of comfort to its lenders that they needn’t worry about a default. Such a hope may in turn explode in the president’s face as it will reveal, once and for all, the inability of the government of the United States to maintain any sort of control over or limitation on its spending.

As Schiff noted: “Such a development many [instead] be the shock therapy our creditors need to finally cut us off for good.”

That will be the true day of reckoning, when the ritual kabuki theatre ends and reality sets in.



Dependence on Government Continues to Grow

Sheople Man

Sheeple (Photo credit: AZRainman)

The Heritage Foundation just published its latest report on its “Index of Dependence on Government” and it doesn’t look good: Romney was right, there are more riders in the boat than pullers at the oars:

The Index of Dependence on Government, which measures dependence on government  programs for housing, food, income, student aid, or other assistance, has risen dramatically since 2007.

If you click on the link above you’ll see their graph. It’s exponential. Not only is it rising, it’s rising at an increasingly rapid rate. As Herb Stein says, if something can’t continue, it will stop.

Here is a restatement of the graph from Heritage:

 The updated Index reveals:

  • Government dependency jumped 3.28 percent in 2011, with the largest increases in higher education loans and grants and in retirement spending.
  • This is the fourth year in a row that the Index has risen, rising 31.73 percent in that time.
  • At the same time, nearly half of the U.S. population (48.47 percent) does not pay any federal income taxes.

This is why the welfare state is so destructive. It removes personal responsibility from individuals who then become more like

Keep Reading…

Skyscraper Announcement Confirms Impending Chinese Recession

Empire State Building all

Empire State Building all (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I thank Gary North for alerting me to this. It’s far more than just historical coincidence. The announcement that China is going to build the world’s tallest building is a strong indicator that it is going into (if it hasn’t already gone into) recession. Tall buildings signal the top.

Mark Thornton, a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, wrote about this in July, 2004:

This 4th of July will mark the groundbreaking of the Freedom Tower at ground zero of the World Trade Center. The design of the building calls for a height of 1,776 symbolic feet, which will capture the title of world’s tallest building when it is completed in late 2008 or 2009.

Groundbreakings, opening ceremonies, and certainly July 4th are all causes for celebration, but the Freedom Tower may be a signal that something much more sinister is afoot. For more than a century there has been a correlation between the building of the world’s tallest building and severe economic downturns.

That correlation is eerie, but here it is:

The correlation is as follows. The announcement and groundbreaking for the world’s tallest building takes place at the end of a long boom or sustained bubble in the economy. The stocks go into a
bear market; the economy goes into recession or worse. The building is completed. The economic turmoil that ensues is either severe, drawn out, or as in the case of the Great Depression, both.

There’s this:

The Panic of 1907 which helped bring about the Federal Reserve Act was signaled by the building of the 612 foot Singer Building completed in 1908 and the 700 foot Metropolitan Life completed in 1909. There was only a short, sharp downturn in 1913 when the 792 foot Woolworth building was completed, as the establishment of the Fed and WWI intervened.

And then this:

The Great Depression was signaled by a series of three record-breaking skyscrapers. The 927 foot Wall Street building was completed in 1929; the 1046 foot Chrysler Building was completed in 1930; and the 1250 foot Empire State Building was completed in 1931. The Great Depression helped bring on Roosevelt’s New Deal.

And this:

The 1970s were characterized by high rates of unemployment and inflation. This “stagflation” was signaled by the building of the 1368 foot high World Trade Towers which were completed in 1972 and 1973. The Sears Tower set a new record at 1450 feet when it was completed in 1974.

Then Thornton explains why the correlation is valid, in economic terms. Faulty price signals at the top of a boom cause bad decisions to be made, often very bad:

At first glance the association of record-setting skyscrapers and economic crisis would seem to be a spurious correlation. Surely, the building of such skyscrapers does not cause economic crisis. However, there is good reason to believe that skyscrapers and crisis are linked via the business cycle. Long periods of easy credit create economic booms, particularly in investment, speculation becomes pronounced, and entrepreneurs lose their compass of economic rationality and make big mistakes. The biggest mistakes — record-setting skyscrapers — comes toward the end of the long boom and signal the bust. (my emphasis)

The Chinese economy, like ours, has been running on paper money for years and giving out false and misleading signals to investors. They have made the mistake which I characterize as “straight line thinking in a curvilinear world.” Here’s a link to the announcement that not only are they going to build the world’s tallest building, they’re promising to do it in 90 days!

