US Freedom Army
By Lewis Shupe, Contributor, Freedom Fighters of America
February 21, 2016
Administrative law. What is it and how does it come about? It is important that one understands this concept because it explains much of what is happening in America today.
In general Congress and State Legislatures write vague laws. The reasons for this are many but a main reason is that if they write specific laws they will lose voters and may not get reelected. What happens then is that when the vague law is written the power to determine what the law actually means is turned over to the Executive Branch of the legal body in question. In effect the Legislatures have given their power over to the Executive Branch in order to not be shackled with the specifics of a law so that they can always say they were not in favor of something or in favor of something as it becomes necessary. Administrative law occurs when the Executive Branch determines the specifics of what the law really means. The net effect of all this is that the Legislature ultimately loses its power and the Executive Branch becomes dominant while the Legislative Branch becomes meaningless.
The forces of socialism understand this perfectly and that is why they are not as disturbed when they lose control of a Legislature. They know that if they have control over the Executive Branch they have seized control of about 90 percent of the power. This is one reason Barack Obama can write Executive Orders to make law – in many cases the power has been given to him by administrative law. Certainly our current President has also shown himself to be adept at writing Executive Orders that contradict provisions of a law that are in fact quite specific.
In the coming national elections the Socialist (oops Democratic) Party knows that it must win the White House at all costs and they will do whatever it takes to accomplish that task. The legality or illegality of their efforts will not matter as they seek the ultimate prize.
If the U.S. Congress ever wonders why they are becoming irrelevant all they have to do is look in the mirror and they will see the root cause of their current situation.
Lewis Shupe, Founder
Lewis Shupe, Founder
**************
US Freedom Army
By Lewis Shupe, Contributor, Freedom Fighters of America
February 7, 2016
Never attempt to substitute procedures for poor personnel. It just will not work. One theory for raising children that I think everyone should appreciate is as follows: If you get a good one everything works and if you get a bad one nothing works. While this may be an overgeneralization it has a certain amount of truth. The same is true in politics, business, government, or many other walks of life. The solution is most often not to write different procedures but to get different people (in the case of a child, of course, this is not so easy – you are stuck).
When I worked in a business setting early in life we were having a problem with the night shift operations in our computer department. The night work was not getting done and people were becoming frustrated because they could not do their work on the following morning as a result. As a young fellow who wanted to get ahead, I would on occasion offer procedural changes to the computer operations manager. One day I walked in with another of my procedural ideas and the computer operations manager said “We don’t need new procedures, we need new people.” They terminated the night shift personnel and hired new people experienced in this type of computer equipment. Suddenly, as if by magic, the work was always done on time and the night shift personnel were completely finished by the time morning came around. I have never forgotten this lesson my entire life.
This is why I have never favored a balanced budget amendment or any of these other vehicles designed to circumvent having the wrong people in positions of power. If you have the right people in power they will balance the budget and if you have the wrong people in power they will not – no amount of procedural activity can overcome their incompetence. The wrong people will find a way to circumvent any procedure you put in place and will have a valid verbal justification for doing so. One thing incompetence is competent at doing is finding justifications for their failure.
Socialism is a cancer on the nation. The people who advocate socialism need to be taken out of public life. When you eliminate a cancer the patient may die but if you do not eliminate the cancer the patient will die. Socialism dies when the Constitution is being followed scrupulously and until the Constitution is reestablished this cancer will only continue to grow. When you establish good leadership in government the problems will begin to go away.
Lewis Shupe, Founder
*****************
US Freedom Army
January 29, 2016
by Lewis Shupe, Contributor, Freedom Fighters of America
The leaders of Iran are believers in the 12th Imam or the Mahdi. They believe that the Mahdi will return when there is sufficient chaos in the world and he will bring peace and prosperity to the world. The 12th Imam is said to be the son of the 11th Imam, Hasan Al-Askari and is a direct descendant of the prophet Muhammad. He went into hiding as a child around the age of 5 and is also called the Hidden Imam. According to the Hadith the criteria for the Mahdi are: He will be a descendant of Muhammad and the son of Fatima; He will have a broad forehead and pointed nose; He will return just before the end of the world; His appearance will be preceded by a number of prophetic events during 3 years of horrendous world chaos, tyranny and oppression; He will escape from Medina to Mecca and thousands will pledge their allegiance to him; He will rule over the Arabs and the world for 7 years; He will eradicate all tyranny and oppression bringing harmony and total peace; He will lead a prayer in Mecca in which Jesus will be at his side and follow in.
The current leadership of Iran is now almost all exclusively among the members of the Shi’a Hojjatieh sect. This sect believes that to hasten the return of the Mahdi they should create chaos and disorder in the world. They believe that the actions of humans can affect the return of the Mahdi and the goal of the leadership of Iran is thus clear. This is why Iran is so dangerous. A good and decent people have had their country taken over by sinister forces. This has happened before in world history – such as 1917 Russia, 1933 Germany, and 1948 China (among many).
The Mahdi is going to eradicate all tyranny and oppression bringing harmony and total peace, but to do so he will need to kill or convert all non-believers. Just a little bit of a non sequitur there – but logic is not something the Iranian leadership is interested in addressing. Actually we think the Mahdi was covered in the First and Second Commandments of the Bible, but when a person believes something to be true no power on earth can change his mind.
The current Iranian leadership believes all this nonsense we have documented above and their chosen method of bringing chaos and disorder is nuclear weaponry. What if action had been taken in 1936 immediately after Hitler marched into the Rhineland? Probably Naziism would have crumbled and the horrors of WWII could have been averted. We cannot afford to wait – nuclear war could be the result if we tarry. The enablers in the current administration have quite possibly initiated future nuclear confrontation and that reason is sufficient for their removal from power. This administration’s cheap tricks in order to circumvent the provisions of the U.S. Constitution and construct a back-door deal with Iran constitutes treason of the highest order.
******************
A Brief Message from The US Freedom Army
January 22, 2016
By Lewis Shupe, Contributor, Freedom Fighters of America
Learn your Constitution! The forces of socialism detest the Constitution because it stops them from doing what they need to do the most to advance their agenda and that is to centralize all power in the federal government. The way they have circumvented these constitutional restrictions is a case study in how to undermine the Constitution and change its meaning by using the tricks of the old Greek Sophists to change the meaning of words.
The socialists established centralized power over individuals by redefining the meaning of the Welfare Clause (“promote the General Welfare”) and over businesses by redefining the meaning of the Commerce Clause (“To regulate Commerce … among the several States”) and to do this they used the Supreme Court. This was all done during the Roosevelt Administration (1933-1945) when the Supreme Court was dominated by Roosevelt appointees. The primary court case involving the Welfare Clause was Helvering v. Davis and the primary court case involving the Commerce Clause was Wickard v. Filburn. If you wish to read more about these cases you should read The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom (The cases I just cited were #1 and #2 in this book). The upshot of these Supreme Court decisions is that it ostensibly gave the Federal Government carte blanche to pass any law they so desired regarding individuals and businesses and these court decisions destroyed the concept of limited government in the Constitution.
The people involved in developing and writing our Constitution told everyone exactly what they meant by those words above and here we will summarize it for you. In the case of the Welfare Clause they said that just because we told you to provide for the General Welfare it does not mean you can have any powers we have not already given you. In other words, you cannot use the Welfare Clause as an excuse to exceed the enumerated powers of the Constitution found in Article 1 Section 8. In the case of the Commerce Clause among the several States they said that the only reason for that being in the Constitution is so the federal government can control the States should the States interfere with interstate commerce.
Once again the forces of socialism had used the courts to change the meaning of the Constitution and effectively render it meaningless. This is why we say the Constitution has been “crucified.” If you want the symbolic date of the crucifixion it was November 9, 1942, the day the case of Wickard v. Filburn was settled. After 73 years it is finally time to roll back the rock and begin the resurrection of the United States Constitution.
If you wish to determine the meaning of the Constitution the first place to look is to see what the people who wrote it said that it meant. In many cases this is quite specific. No courts are required. Judicial precedent does not trump the Constitution itself and courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the Constitution yet they do it all the time. The result of all this is that we have a government that operates unconstitutionally.
******************
US Freedom Army Post
THE CHARITY SCAM
by Lewis Shupe, Contributor, Freedom Fighters of America
January 7, 2015
There are many well-run and well-meaning charities in America but there are also many that exist only to enrich the people who are operating the charity and it is often difficult to tell the wheat from the chaff. Nothing that any of these charities are doing is illegal so the problems occur because of governmental rules that are ridiculous and because of a lack of oversight into the financial dealings of the charity. I do not mean to disparage anyone or their motives but only offer some examples below to show how the charity laws can be legally manipulated.
--------------------------------
Professional golfer ABC sets up charity XYZ which he controls and operates and calls it the XYZ Foundation. ABC wins a golf tournament and donates all the winnings to the XYZ Foundation. What has just happened? Since the entire amount was donated to charity there are no Federal, State or Local tax withholdings, no Social Security or other deductions of any sort and the entire amount is now in the charity golfer ABC controls. Since golfer ABC lives somewhere in Florida (or Texas) which has no State income tax he has avoided entirely paying any State and local taxes. Here is the worst part of all: Most charities are only required by law to spend five (5) percent of the money they take in on actual charity (Note: some charities are required to pay 15% and some pay 0%) and that charity can be another charity. The net result is that instead of having the top federal tax rate of 39.6% taken out of their winnings immediately they are now only required to pay out 5% of the total amount to charity, an amount they would probably have paid out to charity in any case. Now when golfer ABC takes an income for running the charity he must pay taxes on that amount but he can control how much he takes and he can also have other family members “employed” by him that take salaries for doing virtually nothing. He may also “donate” his 5% to another golfer DEF’s charity to satisfy his requirement in the hope that next year DEF will “donate” back to him. Golfer ABC invests the rest and hopes the day will come when the top tax rate drops down to say 10% and he may then choose to close the charity, pay the 10%, and achieve a massive tax savings.
JJJ starts a charity called Veterans with PTSD (we just made this name up, if there is one we apologize) which claims to help veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The charity takes in $3 million in donations per year. JJJ pays out 5% per year to these veterans but makes sure he gets plenty of statements and television spots from the ones he has helped about how great his charity works. It costs JJJ about $850,000 to pay his employees and manage his mail out campaigns and so that leaves JJJ with a profit of $2 million that JJJ takes as a salary. The Veterans with PTSD get $150,000 and JJJ gets $2 million. As long as JJJ donates $100,000 to his favorite political party he is usually left alone. This is a great charity – for JJJ and his favorite political party! JJJ can also call it a Non-Profit Organization since all salary goes against profit.
We’ll give you one more quickly as an example and this is a real one.