Stay tuned and watch for the coming recession in China.

Kicking the Fiscal Cliff Can … Again

John Stossel is a favorite of mine. I watch his show whenever I can. He is fearless, even when faced with that intimidating buffoon Bill O’Reilly.

Stossel not only thinks Congress will kick the can on the Fiscal Cliff, he even explains how it is likely to happen:

Will Congress act?

It will! I see the future: The politicians will meet and fret and hold press conferences and predict disaster. Then they’ll reach a deal.

It will just postpone the reckoning, but they’ll congratulate themselves, and the media will move on.

Ron Paul sees what’s

Keep Reading…

Demographics and the Republican Party


Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan aboard an Ameri...

Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan aboard an American boat in California, 1964. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In my article at The New American yesterday, I reviewed studies from the Pew Research Center which showed that changing demographics resulted in the election victory for Democrats. I concluded from that study that the continued secularization of America would continue to favor them.

Thomas Sowell disagrees. He thinks that if the Republican Party gets back to its roots, it can have an intelligent and persuasive conversation that will resonate in future elections. After all, Ronald Reagan did it:

Conventional wisdom in the Republican establishment is that what the GOP needs to do, in order to win black votes or Hispanic votes, is to craft policies specifically targeting these groups. In other words, Republicans need to become more like Democrats…

Yet the most successful Republican presidential candidate during that long period was a man who went completely counter to that conventional wisdom– namely, Ronald Reagan, who won back to back landslide election victories.

Sowell holds that the Republican Party is missing the boat: that it’s can’t out-promise the Democrats:

If non-white voters can only be gotten by pandering to them with goodies earmarked for them, then Republicans are doomed… Why should anyone who wants racially earmarked goodies vote for Republicans, when the Democrats already have a track record of delivering such goodies?

No, says Sowell. Instead the Republican Party needs to harken back to its roots of limited government, individual responsibility, private property, strong families, etc., etc., etc…

Republicans [need] to articulate a coherent case for their principles and the benefits that those principles offer to all Americans…

The Republicans’ greatest failure has been precisely their chronic failure to spell out their principles– and the track record of those principles– to either white or non-white voters.

In other words, he thinks the Republican Party can be saved.

I don’t think so. It is, and has been for years, just one half of

Keep Reading…

The Fiscal Cliff: What Really Needs to Be Done

Piggy Bank

(Photo credit: Images_of_Money)

Now that the national elections are history, attention in Washington is firmly focused on the “fiscal cliff”: the day of reckoning created by the congress during the budget ceiling debate in the summer of 2011. When the Super Committee failed in its mandate to create a plan to address the deficits and the national debt, the result was the misnamed Budget Control Act of 2011 which, in current parlance, kicked the can to December 31, 2012. All that act did was to raise the debt limit immediately by $400 billion, thus averting a government shutdown, while allowing further increases in the debt limit without another congressional confrontation with the White House. The tradeoff was the promise of spending cuts in the future.

That future is now.

If nothing is done, and the economy runs off the so-called fiscal cliff, the impact will be a combination of $7 trillion worth of tax increases and spending cuts over the next decade.

There will be automatic spending cuts of $120 billion annually in both defense and non-defense spending, there will be increases in income and capital gains tax rates, the reestablishment of the so-called “death tax” (the estate tax), 27 million households will now be subject to the “wealth tax” under the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), while those enjoying the payroll tax “holiday” will see their Social Security withholding taxes return to the 6.2% rate from the current temporary 4.2% rate. There would be the confluence of another flurry of other tax increases and spending cuts as well, including 27% cuts to Medicare providers and at least four other tax increases imbedded in Obamacare.

According to the Heritage Foundation, the fiscal cliff will cost families making $70,000 a year more than

Keep Reading…

Debt Ceiling Likely to be Raised Without Fanfare This Time

English: at CPAC in .