Beatrice Joyce Kean established the Joyce Foundation in 1948 after her family amassed hundreds of millions of dollars in the lumber industry. During her lifetime her gifts were apolitical (such as hospitals and health organizations) but after her death in 1972 a “professional staff” took control of the foundation and began to move it to the political left. A few years later, radical environmentalist and conservation groups entered the picture as did organizations dedicated to social justice. A notable member of the Joyce Foundation’s Board of Directors was Barack Obama. One of the six main thrusts of the philanthropy is the Environmental Program that funds organizations that oppose the use of land for such endeavors as logging, mining, construction and oil exploration (the irony of opposing the very thing that established the fund in the first place is not lost on the USFA). The other five main thrusts are just as kooky as the one we just mentioned. Some of the socialist organizations that contribute to the Joyce Foundation are the following: Tides Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, Brookings Institute, Nature Conservancy, ACLU, La Raza, Nature Conservancy, etc. etc., etc. numbering in excess of 100 such organizations. This is very typical of how these foundations are infiltrated and the money subverted to fund socialism. One could make a very strong argument that all these socialist organizations are involved in nothing more than funding their political agendas and that all these money transfers are a money laundering scheme designed to hide the true source of their funds.
We now come to The Clinton Foundation. With what I have told you so far you should be able to draw your own conclusions about what is taking place there.
-------------------------------------
Charities should be required to give at least 39.6% (the highest tax rate) directly to the people they are purporting to help and not to another charity. Charities should be audited by the IRS to see if salaries of executives are excessive and in line with what would be considered charitable. Rules are in place for the IRS to audit these salaries but they are not stringent enough and are rarely enforced. Charities should be required to report any donations by a foreign government or any known foreign government surrogates.
Without intimate knowledge of the inner financial workings of a charity it is impossible to determine if the charity is well-meaning and worthy of your donation. The IRS should develop some meaningful criteria to determine if the charity is helping people and if it is not it should be shut down and its assets seized.
As a side note: We love the charity that purports to help dogs and shows images of dogs in horrible conditions. It may be a well-run charity but what a great idea. The dogs can’t talk so they can’t say “Hey, I’m not getting any money.”
Lewis Shupe, Founder
*******************
US Freedom Army
December 21, 2015
by Lewis Shupe, Contributor, Freedom Fighters of America
MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR:
The United States Freedom Army would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a very merry Christmas and a joyous New Year. The holiday season is not only a time for family but is also a time for a celebration of the birth of Christ as documented in the Bible. Below is an example of what happens when certain people use the Bible to try and paint an entirely different picture of its true meaning.
--------------------------------------------------
“Socialism is the religion people get when they lose their religion.” Richard John Neuhaus
Pastor Neuhaus could just as easily have substituted for “socialism” the words “global warming” or “environmentalism” or any of the many mantras of the world’s true believers. When you lose your belief in God something must fill the void to make your life have meaning – without that void being filled all types of behavior are possible. Problems also may occur when that void is filled, however, since fanaticism is sometimes the result.
You will often encounter many well-meaning (and not well-meaning) clerics and other people in all walks of life that say the Bible is socialistic and has many references to social justice and some of those people sincerely believe that to be so. The implication is that the Bible condones and encourages this sort of behavior. Once again we have a problem with semantics. Socialism, social justice and any offshoots of these words mean that government is involved in the process. It requires government for these concepts to function. Social justice is nothing more than a euphemism for socialism but is often used since it sounds like a good thing. The technical definition of socialism is government ownership of the means of production, namely the government owns everything.
Nowhere in the Bible have I found one passage that approves of the government taking something from one person and giving it to another. Nowhere in the Bible is there approval of a government redistribution of wealth. What the Bible talks about is charity. Charity is substantially different than social justice. When someone goes to a grief stricken area and gives his time and money freely to help others he is heroic. When someone asks the government to force me to go to a grief stricken area and give my time and money he is a villain.
Charity is the road to salvation – social justice is the road to destruction.
*******************
U.S. Freedom Army
November 3, 2015
by Lewis Shupe, Contributor, Freedom Fighters of America
A BRIEF MESSAGE FROM THE FOUNDER OF THE UNITED STATES FREEDOM ARMY:
I cite the following newspaper headlines that recently appeared as examples: “No increase seen for Social Security in 2016” and “Bad news on COLA front”. I know many of you are bored by financial articles but please continue reading here and I will get to the point.
The gist of what these articles are saying is that people that depend on Cost of Living Adjustments for increases in their standard of living are not going to get one in 2016. The claim is that inflation is virtually zero and the culprit cited is lower gas prices. Yes gas prices are lower but nothing else is lower. Food prices are not lower; Utility bills are not lower; Medical costs are not lower; etc.; etc.; etc. The notion that the inflation rate is zero is a complete fiction and a government lie used to help hide the real financial situation in this country.
I refer those of you who are interested in more detail to go to a website called www.shadowstats.com. There you can get real information on what is taking place in this economy and the numbers are not good. On the inflation front this website calculates inflation in 2015 at about 6% to 8% and this number is probably about right. 6% to 8% is not good but it is not out of control – yet. It is very difficult to solve a problem if you do not admit there is a problem but denial is something at which the current administration has a great deal of expertise.
The Argentine government reports inflation at 10%. More than one independent agency has stated that the Argentine rate of inflation is at about 30%. There are many reasons why governments understate inflation and we do not have the time to discuss these matters here (you may go to youtube and search on my name and see my four part series on Money and the Federal Reserve System for more information) but you may rest assured it is part and parcel of the long term mismanagement of the economy by socialist (primarily) governments.
If the current mismanagement of the economy by our government continues in its present form for much longer you will soon see prices begin to rise even faster and you will ultimately enter into a period of hyperinflation. This will destroy the American way of life and will result in the eventual loss of your freedom. Let me put it to you in the starkest terms: If your income is $3,000 per month and a loaf of bread costs $250 you will quickly realize that you have a major problem. I carry in my wallet a Zimbabwe $100 trillion dollar bill to always remind me of where this nation is going if nothing is done.
One reason for these massive deficits is the system of passing out benefits to people by elected officials to get them to vote for that official. This is systemic throughout all government and has now reached almost crisis proportions and cannot be sustained financially. Another reason is more insidious and intentional: it is a fundamental tenet of socialism that the way to destroy a free government is to build up the Welfare State until the nation’s economy collapses.
When all the conditions above occur the Socialist Party will try to take over in some dictatorial form to solve the problem. This cannot be allowed to happen. You cannot have the people who created the problem tasked with solving the problem. This will be a point in time when the U.S. Freedom Army may have to stop being a constitutional organization and become something else.
*****************
U.S. Freedom Army
October 26, 2015
by Lewis Shupe, Freedom Fighters of America, Contributor
This is an email received by the U.S. Freedom Army from a young man who is enlisted with us. If there were a way we could make everyone in America who is under 30 years of age read this we would certainly do so.
***************************************
Good afternoon! My name is Mic [Mike], and I likely represent the smallest minority of patriots - the younger generation. At 25, I find myself 'stuck' into a group of people who would rather hear about the latest iPhone instead of the disaster(s) facing our world. I write to you with two purposes; first to inform some of the elder patriots, and second to ask some questions!
To start, I would like to let the elder patriots know, not all of my generation is a lost cause. The people of my age group are what I like to refer to as "polarized". We are either complete 'zombies', or entirely 'awake'. Let's make no bones about it, the zombies vastly outnumber the awake in my generation, but I have always been taught that 1% of the truth can overcome 99% of the lies. We (young patriots) are small in number, but large in heart. The results of this fight are something we will have to live with for a long time - and a few of us realize this is not the best path to be on.
Let me add, I have not been a life-long patriot. In fact, until only a couple of years ago, I was "one of the sheep". I've experienced how easy it really is to live with my head in the sand and pretend everything is okay. Luckily, I turned off CNN and started researching my own news - and boy, was the awakening a shock. Being brutally honest, it still is quite overwhelming to deal with. Some days, I am energized to fight this corruption to the bitter end. Other days, I find myself thinking "what is the point? My generation WANTS this."
With that 'backgrounder', I turn to the elder patriots with a need for assistance;
First and most importantly (in my own mind), how can we younger patriots keep the morale high consistently? On a good day, I can accomplish that of an army - while on a bad day, the army accomplishes me. I feel like simply increasing the ratio of good to bad days would increase my efforts and results exponentially.
Next, I question how the younger patriots can reach out to the rest of the 'zombified' youth. This has been a consistent struggle, and contributes the greatest to diminishing my first point above. There are two issues I see which keep young people separated from becoming patriots; one, they simply don't care - and two, if they do care, they feel unable to make an impact themselves. I have always been a 'logician', and so my logic returns the problematic equation of "how do we get them to care, and how do we show them that they can make a difference?" I find myself unable to answer either question, thus unable to solve the problem.
Continuing, apart from 'waking people up', what are the most important things for the younger patriots, especially for those like myself which have no military experience or training, to get working on? I have food, water storage, a bug-out bag - all the generic junk you can find with a good old Google search, but I am at a loss as to what comes next and how I would go about doing it.
Finally, and most curiously, how would we know when it is officially "go time"? In other words, what would be the rules of engagement? If we wake up to a stock market crash, is it time to 'man the guns'? I hear a lot of people say "when they come for the guns" - but they are already coming for the guns as far as I see it. I'm not an "itchy trigger-finger" guy, but I sure as hell don't want to be late to the party when it comes knocking on my door.
To wrap it all up, I'd like to remind the elder patriots that while there are not many young patriots, we hold tons of energy ready to be directed in the proper direction. How do we keep our morale up when trying to reach fellow generational members that just seem not to care? How can the younger patriots make a substantial difference with all of this built-up energy? How do we "prepare", not in the sense of 'prepping', but in the sense of an organized militia? And finally, how do we know when it's time to stop talking and start shooting?
Thank you for your time and your service,
- Mic
PS - Although I have zero military training or experience, I have done extensive research into intelligence operations using a lot of the declassified military documents available. I've completed a few "practice IPBs" and feel like I have a decent understanding of the intelligence wing. If you need an INTEL guy, I'd be a great fit and it would be something 'fun' for me. For reference, I am located in New Mexico.
************
A FEW COMMENTS ON THE NATURE OF REPUBLICS
by Lewis Shupe, Contributor, Freedom Fighters of America
September 30, 2015
Republics are a new form of government relatively speaking. People have formed governments for about 10,000 years. There are a lot of nations in the world that claim to be Republics and have sham elections – these are not the nations to which we are referring. The longest running Republic currently is in the United States at about 228 years. As such, we are the guinea pigs for this new system. While these systems are maybe the best that mankind has ever created and hold out great promise for mankind, they nonetheless have certain fundamental flaws that can be exploited by ruthless ideologues. People keep trying to evaluate their weaknesses and find meaningful ways to combat these weaknesses. To be completely successful Republics probably require some tweaking.
First, Republics by their nature create gridlock. This is usually good because it stops people from taking unilateral actions without a thorough review of the matter. Gridlock is bad, however, when the problems (usually economic) become so great that decisions must be made and yet nothing is done. We like Republics, but perhaps some other theoretical model could be considered – the one we have was very well done, we must say.
Second, Republics by their nature must be decentralized. Any country that cannot be decentralized is not a good candidate for a Republic. The old U.S.S.R. was a good candidate to be a Republic. They had to do two things, make each SSR sovereign (decentralize) and install a free system with a limited central government. Of course the Communists would never entertain any such notions so the whole situation fell apart. In some ways, one could say that the breakup of the Soviet Union was bad. Strangely enough, Iran is also a good candidate for a Republic if you look at its construction. The United States was perfect for a Republic but we strayed from the concept of decentralization and have almost lost our country. That is why we are the guinea pig – people should learn from our mistakes. Some individual nations of Europe, in the modern world, are bad candidates for a Republic but when combined into a united Europe, their prospects jump enormously.
Third, Republics, more than any other system of government ever tried, allow people to be put in charge that want to destroy the Republic. These people never say this directly, of course, until they have achieved the proper amount of power to achieve their aims. From 2008 to the present there have been numerous people at all levels of government silently working to destroy the American way of life. They all have one thing in common – they hate capitalism and the free market system. We can debate here the merits and demerits of capitalism and there are some on each side. There is no debate about the system they want to replace it with. Socialism has failed every time it has been tried. Einstein said “Insanity: doing the same things over and over again and expecting a different result.”
Fourth, Republics require an educated citizenry. When we see the dumbing down and degradation of our educational system we may begin to conclude that a loss of freedom is soon to follow. Iran is a good candidate for a Republic not only because of their geographical and political construction but because they have a reasonably well educated citizenry for a Muslim country.
Fifth, when people can vote they will tend to vote themselves benefits and retain those in power that deliver those benefits. In any case, Republics must find a way to give those who are contributors more say in how the Republic is run than the people who are not contributors. All people should not be equal in this regard but no one should be disenfranchised.
---------------
In this regard it is instructive to review the life cycle of a Republic. Some Republics can complete their life cycle in less than twenty years but many require much longer periods of time to complete theirs and in the case of the United States they have yet to complete their life cycle. Republics, if you will recall, are nations where they have a one-man one-vote free system of elections for representatives. The life cycle goes something like this:
Phase one: The nation establishes a free system of government and the people rejoice. Freedom has arrived and the people can now control their own destiny. The nation establishes governing documents and begins the process of installing a system of rules to control how the government is to be administered. Elections begin.
Phase two: Eventually after enough elections government officials realize that if they give people benefits the people will continue to vote for them and they can stay in power. The central power passes out either low cost or free benefits and the people are euphoric. In order to maintain their “high” the people demand even more benefits from the government – rather like a heroin addict always demanding a bigger fix to maintain the “high.” The people become even more euphoric and are convinced that this free system is fantastic and will go on forever. Everyone is taken care of and the population grows rapidly, creating even more people that need to get a fix.
Phase three: At some point in time the government realizes that they cannot continue in this way and that these benefits must now be paid for. The threat of cutbacks angers the people and they vote in people who say the cutbacks are not necessary – these people are normally collectivists of some sort. Socialism takes control and the people get their fixes again only in larger doses.
Phase four: The socialists realize that they cannot pay for the “highs” either but they devise a plan. As long as they can convince the people that all is well they can inflate the currency and continue to run this Ponzi scheme for an extended period of time. By then they will be out of office and it will be someone else’s problem. When that poor someone takes over they can blame the problem on him and whatever solutions he applies and look like a hero in the eyes of the people. To convince everyone that all is well it is often required to doctor the data to give the appearance of normality but as long as they can stay in power this is all acceptable. The United States entered phase four on November 4, 2008.
Phase five: The economy is collapsing and the nation’s money is now becoming worthless. What happens next can take any of several branches. Assuming it is a smaller country, usually some sort of bailout is hastily structured and the whole rotten scheme continues – this only makes it worse later. Eventually after all the bailouts are over (throwing good money after bad) the nation’s economy finally collapses. The Republic collapses since a free system is unable to agree on how to structurally fix the problems. Now someone has to take over – in the case of most third-world countries it is the military. Once the military inserts martial law and finds someone capable of solving these problems then order is finally restored. Everyone is now off the “high” but the withdrawal has caused many in the country to experience horrific problems and the nation is substantially poorer and some people have starved to death.
Phase six: The republic may be reestablished with a new generation of people that have forgotten what just happened and a new life cycle begins. How long it is before the republic passes through all the phases again is a matter of conjecture.
---------------
The current United States voting system needs to be modified to give the people who contribute to the society more to say about who operates it than the people who take from the society. When the people who vote for a living outnumber the people who work for a living (hopefully we are not there yet) the situation will become irreversible. Here are a few voting systems to consider:
The Negative Vote System: If you are receiving benefits from government at any level and you did not contribute financially for those benefits you lose your vote until you no longer receive those benefits.
The Income Tax System: For every “X” dollars you pay in Income Taxes each year you receive one additional vote for that calendar year. “X” can be modified by the normal actions of Congress. If “X” is $5,000 and you paid $20,000+ you get four additional votes for a total of five.
The Corporate System: When you become 18 you receive from the Federal Government one numbered share of stock in the corporation known as the United States of America. These shares may be bought and sold for no fee at a government run exchange and the price is posted just like any other share of stock. The government has a computer system that associates each share number with a social security number. Any person can own up to some maximum amount of shares. (Founder’s note: we often wonder how many people there are named Esau that would sell their birthright – quite a few we suspect).
The Board of Directors System (Elders System): The country would be broken up evenly by population into eleven districts and each district would elect one person to sit on the Board of Directors. This would be a two year term and each candidate must be at least 55 years old. This board would then select the President of the United States and function as his senior advisors. The board could replace the President at any time as required. There would be a Constitution sitting atop this mechanism and the same general court system but no Congress.
The Age System: At age 30 you receive one additional vote. At age 40 you receive one additional vote. At age 60 you lose one vote. At age 70 you lose one vote. People 18-29 and 70+ have only one vote.
Each one of you that has read this far can now devise your own voting system.
********************
US Freedom Army
by Lewis Shupe, Contributor, Freedom Fighters of America
September 22, 2015
“If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that, if it is comfort or money it values more, it will lose that too.” - William Somerset Maugham
Each one of us is engaged in a fight for freedom in America. The fight may not be obvious or self-evident to many but anyone who is looking closely knows that it is taking place. It is a fight for the hearts and minds of the American people and it must be won or everyone will eventually lose their freedom. It is at present a fight that the American people are losing.
The decentralized system envisioned by the United States Constitution has been destroyed by the forces of Collectivism that have dominated our political landscape for over 80 years. A small group of politically active people representing less than five percent of the U.S. adult population has had control of the instruments of government for many years and has placed their people in positions of power to make laws and rulings designed to overturn our Constitution and render it meaningless. In a strange way Barack Obama has been a blessing in disguise since he put this process on steroids and has made it obvious to many people what is taking place in our country.
Collectivism in a nutshell is a system whereby the central government receives everything you have worked for and then in turn decides how much you get back. It works very well for bees and certain social insects but it doesn’t work well for humans. One reason it works well for bees is because if the bees decide a certain bee isn’t working hard enough they kill him. Humans do not have that luxury (at least not yet) and so the ultimate result is that this system destroys incentive and the economy of the nation using such a system ultimately breaks down and dictatorship ensues. This pattern has played out over many years across our planet and it always takes the same form. In the United States even the Pilgrims experimented with this system and it proved to be a complete failure.
Collectivism and Marxism work hand in glove since the central tenet of Marxism is massive centralized political power and control. The collectivists have various names they call themselves (Liberals, Statists, Populists, Communists, Progressives, Socialists to name some) but their ultimate goal is to construct their Collectivist system on a worldwide basis. As I have said many times before, this would be a disaster for mankind since it would turn the entire planet into something resembling North Korea. The United States of America stands in the way of this effort and so the number one goal of all collectivists is the destruction of the American way of life. If the U.S. can be brought down the rest of the dominoes will crumble in short order. The “Shining City on the Hill” must be destroyed in order to install a failed collectivist system.
There is only one way to get this situation back under control and that is to reestablish the United States Constitution and the Constitutional Republic it promises. Our Constitution is unique in that it gives us a decentralized system of government and limits what the central government may do. The fate of the United States will be determined by whether or not the Constitution returns or whether the forces dedicated to centralized political power and control ultimately emerge victorious. This is the fight that is being waged at present and it is a fight that must be won by the forces of freedom.
The American people must soon choose between the decentralized system promised by the United States Constitution and the centralized system specified in The Communist Manifesto. This choice will determine the future of freedom in the United States.
Lewis Shupe
**********************
U.S. Freedom Army
August 29, 2015
This
post was submitted to the U.S. Freedom Army by enlistee Jim Delaney of
Rochester, NY. Jim is a former U.S. Army Captain and a Vietnam veteran
with two Bronze Stars and he is the author of the book “A Patriot’s Call
to Action: Resisting Progressive Tyranny & Restoring Constitutional
Order.” Jim Delaney is an American hero.
"Birthright Citizenship": Politics vs. Rule of Law
We’ve
all heard the stats: currently, only the United States grants
birthright citizenship to illegal aliens and 8% of babies born in the US
are so-called “anchor babies” born of illegal aliens. In and of itself,
this doesn’t constitute a crisis, but, for many of us, it does
illustrate how far we’ve strayed from the Constitution.
Like
all babies, “anchor babies” too are sweet and cuddly, and deserving of
mother’s love and society’s protection. But automatically conferring
citizenship on babies of illegal aliens is an ideologically-motivated
perversion not only of internationally accepted legal norms, but, much
more importantly, of the Constitution itself.
By
nimbly mischaracterizing the motives of birthright citizenship
opponents, many in the media and blogosphere—to include attorneys who
should know better-- have irresponsibly misrepresented the framers’
intent and have reduced the level of discourse on this legitimate
constitutional issue to that of ad hominem, race-baiting, specious legal
citations, contrived legal justifications, and mindless pandering.
Shamelessly seeking ideological and political supremacy, to these people
the Constitution and the rule of law mean absolutely nothing. And for a
nation which once prided itself as being a “nation of laws”, that is
inexcusable.
During
an interview with Mr. Trump last night, what annoyed me greatly was
Bill O'Reilly's characteristically bombastic--and wholly
erroneous--claim that "the 14th Amendment says that any person born on
US soil is a US Citizen. Period". Poppycock! He couldn't
have carefully read the amendment at all to reach this specious
conclusion. And the fact that even Judge Napolitano, a Libertarian
jurist, a few days earlier asserted this revisionist and ignorant view
is nothing short of bewildering and troubling. But, this does underscore just how flawed and fallible jurists and seemingly bright, well-informed talking heads really are.
That
said, for my own edification I decided to take the time to again review
the actual words of the 14th’s framers, pertinent case law and the
opinions of jurists and legal scholars on both sides of the question to
determine the truth in this matter.