Grover Norquist (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Near the end of the Treasury Department’s Quarterly Refunding Statement, issued on Wednesday, October 31st, Assistant Secretary Matthew Rutherford included the following ominous paragraph:

Treasury continues to expect the debt limit to be reached near the end of 2012.  However, Treasury has the authority to take certain extraordinary measures to give Congress more time to act to ensure we are able to meet the legal obligations of the United States of America. We continue to expect that these extraordinary measures would provide sufficient “headroom” under the debt limit to allow the government to continue to meet its obligations until early in 2013.

These are the words that triggered the debt ceiling crisis in the summer of 2011 when recalcitrant House members, honoring their Taxpayer Protection Pledge, drew a line in the sand and threatened a shutdown of the government unless the White House caved in and permitted spending cuts in the future in exchange for an immediate raise in the ceiling. Those “spending cuts in the future” are part of the “fiscal cliff” facing the lame duck congress following the election on Tuesday.

Since August 2nd, when the Budget Control Act of 2011 was signed into law, the debt ceiling has been incrementally raised to its current level, $16.4 trillion. With October’s deficit of $195 billion pushing the national debt to $16.2 trillion, the clock is ticking on the inevitable limit being reached well before

Keep Reading…

Quick! Who is the Most Powerful Person on the Planet?

English: EPP Congress Bonn: Podium discussion ...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Mario Draghi. Who? According to Matthew Lynn, writing at MarketWatch.com, “measured by what [he] can actually do, the most powerful person will soon be the president of the European Central Bank, the Italian banker Mario Draghi.” He explains:

In the last few weeks, we have seen an extraordinary expansion of the European Central Bank’s powers. It can now set interest rates, control financial markets, and effectively dictate tax and spending policies across what remains — despite its current difficulties — the world’s largest single economic bloc.

To explain how this former Goldman Sachs executive  ascended to such a high perch in the world of international finance would take far more room than we have here. Suffice to say, the path to power has been under construction for decades, and deliberately planned, going all the way back to

Keep Reading…

The Most Important Election Since…When?

We are told that the presidential election in 2012 is the most important presidential election since [fill in the blank]. This statement is so utterly preposterous that it boggles my mind. The fact that anyone who knows anything of American politics over the last 50 years could say such a thing is indicative of the complete political ignorance of that person. That Republicans could possibly believe this today indicates a lack of political sophistication that is really beyond belief.

Presidential Election 2012 Vector Sticker

Presidential Election 2012 Vector Sticker (Photo credit: Vectorportal)

You’ll notice that this link is to Gary North’s members only website. If you click on it you won’t be able to access the article, but will be invited instead to subscribe. I pay $9.95 a month for his service, and I’m glad to do so.

This single article is worth the entire monthly subscription fee. I want to honor his copyright. I also want to explore briefly why he thinks anyone who says the upcoming election is the most important election since…whenever…is a fool.

North writes:

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson ran against Barry Goldwater. If Goldwater had been elected, the following pieces of legislation would not have been passed:

Medicare, the voting rights act of 1965 and the immigration act of 1965

There would not have been the Federal Reserve inflation to pay for both the Vietnam War and the war on poverty. There would have been no War on Poverty. This means that the bubble that the Federal Reserve created which popped just as Nixon came into office in 1970 would not have taken place.

Furthermore, the outflow of gold that began in 1965 because of the demands by de Gaulle, as well as the two-tier gold system of 1968, would not have been likely. The dollar would have been maintained in terms of gold, and Nixon would not have abolished the last remaining traces of the gold standard in 1971.

He concludes:

So, don’t worry too much about the outcome of this presidential election. The disasters that are likely to take place over the next four years are simply extensions of the outcome of the election that took place 48 years ago.

I invite you to subscribe to his newsletter. It’s worth the $9.95 a month.

They’re Coming For Your Gold Coins

Jared Cummans – Marc Faber Warns: Store Your Gold Overseas

You ought to own some gold but don’t store it in the U.S., the Fed will take it away from you one day.

Hoard of ancient gold coins

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

My reaction to this statement by Faber, otherwise known as Dr. Doom, is just short of incredulity. He’s been right, albeit early, about a number of predictions, including that the US is already in a recession and that gold will eventually hit $10,000 or higher as the currency debauchery continues and accelerates with the Fed’s new QE3 program.