Here are my findings and conclusions:
First,
while researching pertinent materials, I soon discovered that
understanding the clear intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment was
much simpler than anticipated. In fact, the meaning of the 14th was
surprisingly straightforward. Lesson learned: if one simply abandons
one’s ideological blinders for a moment and commit to an honest effort
to objectively review a constitutional issue, clarity is nearly always
one’s reward.
It
also became apparent that from a strictly Constitutional standpoint,
and despite many assertions to the contrary from both the left and the
right, a constitutional amendment is NOT needed to deny US Citizenship
to anchor babies of illegal entrants. In short, I was unable to find ANY
convincing constitutional evidence that so-called anchor babies can
legitimately and automatically acquire U.S citizenship. Thus, a simple
act of Congress--and most certainly NOT an amendment to the
Constitution—to clarify the original intent and meaning of the 14th
Amendment is all that is really needed to resolve this issue once and
for all. {EDITOR’S NOTE: The position of the USFA is that nothing is needed.}
Toward
this end, introduced on April 2nd, 2009, and co-sponsored by 93
congressmen, inclusive of one lonely Democratic supporter, Mississippi’s
Gene Taylor, HR 1868 (Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009) intended to
amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that
a person born in the US is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US for
citizenship purposes if the person is born in the US of parents, one of
whom is: 1) a US citizen or national; 2) a lawful permanent resident
alien who resides in the US; or 3) an alien performing military service
in the US Armed Forces.” And if one simply reviews the original meaning
of the 14th Amendment one can easily see that there was absolutely
nothing at all revolutionary about this bill's language. In any event,
the bill failed. {EDITOR’S NOTE: The position of the USFA is that HR1868 is unconstitutional in its entirety.}
Intended
to protect the rights of emancipated Negroes, the 14th Amendment
specifically provided that “all persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
And
as I very quickly learned, of central importance in this statement is
the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, something birthright
citizenship proponents have consistently and very conveniently ignored.
To
begin, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, co-author of the 14th Amendment,
expressly asserted that “this will not, of course, include persons born
in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the
families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” And it is in this
plain-spoken construction birthright proponents somehow discover
ambiguity or a totally different meaning. Amazing!
.
Under
Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes, the same Congress which
adopted the 14th Amendment confirmed that “all persons born in the
United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are
declared to be citizens of the United States.”
In
1873, the US Atty Gen ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the
Fourteenth Amendment to mean “the absolute and complete jurisdiction.
Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad,
dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of
the US but only to a limited extent. Political and military rights do
not pertain to them.”
Sen.
Trumbell noted during the drafting of the 14th Amendment that it was
the amendment’s goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the US who
owe allegiance to the US,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a
foreign government he would not be a citizen.”
On
March 1, 1866, Rep. James Wilson of Iowa, House Judiciary Committee,
added that “we must depend on the general law relating to subjects and
citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead
us to conclude that every person born in the US is a natural-born
citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil (jus
soli) to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign
governments.” This statement served to nicely clarify Sen. Howard’s
construction above.
John
Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment’s first section, stated that Sec.
1992 of the Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the
jurisdiction of the US of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign
sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural
born citizen.”
And
if we reach way back to our founders in search of a definition of
citizens of a foreign power, Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the
subjects of a foreign power.”
To
a man, among the framers the premise behind “within the jurisdiction
thereof” was that all children born to parents who owed no foreign
allegiance were to be citizens of the US; thus, not only must a child be
born on US soil (jus soli) but born of parents whose complete
allegiance is to the US.
Subsequently,
Sen. Howard further explained that “only thru expatriation, which could
be accomplished thru law alone, and not thru any immigrant acting on
his own outside the law—and certainly not by any act of birth
alone—could an alien become a citizen.” This, of course, would mean that
the alien/sojourner would need to affirmatively renounce his allegiance
to his/her country of origin before s/he could be considered completely
within the jurisdiction of the US.
Sen.
Howard also stated the following: “…the word 'jurisdiction', as here
employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete
jurisdiction on the part of the US, coextensive in all respects with the
constitutional power of the US, whether exercised by Congress, the
executive, or the judiciary; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in
extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the US now.” In
effect, he was saying that an alien may, by treaty arrangements with his
country of origin, avail himself of the protection of the US, much as
sojourning US citizens in the alien’s country of origin would avail
themselves of that country’s protection, but that an alien's physical
presence in the US alone would not render him/her under the "complete
jurisdiction" of the US. Simple enough.
The
rationale behind not granting automatic citizenship can be easily
illustrated by the fact that Indians could not be subject to the
jurisdiction of the US because the US dealt with them through treaties.
By logical extension, aliens sojourning in the US are extended
privileges and protections by virtue of treaties in force with their
countries of origin, much as American citizens are granted similar
rights and privileges—but not citizenship--when sojourning in those
countries. Logically, therefore, only if an alien voluntarily and
affirmatively renounces his citizenship and expresses an intent to swear
allegiance to the US may the alien, through operation of law (a formal
naturalization process) be granted US citizenship. Thus, in a nutshell,
since neither children of tourists/sojourners nor of diplomats born in
the US can be US citizens, children of illegal entrants cannot be
lawfully granted the privilege of US citizenship.
In
1867, George Yeaman, American Minister to Denmark, in his highly
respected treatise on allegiance and citizenship and for whom the
framers had great respect, asserted that “the idea of a double
allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having
reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or
governments, is simply an impossibility.” Thus, dual citizenship was
also a no-no. (Take note, BHO.)
P.
A. Madison, a modern day master of constitutional analysis, points out
that “since illegal aliens are unlawfully in the US, their native
country has a proper and primary claim of allegiance on the child. Thus,
the completeness of their allegiance to the US is impaired, which
therefore precludes automatic citizenship.” Slam dunk obvious, I’d say.
Also,
Rep. Aaron Sargent, a representative from California during the
Naturalization Act of 1870 debates, said the 14th Amendment’s
citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain
citizenship. Significantly, none of his contemporaries disputed that
assertion.
Adding to this mix, here is a little case law since the 14th’s ratification.
In
the Slaughterhouse Cases(1873), the Supreme Court observed that the
14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision by making all persons
born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, citizens
of the US; the ruling went on to point out “that [the 14th Amendment’s]
main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro” and that
“the phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from
its operation children of ministers, consuls, AND citizens or subjects
of foreign states born within the United States", thus reinforcing Sen.
Howard’s construction above. So, since they cannot be subject to US
jurisdiction, children of citizens of foreign sovereignties and children
of foreign ministers/consuls/ambassadors cannot be lawfully considered
US Citizens. Makes perfect sense.
Then,
in Elk v Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th
Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians—because they were
subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction. In effect, the
court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the
citizenship of the child, and not merely the fortuitous birth of that
child on American soil. (Note: not until the Citizens Act of 1924 was U S
citizenship granted to American Indians. As with many whimsical court
rulings over the years, I was unable to understand the legal grounding
for this reversal. Thus, it would seem that judicial arbitrariness is
not an affliction peculiar to modern day American courts alone.)
In
US v Wong Kim Ark (1889), the courts held that children born in the US
of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are
subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and
residence in the US and are carrying on business in the US, and are not
employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power,
and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of US
territory, become a citizen of the US at the time of birth. As expressed
in the minority opinion, this decision violated the 14th Amendment.
But, in any case, how many new illegal aliens have permanent domiciles
in the US and how many of them are carrying on business in the US at the
moment of their child's birth on US soil? I suspect precious few.
In
Steel v Citizens for a Better Environment (1998), the court stated that
“jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Au contraire! As
can be clearly seen above, Sen. Trumbell and, yes, Sen. Howard, 14th
Amendment co-authors, had long ago provided an unambiguous definition by
declaring that “the provision is, that all persons born in the United
States, and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’’, are citizens. That
means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. What do we mean by
‘complete jurisdiction thereof'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else.
That is what it means.” And this from the framers' themselves! (Clearly,
majority jurists in the Steel v Citizens court didn’t bother to
research the framers’ clear intent and meaning. And one must wonder if a
neophyte, such as I, can easily deduce original meaning, why can't
trained jurists? Could it be incompetence or do political agendas get in
the way of constitutional law?)
Despite
the clear meaning and intent of the 14th's framers, we fast forward to
the somewhat enigmatic ruling in US ex rel. Hintopoulis v Shaughnessy
(1982), which some bloggers and others have used to justify birthright
citizenship. In that case, and out of whole cloth, somewhere in the
ruling it asserted, almost unconsciously/unwittingly, that although a
child born in the US to two illegal aliens was a US Citizen (????) that,
nonetheless, “suspending the alien parents’ deportation based upon “the
accident of birth in the US of their son would be to deprive others,
who are patiently awaiting visas…” Thus, since the glancing allusion to
the legality of birthright citizenship, though gratuitous—and
erroneous—appeared in the text of this suspension of deportation
decision, birthright proponents often blithely and excitedly cite this
case to substantiate the legality of birthright citizenship. Grabbing at
straws, I'd say.
Then,
true to activist form, in Plyler v Doe (1982) the court, apparently
without access to or proper reliance on the 14th framers’ erudition and
written words, mysteriously ruled 5-4 that there is “no plausible
distinction” with respect to “jurisdiction” between resident aliens who
entered the country lawfully and those resident aliens who entered
unlawfully. Wowee! Clearly a yawning violation of the framers’ clear
meaning and intent. Seems judicial activism was as alive and well in
1982 as it is today.
To
me, these two rulings which capriciously and arrogantly turned Thomas
Jefferson and the framers of the 14th on their heads are clearly
unlawful at worst, convenient contrivances at best.
When
I explained all this on-line to an attorney who is also a strong
proponent of birthright citizenship, this was her reply: “I disagree
with your interpretation of the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction
thereof'. The first rule of statutory construction is that we don’t look
to the drafters’ intent if the words are plain and unambiguous…If the
drafters meant to include some allegiance test, they would have. They
didn’t.” That sort of revisionism, gobbledegook, willful ignorance and
dishonesty is, folks, what this country is up against. My rejoinder was
civil, but to the point: “It wasn’t MY lowly interpretation. It was the
framers’ interpretation. But, ignore original intent and meaning? A
living constitution is like having no constitution at all. We can merely
make it up as we go along and continue to hand-off an increasingly
irrelevant document to the next generation. While I sincerely hope this
isn’t what you have in mind, at this juncture I can see there’s really
nothing more to discuss with you on this or any other constitutional
issues. How very sad.”
Finally,
based upon what I now understand, we must be faithful to the 14th
Amendment framers’ clear intent and meaning—surely a tall order with so
many political activists, globalists and social engineers infesting our
courts these days. In the case of "birthright citizenship", Congress is
constitutionally empowered to re-assert the original meaning of the 14th
Amendment, and that's precisely what it should do. {EDITOR’S NOTE: The
position of the USFA is that nothing is needed.}
************
U. S. Freedom Army
August 21, 2015
by Lewis Shupe, Contributor
Below are some quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
---------------------------
“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”
“The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers.”
“Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”
“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
-----------------------------
“275,000 acres of Idaho wilderness will now be protected from development, thanks to legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama on Friday August 7, 2015.” This just happened this month. What is wrong here?
Article I Section 8 Part 17 of the U.S. Constitution states that the Federal Government may only exercise authority over places “purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings;”. The federal government has no constitutional authority to administer raw land in any state for any reason whatsoever. They certainly have no authority to pass such a law as noted above and the President has no authority to sign it. The Wilderness Act, signed into law in 1964, is completely unconstitutional and is “unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” Once again we have an instance where the federal government assumes powers it is not allowed under the Constitution.
We are not opposed to Wilderness Areas. We are not opposed to National Parks. We are opposed to the process by which the Federal Government assumes powers it is not constitutionally permitted. If the federal government is to have power in these areas a Constitutional Amendment was required and none was forthcoming. The creation and administration of every National Park and Wilderness Area within a State by the Federal Government is at present unconstitutional.
So one may make the argument that it doesn’t make any difference how this was done since this is a good thing to do. The problem is that once the Federal Government realizes it can do good things without following the rules it also then begins to do bad things without following the rules and the Constitution becomes meaningless. This is exactly the situation we find in our nation today and is the reason for the leviathan monstrosity known as the Federal Government which has become “as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” You cannot have a golf tournament or a baseball game without rules but apparently we have quite a few people that seem to think you can run the nation by ignoring the rules.
The Constitution placed limits on what the Federal Government may do for a reason. The Founders realized that too much centralized power leads to dictatorship and they wanted to specifically describe what the central government may do in an attempt to ensure that the opportunities for a government takeover were minimized. Your freedom is now severely threatened by this rogue government and the coming economic collapse will be the trigger for the forces of socialism to take your freedom. This threat is a primary reason why the U.S. Freedom Army was founded.
------------------------------------------------------
July 21, 2015
A few comments about Greece and the Euro:
The PIIGS. Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain. These
are the nations involved in the Euro that are at present failing
financially and require bailouts in some form or another from the
European Central Bank (ECB). The first domino to fall is Greece unless
another bailout is engineered, something that at present looks highly
improbable. Eventually, however, Greece will fall. The problem now is
that the successful countries in Europe (Germany primarily) are
beginning to realize that their standard of living and their success is
being damaged by the constant shipping of money to another country that
refuses to correct its bad behavior. I cannot guess what goes on behind
closed doors but I suspect Germany and others have said if this
continues much longer they will leave the Euro. So now the ECB is
between a rock and a hard place. If Germany and the others leave the
Euro collapses and if Greece leaves the rest of the PIIGS will soon be
forced to follow suit and the Euro will disappear anyhow. In any case we
are witnessing the beginning of the end of the whole concept.
In
1999 when the Euro was announced I told my friend Robert Carleson (now
deceased), a former close advisor to President Reagan, that the Euro
would not last 25 years. I was not the only person saying this. Milton
Friedman, the former Nobel Prize winning economist, was also essentially
saying (in a nicer and more professional way) that the Euro was a
stupid idea. You
cannot have a currency without a central government and a central
military corresponding to that government because that is the only way
that you have a chance to enforce discipline on members that are not
financially responsible. If you learn nothing else from what I have said here remember the previous sentence.
The
Euro was cooked up by the forces of socialism as an attempt to reach
their goal of a socialist world government through the back door. If
they could control the money supply of the European countries they
thought they could eventually control the countries themselves and that
would lead to a socialist hegemony in Europe. The ECB is tied in to the
International Monetary Fund and our Federal Reserve in a grand socialist
strategy to control the world’s money supply. I know Christine LaGarde,
the head of the IMF, is a hard core socialist from France and I highly
suspect that Mario Draghi, the head of the ECB, falls into the same
category.
The financial problems in Greece were caused by many years of socialist governments dating back well into the 20th
Century. These financial problems didn’t just recently arise. The worst
times were the years of Andreas Papandreou, a confirmed Communist, who
literally passed out free stuff to millions of Greeks to acquire votes
for his party. The many years of irresponsible government in Greece are
now coming home to roost with the present citizens and what happens to
that country next is anybody’s guess. It will certainly be ripe for a
Muslim takeover. So what did the Greek voters do when the ECB tried to
impose some discipline on them? They voted in another socialist to take
over the country. The very people who caused the problems are now being
designated to solve the problems. Good luck with that!
Greece
is small potatoes internationally and has an economy about the size of
our State of Louisiana. What is happening in Greece is a microcosm of
what will be happening world-wide if steps are not taken soon to curb
this world-wide fiscal irresponsibility. The United States has acquired
the socialist spending frenzy but the USA is too big, it cannot be
bailed out. When the USA falls the entire world economy goes with it.
The
Euro is another socialist idea that was dead on arrival and, when it
collapses, will be further proof that socialism is a failed system. The
immense suffering this will cause to millions of people will be the
byproduct of its failure and will certainly topple several governments.
Lewis Shupe
Note:
After I wrote this piece it was announced that a third bailout in the
last five years is being offered with even more stringent restrictions
and collateral that includes Greek property. This will not work either
because the ECB and IMF have no way to collect on that collateral. So
the Greek government will continue to spend like drunken sailors for
another year or so and then want another bailout. Another lesson: When
economic problems become too great representative governments break down
because they are structurally unable to agree on the solutions.
Dictatorship in some form often soon follows.
***************
June 21, 2015
Some thoughts on Martial Law:
Some
people are concerned that our current President may declare Martial Law
and assume dictatorial powers. We do not believe he will be foolish
enough to take that action but we wanted to give you some highlights of
what may occur. So read further for the quick course on Martial Law
------------>.
The
U.S. Constitution is silent on the topic of Martial Law and gives no
guidelines on who may call for Martial Law, when it should be called,
and what may be done under Martial Law. Martial Law is a condition under
which the military is in charge of the nation. Since the President is
the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces it is reasonable to say that
under Martial Law the President can become a Dictator.
Only
once in U.S. history has Martial Law been declared and that was by
President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. This was done by Lincoln
primarily to address a specific problem, namely that Confederate
prisoners of war were being released by judges sympathetic to the
Southern cause because no Writ of Habeas Corpus had been brought against
them. In effect, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus but in order to do so
he had to declare Martial Law. So Lincoln was not a complete Dictator
since he allowed most of the Constitution to continue to function in a
normal fashion.
As
an interesting side note Lincoln never released the nation from Martial
Law and neither has any other President since his assassination. One
could make a technical argument that the nation is still operating under
Martial Law although it would certainly be a weak argument since so
much time has elapsed.
In
order for the President to declare Martial Law effectively it seems as a
minimum the following conditions must be in place for that President:
--
There should be a crisis of such immense magnitude that the populace
perceives that immediate action is required to solve the crisis and that
further constitutional actions have become futile.
--
He should have the complete support of the U.S. Military in taking this
action. By complete support I am not referring to a few Generals who
happen to agree with him and have been promoted accordingly. I am
referring to all members of the military and particularly the Officer
Corps. It doesn’t have to be 100% but there should be a large consensus
detectable.
--
He should have the support of at least ½ (and preferably 2/3) of the
State Governors and the support of at least ½ (and preferably 2/3) of
Congress.
President
Obama has none of these conditions in place and will almost certainly
have none of these conditions in place by January 2017. It would be
foolhardy for this President to declare Martial Law since the backlash
would be tremendous. But …. He’s been foolhardy before and if the
egomania and megalomania kick in just right he might try it.
What are some remedies for Martial Law if it is declared against the will of the people?
--
The states may secede. I can think of about 10 that would do so
immediately, maybe about another 10 that would come in shortly
thereafter, and maybe about another 10 or more after that. Almost as
important as seceding, however, is that the
states that secede must order the residents of their state that are in
the U.S. Military to leave the U.S. Military and report to the State
Military in their home state.
--
Congress may declare Martial Law to be at an end. There is nothing that
says they cannot take that action. Once that action is taken they may
order the President’s impeachment and also order him arrested.
--
The U.S. Military may arrest the President and arraign him for certain
military courts since he technically is a member of the Armed Services.
If
President Barack Obama, in spite of all these difficulties I have
documented, decides to declare Martial Law and assume dictatorial powers
then at that point in time the second American Civil War has begun
because he has declared war on the American people.
So what should you do as a private citizen? You should go to your State Capitol and demand
that your State secede and let no one interfere with your demand. I
will leave it to your imagination to determine what I mean by demand but
suffice it to say that what you are holding in your hands may be
something other than a sign or placard. You should also demand that the
secession should continue until Barack Obama is no longer President and
Martial Law has been rescinded.
***********************
June 19, 2015
On January 10, 1963 U.S. Congressman Albert S. Herlong, Jr. of Florida read into the Congressional Record a list of 45 communist goals contained in the book The Naked Communist. Here are four that seem pertinent to this post: No. 18. Gain control of all student newspapers. No. 19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack. No. 20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, and policy-making positions. No. 21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
With a few more thrown in: No. 24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press. No. 25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
As an unrelated added bonus our very favorite: No. 32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture – education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
The fundamental instrument of control in any totalitarian state is propaganda. By repetition and manipulation of the facts a populace can be made to believe almost anything that seems reasonable. You can read Goebbels on Propaganda (Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda and National Enlightenment) if you want more details. Nothing in the socialist arsenal is more powerful than media control.
For a fifty year period from about 1930 until 1980 the socialists completely controlled the media and the dialogue in the United States. There were a few commentators, such as Paul Harvey, that commanded a conservative audience but these people were few and far between and were generally vilified whenever possible. Then things slowly began to change. Early pioneers such as Rush Limbaugh began to make progress and embolden others such as Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Mark Levin and these people started an avalanche of conservative media discussions. Important in this development also was the rise of the Internet, where conservative talk dominated the air waves. Then Fox News arrived, where conservative opinions were given a forum and by this time the socialists were in shock.
After completely controlling the debate for fifty years, the socialists were astounded to find that there was a response to their point of view and they did not react well. Since they had no ideas the only response they could muster was to attack conservative ideas and attempt to portray conservatives as rich, stupid, racist, or greedy. The media backlash from the conservative right more than any other single factor may save this nation from becoming a socialist dictatorship. The perseverance of these conservative pioneers has stopped most attempts to shut down the conservative media during the dark days from 2008 until the present time.
The newspapers are the worst offenders. Conservatives buy newspapers to make money. Socialists buy newspapers to advance a political agenda – this is why socialists will buy newspapers that are losing money, hoping that somehow the money can be found. Most newspapers operating at present are barely breaking even or losing money but the same people continue to operate them, causing one to wonder who gives them the funds to continue operating (a topic for another post).