But coming to take it away from us? Why would they do that?

Gary North is full of reactions to Faber’s statement:

  1. The Fed doesn’t have the authority.
  2. It doesn’t have the police power.
  3. Such a move would further sully its already grievously damaged credibility.
  4. It would admit that it has been playing with monopoly money all along.
  5. Why bring attention to gold? Everyone knows it’s a relic from the dark ages.
  6. There would be lawsuits.
  7. How could such a decree be enforced? Who would actually come to the door and demand your gold?
  8. In the 1930’s when FDR confiscated gold coins from the people, the people were a lot more trusting of government than they are now.
  9. Faber says to hold gold outside the US. Why? In order to do that a citizen will leave all sorts of tracks that would lead confiscators to the gold.

I have some further thoughts on the matter. If the president (Obama, Romney, Biden, Ryan…take your pick) were to issue an executive order, who would enforce it? Would that be Treasury agents swarming all over the countryside? IRS agents? BATF agents? And while they’re at it, how about guns and ammo: “While we’re here we might as well pick these nasty items up as well.” Who’s going to go along with that?

Such an announcement or decree would be extremely costly to enforce. Where would the money come from? Wouldn’t the House of Representatives, where all spending bills start, begin to hear howls of outrage from you and me?

How would they “know” that we have a cache of coins, anyway? If we have been buying them for cash over the past many years, where is the paper trail?

I think North is right. Here is what he said about Faber’s statement:

When I hear that the federal government is going to confiscate all of our gold coins, I am amused. When I hear the Federal Reserve is going to do this, I am amazed that anybody who knows anything about gold owners of the United States would believe this is probable, let alone inevitable.

When the Fed Expands, Businesses Die

Mises Daily – Why QE3 Will Fail

What happens when banks print new money…and lend it to business? The new money pours forth on the loan market and lowers the loan rate of interest.

It looks as if the supply of saved funds for investment has increased, for the effect is the same: the supply of funds for investment apparently increases, and the interest rate is lowered.

Businessmen…are misled by the bank inflation into believing that the supply of saved funds is greater than it really is…

Soon the new money percolates downward from the business borrowers to the factors of production: in wages, rents, interest…

Capital goods industries will find that their investments have been in error: that what they thought profitable really fails for lack of demand by their entrepreneurial customers…the malinvestment must be liquidated.

English: Murray Rothbard in the 90's

English: Murray Rothbard in the 90’s (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Murray Rothbard wrote these words back in 1963 in his landmark study, America’s Great Depression. And he’s just as accurate and perceptive and incisive today as he was back then: when the Fed expands the money supply, it winds up destroying capital, which slows the economy and increases unemployment! These are counter-intuitive and against all that the Fed has been feeding us: “We must stimulate the economy by lowering interest rates!”

Actually, no. Gary North points out that the Fed’s attempts to lower interest rates have little effect on short term rates, at least at the moment. Interest rates are low because no one is borrowing and the banks aren’t lending. Everyone is in the “wait and see” mode.

But in the long run, Rothbard nails it: The Fed destroys capital and consequently increases unemployment. Here he is:

Unemployment will be aggravated by the numerous bankruptcies, and the large errors revealed…

Unemployment will…become really severe and lasting only if wage rates are kept artificially high and are prevented from falling. If wage rates are kept above the free-market level that clears the demand for and supply of labor, laborers will remain permanently unemployed.

Thanks, Obi-Wan Bernanke!

Am I Allowed to Disagree with Chuck Norris?

Chuck Norris: Election 2012: Supreme Court Hangs in the Balance

Part of what makes America great is that every two years, we, too, cast our votes, rendering judgment on whether lawmakers have fulfilled their promises. And every four years, as in 2012, our opportunity extends to the highest office in the land.

Chuck Norris Valentine

Chuck Norris Valentine (Photo credit: Rafael Peñaloza)

I grieve that Norris is so misinformed about how the elections work in the real world. The campaigns for the White House have been controlled and manipulated by the insiders – especially the Council on Foreign Relations – for decades. The only exception was Goldwater in 1964 and you remember how the establishment moved Heaven and earth to paint him as a war monger in order to discredit him. The strategy worked, and we got Johnson.