In the socialist controlled media outlets we always see these same types of themes: Conservative white businessmen are greedy, corrupt and they all lie. Negros and Indians are all very nice people but only have problems because they are being exploited by white people. Big business (i.e. capitalism) is the cause of all evil in the world. All conservatives are stupid because they do not understand liberal concepts. Wealthy people should subordinate their money to the state so that we can achieve “fairness.” The corporation exists to promote “social justice.” Profits are inherently evil and need to be administered, regulated and “redistributed.”
We will give you just one example. In the Academy Award winning movie Dances with Wolves the portrayal of the relationship between Indian men and women was almost comical. It was so unrealistic it seemed we were watching a remake of Leave it to Beaver with Ward in his business suit and June dressed perfectly in her designer dress and stockings until whatever time they decided to go to bed. In actuality, Plains Indian men treated their women like pieces of property. Once the women were paid for with whatever number of horses the father required they were treated in the same fashion as the husband’s gun or knife. Women were routinely “loaned” to trappers for property, beaten, and told where to go and what to do. Women, while having some status within the tribe, had hardly any say whatsoever in major decisions and were well advised to keep their mouths shut regarding these tribal decisions if they knew what was good for them. This “noble savage” stuff portrayed by the media is typically very unrealistic and does not capture the realities of Plains Indian life. Of course all the white people in the movie (except our hero, who joined the Indian tribe) were narcissistic, schizophrenic, neurotic or sadistic. A beautiful and well done movie but the message was delivered – a bunch of moronic white guys destroyed a beautiful culture and its wonderful people just because they felt like it.
*************************
May 17, 2015
Some thoughts on the Bundy Ranch matter:
It has been slightly over one year since the confrontation at the Bundy Ranch in northern Clark Count, Nevada. I wanted to take this space to reiterate certain constitutional points that I made in reference to that matter at that time. While I cannot speculate as to all the motivations for the actions of Cliven Bundy at that time, we can make certain constitutional observations.
The federal government owning and administering raw land within a State is a direct violation of the Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Part 17 (known as the Enclave Clause) which states in part that the only reason for the federal government to own land within a State is “for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful Buildings.” The fact that some States agreed as a condition of Statehood to cede certain of their lands to the federal government does not alter the fact that that action at that time was and remains unconstitutional. This action was taken by the Founding Fathers to attempt to ensure that States are not dominated by the Federal Government.
Ultimately, this is Mr. Bundy’s complaint. He does not recognize the authority of the federal government to administer lands in Nevada that do not have the required buildings upon them and he therefore wishes to not make grazing payments to the federal government but rather to some other properly constituted authority. He also sees the growing power of the federal government as a threat to liberty and as an attempt to enslave the citizenry.
The writers of the Constitution gave vast powers to the federal government in foreign affairs but very limited powers to the federal government in domestic affairs. This was done for a reason – to protect the citizens from dictatorship. All Americans should read carefully Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (the Enumerated Powers) and its corollary Amendment X. Any careful reading of those sections will also show that the federal government has no authority to protect endangered species and actually has no authority to do about 80% of the things they presently engage in.
The continuous and growing unconstitutional intrusions by the federal government into the lives of private citizens is one major reason for the anger on display at the Bundy Ranch and for the anger felt by many citizens toward their own government. Until the federal government starts following the Constitution this anger will only increase and the civil divisions will continue to intensify.
*********************************
April 20, 2015
by Lewis Shupe, Freedom Fighters of America
Amendment XIV Section 1 of the United States Constitution reads “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” What exactly does this mean and who exactly are citizens? The exact meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is what I wanted to speak to you about today since it is the meaning of these words that determines precisely who is a citizen and who is not.
Because the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment’s first section was to end the denial of those fundamental rights that belong to all citizens by virtue of their citizenship under Article IV, Section II of the U.S. Constitution it was imperative to first define citizenship of the United States. Otherwise, a State could refuse to recognize newly emancipated slaves as citizens by withholding the right to sue, make contracts, due process, purchase property, etc. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment acts to recognize all persons as citizens who do not owe allegiance to some other government when naturalized or born.
Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as “All persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.” Obviously he did not have the English common law practice in mind since existing allegiance was largely irrelevant.
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, added on March 1, 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”
Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment’s first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.
It should be noted that the condition of the father is what determines whether someone is born an alien or not because under U.S. law citizenship of wives and children always followed that of the father. And of course the status of the father was what determined the citizenship of a child born under law of nature.
------------------------------------------------
[Some conclusions]
In 1868 when Amendment XIV was ratified the government had acted properly. They had changed the citizenship rules by Amendment. To change the citizenship rules again required another Amendment and none has been forthcoming. Therefore the 1868 rules still apply.
A careful reading of Amendment XIV and the writings of the people who passed Amendment XIV clearly indicates that children born in the United States whose father (head of household) was not a citizen of the United States are not citizens of the United States. This is what Amendment XIV, Section 1 means under the U.S. Constitution. The people who wrote and approved this Amendment described precisely what they meant by what they said and no other interpretation of the intent and meaning of this Amendment is possible. That didn’t stop the Courts and the Congress, however. A few examples:
In 1898 the Supreme Court of United States heard the case of the United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In its ruling the Court (wrongfully, once again) held that anyone born in the United States regardless of status is a citizen. Those of you who have read our website and read our material faithfully know that Courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the Constitution – yet they do it all the time. This is just another example. This is another case of the Court trying to circumvent the Constitution by judicial precedent, a primary reason we say the Constitution has been “crucified.” This ruling is void! If you learn nothing else from this Army learn this: Judicial precedent does not trump the Constitution itself. Courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the Constitution.
H.R. 140 passed in the 113th Congress states:
Birthright Citizenship Act of 2013 - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national, (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States, or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.
H.R. 140 (all 3 parts) is unconstitutional. It contradicts Amendment XIV, Section 1. On and on it goes. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, etc., etc., etc. - changing the Constitution by writing laws and making court rulings. We have no Constitution!
I could make a strong Constitutional argument that Barack Hussein Obama, according to the United States Constitution, was not born a citizen, has never been a citizen and is not now a citizen. No birth certificate is even required since Barack Obama Sr. never obtained U.S. citizenship. I could also make a similar argument about Ted Cruz since his father, Rafael Cruz, did not become a United States citizen until 2005, at which time Ted Cruz was already an adult.
Lewis Shupe
*****************
US Freedom Army, Lewis Shupe, Contributor, Freedom Fighters of America
April 7, 2015
In this post I will give you the name of a few bad organizations that you may have always thought were good. All of these organizations have one underlying goal that is never publically stated – a socialist world government (dominated by their membership, of course). They all have fancy websites with noble words written about their mission and importance. You can ignore those websites because I can summarize the mission of them all for everyone: “Support socialism around the world with the ultimate goal of a socialist world government.”
World Trade Organization (WTO). The World Trade Organization acts like a global government whose sole purpose is to facilitate trade and enforce international trade laws. It is a contract among member nations that severely restricts the ability of nations to direct their own trade. It was created effectively on January 1, 1995 under the Marrakech Agreement and replaced the 1948 version called General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), an outgrowth of the Bretton Woods Conference. By agreeing to the WTO, the United States effectively gave up a part of its sovereignty and, in so doing, created an organization that has proven detrimental to the economic stability of the United States. No democratic process controls what the WTO can do and it is accountable to no one. Generally, what the WTO does is attempt to redistribute wealth from the wealthier nations to the poorer ones (can you visualize a giant sucking spider?). It does this by selectively enforcing trade barriers from one country to the next to benefit the forces of socialism. China, for example, still utilizes tariffs against American companies while the U.S. is not allowed to put tariffs on Chinese products entering the U.S. The power held by the WTO is second only to the United Nations in international matters. Who were our Presidents in 1948 and 1995 that agreed to this abomination? Give me a minute and I’ll think of it.
The United Nations (U.N.) & the World Court. I wanted to spend a few moments here and talk about a subsidiary of the U.N., the World Court. First and foremost there is no international law that supersedes the sovereignty of any individual nation. The court is therefore reduced to a primary role of offering opinions because it has no enforcement authority. As long as the World Court acts in this manner it is not a threat but there are individuals in positions of power within every sovereign country that wish to subordinate that country’s laws to the edicts of the World Court – this would be a giant step on the road to world socialism. This would mean that the U.N. members would elect judges that would determine the laws of all member countries. The World Court is a potential disaster waiting to happen and its rulings and composition must be watched carefully.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the Federal Reserve. This deadly troika, in combination with the U.N. and the WTO, is the lynchpin for the destruction of the U.S. economy. In 1980 Congress passed the Monetary Control Act which authorized the Federal Reserve to “monetize foreign debt.” The Fed was now authorized to create fiat money (print money out of nowhere) for the purpose of lending to foreign governments. This was an incredible act that gave the Fed the power to not only create money for the U.S. government but also for any government. The Fed became the bank of last resort for the entire world. Since the Fed cannot be audited it is unknown exactly what their involvement has been but you may rest assured it has not ignored this authority and has used it on frequent occasions to bail out failing countries. The scenario goes something like this: Country X adopts a socialist program – the socialist program fails (as usual) and Country X is on the verge of economic collapse – the liberal media and their allies tell everyone about the horrible starvation facing Country X due to a lack of rainfall (or whatever reason they drum up) – the IMF calls on the member nations to advance money so they can bail out Country X – The Fed secretly prints up some money and advances it to the IMF – the IMF “loans” the money to Country X with certain restrictions on the activities of Country X (restrictions which Country X then proceeds to ignore) and socialism in Country X is saved thanks to the biggest suckers of all – the taxpayers of the countries who sent this money to the IMF. The U.S. taxpayer in the past has bailed out numerous countries in every continent in the world except Australia (possibly) and Antarctica.
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) & Trilateral Commission. Since these are private organizations they have a right to voice their opinions. I also have a right to expose them for what they are – agents of international socialism and promoters of world government. The earliest origins of the CFR were meetings held in New York City which included numerous allies of President Wilson as well as Colonel Edward House and Walter Lippmann (any time you get Wilson advisors and Walter Lippmann together you know where this is going). The CFR is a constant source of quotes for the liberal media who use their conclusions as if they were State Department policy. The Trilateral Commission is an outgrowth of this group founded by David Rockefeller in July 1973 to (ostensibly) foster closer cooperation among the United States, Europe, and Japan. These two groups are the primary U.S. based cheerleaders for internationalism and world government. While their methods are subtle, a close reading of their annual reports and statements of purpose reveal their interests clearly (I could give you examples stretching on for pages). Once, of course, the U.S. gives up its sovereignty they, the educated Ivy League economists and bankers, will have to control this world government so that you, the stupid and ignorant peasants, can be told how to live your worthless lives.
******************
March 22, 2015
A few words from Howard Stern
“I have vowed I will never vote for a Democrat again. No matter who they are. I don’t care if God becomes a Democrat. These Democrats are Communists. This is Communism. This is gangsterism. This is crazy.” Howard Stern
Now I am not a big Howard Stern fan. I simply put this quote here because finally someone in the media said what was needed to be said. Finally someone had the backbone to call these people what they are. It certainly seems that everyone wants to tiptoe around this unpleasant fact. It is an absolute certainty that at present not one member of Congress will call the Marxists what they are.
I personally tend to prefer the term Marxist. The Marxists, who hide under various names (liberal, progressive, statist, populist, etc.), believe in the theories espoused by Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital and use the tactics espoused by Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals. There are many good people in the Democratic Party but they are being duped. There are good Democrats elected to office but they are always taken into the web of the Marxists. Harry Reid was a good Democrat once upon a time but many years ago he fell under their spell and now he is one of them. The Republican Party is now what the Democratic Party once was about 100 years ago.
What can Conservatives do? Everyone is a Conservative until the primaries are over and then they return to their true character. Conservatives rarely have a true Conservative to vote for. One thing that can be done is to marginalize the Democratic Party by calling them what they are: The Socialist Party. Less than 10% of America sympathizes with socialism and the socialists would lose the vote.
What is so sad is that Marxist theories are failures and have a long track record of failure. These failures should have long ago been assigned to the dustbin of history under the heading “Failed Ideas.” The fact that certain hardcore theoretical ideologues continue to work to install this “gangsterism” should frighten everyone in this great nation.
The answer is simple. Follow the Constitution. This of course is something the Marxists do not wish to do and this is why the U.S. Freedom Army was founded.
************************
BY Lewis Shupe US Freedom Army, Contributor for Freedom Fighters of America
March 2, 2015
The Nutty Liberal Economics Professors
Shortly after World War II the people in economics decided that their subject of interest was objectively based and departed from the subjectivity it had previously embraced and joined the forces of the mathematical sciences. With their computers, equations, graphs and statistical models they decided that everything in economics was subject to central planning and, with the right formulas being applied, all would be well and the nation could be micromanaged to prosperity. Woe to those with big egos and even bigger statistical bell curves. The new economists with all their formulas did not predict the trouble this nation is in today. In fact, their theories are massively responsible for the many woes we are experiencing. Let us review a few of the failures with the best idea saved for last.
The Federal Reserve:
We will not rehash again the failures of the Federal Reserve System. Its primary mandate is to protect the purchasing power of the dollar. Since the purchasing power of the dollar has declined over 95% since its inception in 1913 we can say that it has failed massively in its primary mandate. The most stable currency in the history of the world was the Byzantine gold solidus which retained its same value for over 500 years (498-1030). One reason for this stability was that the Byzantine Emperor decreed that anyone caught debasing the Byzantine currency in any way was to have their hand cut off. If the Fed chairmen had had this caveat hanging over their heads perhaps they may have behaved in a more prudent manner.
Other functions of the Fed in which they have failed massively include reducing unemployment, bank regulation, and as a lender of last resort. I won’t supply all the details. As a final indignity the Fed cannot even maintain the integrity of its own balance sheet.
Monetarism:
Monetarism is an economic theory associated with Milton Friedman, the 1976 Nobel Prize winner in Economics. Friedman’s theory was described in an equation known as the quantity theory of money. MV = Py. Money supply (M) multiplied by velocity (V) equals nominal GDP, which can be broken into its components of price changes (P) and real growth (y). The problem is that V cannot be controlled because it is a behavior phenomenon. This theory discourages saving because when you save V goes down – this is why governments are often encouraging citizens to adopt bad habits and spend. Since the Fed controls M the Fed must print money like crazy if V drops to maintain nominal GDP – printing money like crazy is not good in spite of what the crackpot socialist economists at Princeton may espouse.
Financial Economics:
I will not list all the details, but these are the financial theories spawned by more Nobel Prize winners that have produced the explosive growth of financial futures and derivative contracts. The problem with all these mathematical theories is that they do not respond to the real world of markets and human behavior. We see the end result of all this in the housing collapse of 2008.
Keynesianism:
Keynesianism rests upon the assumption that a dollar of government deficit spending can produce more than a dollar of economic activity, the so-called multiplier effect. The fatal flaw of Keynesianism is this famous “multiplier.” Shortly after being elected in 2008 Barack Obama had two of his economic hacks, Christine Romer and Jared Bernstein, look at the multiplier in connection with his proposed 2009 stimulus program. Romer and Bernstein, in a famous study (famous for being grossly inaccurate) estimated the multiplier at 1.54 – in other words a dollar of government spending would produce $1.54 worth of economic activity. Another more rigorous study with the same data showed accurately that the multiplier would always be below one and would be 0.48 by the end of 2010. This means that by the end of 2010 about one-half of each stimulus dollar spent would be wasted. A review of the economic literature shows that the methods used by Romer and Bernstein were unsupportable except for ideological reasons.
Keynesian economics only works under very restricted conditions. In order to work you must have a very short run liquidity problem and, most importantly, a balanced or near balanced budget with little or no national debt. None of the favorable conditions for Keynesian stimulus was present in the United States in early 2009. The country was heavily in debt, was running huge deficits and was having a severe solvency crisis – exactly the wrong environment for Keynesian stimulus. The stimulus spending did exactly as predicted – wasting valuable resources and increasing the deficit.
We would like to thank James Rickards and his book Currency Wars for what I have written in the foregoing portion of this post. This is all accounted for in much greater detail in his Chapter 9 of the book entitled “The Misuse of Economics”, a chapter in the book I regard as a classic, particularly the section on Keynesianism. I think every economics student at every university should be required to memorize every word of this chapter. As a minimum every professor with a PhD in Economics teaching at an accredited university should be forced to read this material – particularly the socialists at Princeton from where we seem to draw our major economic “thinkers” and Federal Reserve Chairmen. These are the same “thinkers” whose only solution to any problem is more government spending. The solution is where Mr. Rickards and I part ways. His solution to all this is another wildly theoretical approach that is almost as unpredictable as the ones he has just demolished. We now present the U.S. Freedom Army solution to solving national economic problems, which may or may not place us among the great economic thinkers but is something we know will work.
Home Economics:
Once upon a time in high school they used to have a class called Home Economics. Only the girls ever enrolled in this class because the guys were too embarrassed to go to the class. In this class they essentially taught women how to be good housewives – this was in the days when women were not too present in the workplace. They learned things like cooking, washing, cleanliness, child-raising and many other things necessary to run a proper household.
One of the things they taught the girls was how to manage the family finances. Simple things like if you spend more money than you take in you are going to have problems. Pay yourself first at about ten percent and set aside that money for a rainy day. Make a family budget that makes sense and is in accordance with reality and it had better balance or the problems will continue to multiply. Try to pay cash for things and don’t go into debt. We’re sure there was a lot of other sound economic and financial advice that was imparted.
We personally think that a Home Economics class for all members of the Federal government is the answer to all the nation’s problems. If the guys are too embarrassed to attend we could hold the class surreptitiously in the Congressional basement. No diaper changing is required in order to graduate.
*******************************
This post was submitted to the U.S. Freedom Army by enlistee Jim Delaney of Rochester, NY. Jim is a former U.S. Army Captain and a Vietnam veteran with two Bronze Stars and he is the author of the book “A Patriot’s Call to Action: Resisting Progressive Tyranny & Restoring Constitutional Order.” Jim Delaney is an American hero.
January 31, 2014
On Censuring Obama & Tightening Up Article 2 Restraints on Chief Executive
Since Congress lacks the political courage to impeach the most reckless, overreaching and lawless chief executive in our nation's history, it's time for Congress to, at the very least, censure Obama.
Obama is desperately looking for a respectable legacy, something which, to my way of thinking anyway, will most certainly elude him once future historians objectively weigh in on his serial lawlessness and prevarication. But with a formal congressional censure on record, his historical reputation and respectability will, in any event, be justifiably tarnished forever,
While there is no legal consequence to a censure resolution against the President, the purpose is to publicly and formally rebuke, condemn, reprimand, denounce the president for his unacceptable actions. The practical effect is to warn him/her to desist, the underlying threat being that of impeachment--assuming, of course, that Congress ever finds its constitutional backbone to do so. Very importantly, such a public rebuke by the "people's house" would be a shot across the bow to future chief executives who, subject to human frailty and pride, might be similarly tempted to abuse their constitutional powers as well, the latter a troubling prospect which should profoundly concern all Americans of every political stripe everywhere.
And, yes, while the censure of a Chief Executive does not appear in the Constitution, Congress's censuring the president is not unprecedented, nor is it prohibited.
In 1834, Andrew Jackson was formally censured by the Senate. In 1842, the Senate censured John Tyler. In 1848, the House of Representatives censured James Polk, and both James Buchanan and Abe Lincoln were similarly rebuked by the Senate.
In short, a strong, undiluted message must be conveyed by the people's representatives to this insufferably arrogant and imperial Chief Executive that his lawlessness and serial lying, both rendered "high crimes and misdemeanors" by our Founders (look it up), are totally unacceptable, indisputable grounds for impeachment, and fully deserving of formal condemnation.
Tragically, Congress's simply wringing its collective hands and complaining about executive lawlessness does nothing more than sanction more executive lawlessness. When confronted with such unbridled executive overreach, congressional inaction is terribly unprincipled, misguided, irresponsible and intolerable.
Absent impeachment of this lawless chief executive or the successful congressional defunding of his unconstitutional executive actions, there remains no higher purpose for our representatives than to faithfully defend the Constitution from executive overreach. As such, there must be other constitutional remedies upon which the people may rely.
So, here's what I'm suggesting:
First, call your representatives and insist they aggressively move toward censuring this president forthwith, explaining why.
Second, to prevent further erosion of constitutional order, urge them to begin serious work on a constitutional amendment specifically designed to effectively restrain chief executives should they opt to exercise executive powers not specifically granted to them in the Constitution.
Toward that end, Article 2 should be amended to unambiguously define and clearly limit the scope of executive orders, memorandums, signing statements, etc. Such an amendment must be carefully crafted in a manner which renders its definition and meaning impervious to deliberate or inadvertent misinterpretation now or in the future by either lawyers, courts or politicians, often one and the same.
And because Congress cannot be relied upon to exercise its impeachment authority and because the Supreme Court may, in truth, only offer up unenforceable opinions on the constitutionality of laws/orders/regulations emanating from the Chief Executive, in lieu of congressional impeachment/conviction/removal from office per Art 1 Sec 3, the new amendment must include an efficient method for 60% of State Governors or Assemblies to nullify any such executive fiats within 60 days of their issuance, during which time those actions would not have the force of law. And should the States fail to meet this deadline, the House of Representatives would be required to approve or nullify such executive fiats within 30 days--during which time the executive action would be unenforceable--with a 60% vote. And should the Chief Executive ignore either the States or Congress in this matter, he and all officers illegally acting on the nullified executive action would be subject to immediate arrest and removal from office by US Marshals at the direction of Congress.