I like the way Gary North puts it: no matter who wins in November, the CFR wins. He considers the Republicans and the Democrats to be CFR “Team A” versus CFR “Team B.” Or as my friend Jack McManus likes to say: “We have two political parties in this country, and the RepublicanDemocrats is one of them.”

Now it is true that informed citizens – informed citizens – can and do have an impact on Congress, especially the House of Representatives which members have to come back into their districts every two years to retain their seats. And we are making progress there.  The Senate? Not quite so much. The six-year terms there invite “assimilation by the Borg” as I put it. The best example is Lyndon Johnson who “went to Washington intending to do good, and wound up doing very well indeed.”

I disagree also with Norris when he thinks Romney will do better in selecting Supreme Court justices than would Obama:

The president also nominates judges for all levels of the federal bench. That is why we need to make sure we have a president whose nominees for any court — including the Supreme Court — will support the original meaning of our Constitution.

As we have seen recently, Romney has successfully ignored the Constitution vis-à-vis Obamacare and Romneycare. Why should he all of a sudden become a strict constructionist when appointing a Supreme Court justice? The real action is in the Senate which, under the Constitution, must consent to the appointment. But Norris doesn’t mention that.

Oh well, I’m sure Norris’ heart is in the right place.

Gun Sales Spiking Thanks to Obama, “Preppers” and Even Zombies!

English: pistol Smith & Wesson Sigma SW9F Pols...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

After gunmaker Smith & Wesson announced late Thursday afternoon, September 6, that their sales had jumped by nearly 50 percent from a year ago, the company’s share price rocketed from $9 to $11 within minutes of the opening of trading on Friday morning.

Specifically, the company announced that sales were up 48.3 percent from the same quarter last year and that profits had nearly doubled. In addition, its backlog of orders jumped more than 163 percent, causing Jeffrey Buchanan, Smith & Wesson’s chief financial officer, to raise the company’s expectations for 2013:

Based on our stronger than anticipated first quarter, [and] current consumer orders for our products … we are increasing our full year 2013 financial guidance.

S&W’s announcement followed a similar announcement by Sturm, Ruger & Company — better known simply as Ruger — on August 20 that the gunmaker was on schedule to beat last year’s record of 1,114,700 firearms produced in a year, having already made one million of them by

Keep Reading…

Is a Greater Depression Imminent?

Wayne Allyn Root: Why we are on the brink of the greatest Depression of all time

I am a successful small businessman and a patriot who loves America and always sees its greatness. I am also an optimistic, positive thinker who always sees the glass half full.

But not this time.

English: Wayne Allyn Root

English: Wayne Allyn Root (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It’s over. It’s done. We’re toast. No way back. Sorry.

I see these kinds of articles a lot in my profession and they do get tiresome. Sometimes they annoy me. Sometimes I think they’re designed to discourage those of us in the freedom fight to keep us from continuing the fight.

I’ve written favorably about Wayne Allyn Root before when he picked Romney over Obama in November. He presented a persuasive case for his prediction, and I wrote about it.

But this time I think he’s wrong. Let’s look (briefly) at his arguments that a “Greater Depression” is imminent. They should be familiar to you (my comments in italics):

  1. In 1929 America was not $16 trillion in debt, plus facing over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Actually, it’s more like $220 trillion, but I won’t quibble here.
  2. 1929, most of our states were not bankrupt, insolvent and dependent on federal government handouts to survive. This is true.
  3. In 1929, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid didn’t exist. The federal government had no such obligations threatening to consume the entire federal budget within a few years. Also true.

What is his solution? Whoops, didn’t he just say “It’s over. It can’t be saved. We’re doomed?” Actually, this is what he said:

This time we are in such deep trouble, the only solution is a radical restructuring of the politicians, the economy, and the way we view personal responsibility versus government handouts. If those changes don’t come then we are facing a long decline and the eventual end of America.

So, even though it’s over, there is a solution:

The solution is actually simple: dramatically cut the size, scope and power of government; cut spending; cut entitlements; cut taxes; cut government rules and regulations that smother, damage and destroy businesses, prevent startups, and kill jobs; reform Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; reform public employee pensions; stop the wars (we can no longer afford to police the world); end or reform the Fed; end bailouts and stimulus (ask Japan about the failures of repeated stimulus); end the Democratic obsession with green energy and high speed rail (ask Spain about the waste in those two programs); encourage oil and energy exploration; encourage job creation by small business and the private sector; term limit politicians; institute school choice; and back the dollar with a gold standard.

I’ve heard all this before. Most of us know what must be done. The task is huge, the list is long, it will take years, and, no, Mr. Root, it won’t be simple.

Gary North thinks the US will default on these promises, and I tend to agree. But that’s a positive: people will learn how to become self-reliant once again. It will be painful.

But it won’t be fatal.

Halting Steps Towards a Gold-Backed Currency

Chris Poindexter: Slow Week For Gold

The world is crying out for some of type of encrypted token or bearer receipt that can be traded for physical gold.  Where the physical inventory matches the encrypted tokens at a rate of 100 percent and can be redeemed at a fixed margin for physical gold or cash on demand in various cities around the world. Some countries might consider that a competing currency, but as long as receipts are denominated in fixed amounts of gold and not currency values, that should avoid most complications; it’s really just a new way to trade commodities.

English: Currencies exchange logo Français : L...

English: Currencies exchange logo Français : Logo symbolisant le change de devises (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

While Poindexter is writing for his “gold bug” customers about the price of gold and silver and how the ratio between the two—a very high 59—bodes well for silver purchasers, he makes an excellent side comment about how the free market will eventually revert back to real money, a gold-backed currency.

Ben Bernanke doesn’t recognize silver or gold as real money, which is about as good an indicator you can find that it is! If he’s for it, it’s wise to be against it, and vice versa. It saves a lot of thinking because the man has been so consistently wrong for so long. His response to Ron Paul’s question about whether silver and gold is real money is instructive: “No.”

There are barter currencies in existence now and I’ve written about them. There are local and regional currencies backed by, in some places, maple syrup! No, I’m not making this up! I’m not that clever!

But that’s how we moved from a direct exchange economy—goods for goods—to an indirect exchange economy—goods for money for goods—which helped the world’s GDP to grow by an astonishing 2 percent per year ever since about 1800.

And as the dollar continues to lose value, people will find that other options are going to work better—much better—than paper money that doesn’t maintain its value. I’m not afraid of hyperinflation, mind you. The Fed would never allow that to happen because it would threaten its very existence. But what it will allow is “some” inflation—Gary North thinks in the range of 20 to 30 percent annually—which will serve nicely to generate increasing demands for money that retains its value.

I’m encouraged by Poindexter’s comments. He sees further than I do on this issue. And I welcome that.

Ron Paul Has the Final Say

WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 29:  Republican pres...

In his last public opportunity to quiz Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who appeared before the House Financial Services Committee on July 18, Texas Congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul took the time to put things into perspective:

For the past few years the Federal Reserve System has received criticism from all sides of the political spectrum, and rightly so, for its unprecedented intervention into the economy and its bailouts of large Wall Street banks and foreign central banks.

This has been Paul’s theme ever since he entered Congress following a special election in April 1976. In a position paper that his staff prepared in June of 1976, Paul attacked a pending bill in Congress to fund the International Monetary Fund following the breakdown of the Bretton Woods agreement when President Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard in 1971.

The staffer primarily responsible for that paper, Gary North, remembers starting work on Friday, June 11, 1976, and being given the task of preparing the paper in time for the Monday deadline. He worked all weekend on it, and when it was published, it made such an impression on Senator William Proxmire, then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, that he invited Paul to testify before his committee. Says North: “At the time, I had never heard of a House member testifying to a Senate Committee. I have never heard of it since.”

But that testimony launched a three-decades-long campaign by that lone congressman to question the existing monetary system, especially the centerpiece of that system, the Federal Reserve.

In his July 18 testimony, Paul recalled his primary problem with the IMF—the same problem he has with the Fed—is that it is a central bank that was deliberately designed to

Keep Reading…

Many of the articles on Light from the Right first appeared on either The New American or the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor.
Copyright © 2018 Bob Adelmann