Unless this frightening executive excess is very carefully, substantively and urgently addressed now, we can be sure that future chief executives, emboldened by the lawless precedent set by Obama, will remain effectively unrestrained and our Constitution will be further and irretrievably eroded. This corrosive overreach will serve only to give license for more executive tyranny masked by the ambiguity of current law and inaction of Congress. This perilous situation must be eliminated if we are to properly safeguard what remains of our tattered Constitution and our fading Liberty. If we fail to quickly address this issue head-on, tyranny will be the inevitable consequence.
To continue to do nothing about this brazen tyranny is a grievous disservice to America. Call your timid representatives, bring their attention to this urgent matter, and let's get this process moving!
******************************
Socialism around the World
January 15, 2015
by Lewis Shupe, Conributor, Freedom Fighters of America, US Freedom Army
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Winston Churchill
Well said Mr. Churchill. Let us now turn to a few people who did not share the opinion of Sir Winston and see how it worked out for their respective nations. You may or may not have heard of some of these people but believe me when I tell you that most did major damage to the countries they led. I have given an example from every continent but I will leave out the continent of Antarctica even though I am certain there have been some socialists wandering about down there – at least in summer. The six remaining continents have so many good examples that I could have selected any of several people from long lists of candidates. I chose these people for reasons known only to my subconscious – and my subconscious is not telling me why it chose them.
North America –Lazaro Cardenas. Lazaro Cardenas (1895-1970) was the president of Mexico from 1934-1940. During his time as president, he succeeded in becoming the greatest Socialist in the history of continental North America. You will notice I said North America only because he was surpassed in several other continents – South America (Juan & Eva Peron, Hugo Chavez, etc., etc.); Asia (Mao Tse-Tung, Ho Chi Minh, etc., etc.); Europe (Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, etc., etc.).
Lazaro Cardenas did the one thing all Socialists dream of doing – he redistributed land. He reached phase two of the Socialist Revolution – first you redistribute wealth, then you redistribute land, then you establish a dictatorship, then you take away freedom. During Cardenas’ presidency the government expropriated and redistributed millions of acres of hacienda land to peasants and urban and industrialized workers gained unprecedented unionization rights and wage increases. Cardenas redistributed more land than all his revolutionary predecessors combined, a 400 percent increase.
Cardenas applied the social provisions of the 1917 Constitution. This became clear when Articles 27 and 127 were enforced for the first time. The first of these articles governs national ownership of the land, mines, and natural resources, while the latter focuses on improving the conditions of peasants and workers. Cardenas also changed the agrarian legislation so that land could be redistributed to landless laborers on haciendas. Cardenas proposed a completely new model for the ejidos (substitute the word communes). Peasant agriculture would be the basis for agricultural modernization and the preferred form of the ejido was the large-scale collective type, although many new individual ejidos were created.
The years of the Cardenas reforms were marked by high food prices, falling wages, high inflation, and low agricultural yields. The reforms caused commercial agriculture to become stagnant in 1937. By 1940 levels of commercial agriculture fell lower than they had been five years earlier. Production from the ejidos was disappointing compared with production before the land ownership was reformed.
Russian exile Leon Trotsky was welcomed into Mexico by Cardenas, reportedly to counter accusations that Cardenas was a Stalinist. Though Cardenas was not as left-wing as Leon Trotsky and other communists would wish, Trotsky described the Cardenas government as the only honest government in the world. Cardenas was awarded the Lenin Peace Prize for 1955.
At 9:45 p.m. on the evening of March 18, 1938, Cardenas expropriated the equipment of the foreign oil companies in Mexico. The announcement inspired a spontaneous six-hour parade in Mexico City.
It was fortunate for the country of Mexico that Mexican presidents were limited to one six-year term. Cardenas’ Socialist policies were on the verge of ruining the Mexican economy. Subsequent presidents slowly undid the damage Cardenas had wrought.
The tragedy of Lazaro Cardenas was that he was a good person and meant to do well. He came from humble beginnings in the state of Michoacan. He supported his family from the age of sixteen after the death of his father. His first act after becoming president was to cut his salary in half. He was adored by the Mexican people for his selflessness and bravery. Lazaro Cardenas was probably the only president associated with the PRI who did not use his office to make himself wealthy. He subsequently served as Mexico’s Secretary of Defense until 1945. He retired to a modest home by Lake Patzcuaro and worked the rest of his life supervising irrigation projects and promoting free medical clinics and education for the nation’s poor. He certainly fit the term altruist.
Lazaro Cardenas nearly destroyed Mexico’s economy – but he did it with the best of intentions.
Asia – Ne Win. Ne Win (1911? – 2002) was the power in Burma from 1962 to 1998. On March 2, 1962 Ne Win seized power in a military coup d’etat ousting the prime minister U Nu (pronounced, quite possibly, you knew). From 1962 to 1988 Ne Win instituted the “Burmese way to Socialism”, a combination of extreme nationalism, Buddhism, and Marxism. Ne Win adopted socialist programs including the nationalization of all medical functions and the elimination of land rents. During his years in power there were at least eight major student and labor strikes that were brutally suppressed.
By the late 1980s Ne Win’s socialist and isolationist policies had turned Burma into one of the world’s poorest countries. Government policies and corruption had driven a great deal of the country’s economic activity underground into the black market and Burma, which had once been a leading rice exporter, was beginning to experience food shortages. In 1988 when he saw his power waning he orchestrated from behind the scenes a military coup that crushed any hopes for democracy. For the next ten years Ne Win worked from behind the scenes to exercise influence over the military junta.
After 1998 Ne Win’s power began to wane. Once a rich country, Myanmar (name changed in 1988 from Burma) is now an isolated and poor place. Ne Win is remembered as the man who took the country from prosperity to poverty.
Africa – Julius Nyerere. Julius Nyerere (1922-1999) was elected Tanganyika’s first President in 1962 and in 1965 the first President of Tanzania (a union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar). Two years later, he issued the Arusha Declaration, which outlined his socialist vision of ujamaa that came to dominate his policies. While studying in Edinburgh in the early 1950s he encountered Fabian Socialism and began to develop his vision of ujamaa which was to connect socialism with African communal living.
When in power, Nyerere implemented a socialist economic program and introduced a policy of collectivism in the country’s agricultural system. Nyerere believed that Africans were already socialists and all they would have to do would be to return to their traditional mode of life and socialism would reestablish itself. This return would be a true repudiation of capitalism, since his society would not rely on capitalism to prosper. Unfortunately for Nyerere and Tanzania, this ujamaa system caused agricultural output to plummet. The deficit in cereal grains was more than 1 million tons between 1974 and 1977. Only loans and grants from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in 1975 prevented Tanzania from going bankrupt. By 1979, ujamaa villages contained 90% of the rural population but only produced 5% of the national agricultural output. Tanzania went from the largest exporter of agricultural products in Africa to the largest importer of agricultural products.
Nyerere retired in 1985 while remaining the head of his political party. Nyerere was named “World Hero of Social Justice” by the president of the United Nations General Assembly (Ali Abdsullam Treki of Libya – another country that knows a lot about social justice).
South America – Juan Peron. An enigmatic figure, Juan Peron (1895-1974) was three times elected President of Argentina although he only completed one term (1946-1952). Peron was economically a socialist but in other affairs he was essentially a fascist – endearing him to extreme elements on both sides of Argentine political life. We will stick to the economic aspect.
When Peron was elected president on June 4, 1946 his two stated goals were social justice and economic independence and his program was known as Peronismo. Peron inherited a country that had benefitted greatly during World War II and had a surplus of US$1.7 billion. Peron instructed his economic advisors to develop a five-year plan with the goal of increasing workers’ pay, achieving full employment, stimulating industrial growth of over 40% while diversifying the sector, and greatly improving transportation, communication, energy and social infrastructure in the private and public sectors (Note: There is no such plan available in the real world).
In his first two years in office Peron nationalized the Central Bank, the railways, universities, public utilities, public transport, and created a single buyer for the nation’s exports, the Institute for the promotion of Trade (IAPI). The IAPI wrested control of Argentina’s famed grain export sector and used the profits to fund welfare projects. Access to health care was made a universal right and social security was extended to all Argentines. By 1948 the Argentine surplus was gone. The Central Bank was forced to devalue the peso and from 1948 to 1950 the peso lost about 70% of its value. Short of money, Peron was forced to borrow from the U.S. Export-Import Bank to cover a number of private banks’ debts to U.S. institutions. Inflation, which was 13% in 1948, reached 50% in 1951 and Peronismo was not looking too attractive anymore.
A big force in the central planning model instituted in 1946 was Peron’s second wife Eva “Evita” Duarte. Eva introduced social justice and equality into the national discourse and was instrumental in developing Peron’s five year economic plans. Reelected in 1952, Peronismo lasted three more years before a military coup drove him into exile. The exchange rate had soared from 4 to 30 pesos per dollar during his nine year reign, devaluing the peso over 500% during his stay – the economy of Argentina was in ruins. Peron was reelected in in 1973 for a third term but died in 1974.
Europe – The Papandreous. No, this is not a rock band.
Georgios Papandreou (1888-1968) was the founder of the Papandreou political dynasty. He served three terms as Prime Minister of Greece and served numerous times as a Cabinet Minister starting in 1923 in a political career that spanned more than five decades. Georgios founded the Democratic Socialist Party of Greece and later revived Greek liberalism by founding the Center Union Party. After the military coup by the Colonels’ junta Georgios was arrested and died under house arrest in November 1968.
Andreas Papandreou (1919-1996) was the son of Georgios and in 1943 received a PhD in Economics from Harvard University (this tells you all you need to know). Prior to that time he was a student at the University of Athens where he was arrested for Trotskyism. His father’s protestations allowed him to be released and he left for the United States. In 1981 Andreas was elected Prime Minister of Greece and served two terms from 1981 to 1989 and from 1993 to 1996. Andreas’ government immediately upon taking office carried out a massive program of wealth redistribution. Andreas’ government carried through sweeping reforms of social policy by introducing a welfare state, expanding health care coverage, increased taxation, and increasing the share of GNP devoted to social welfare, social insurance and health. Andreas’ government also appropriated real estate properties owned by the Church of Greece. The excessive spending policies of Andreas led to massive deficits and massive increases in the national debt (where have we seen this before?). In two separate polls Andreas was voted the best Prime Minister of Greece since the restoration of democracy in 1974 (who votes in these polls?).
Georgios “George” Papandreou (1952-?) was the son of Andreas and served in the Greek Government in various positions beginning in 1981. He was named head of the Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) party in February 2004 and President of the Socialist International in January 2006. In 2009 George was elected Prime Minister but he had a different task – to undo the damage his father and other socialist leaders had inflicted upon the Greek economy. Upon inauguration, George’s government revealed that its finances were far worse than previous announcements. This revelation only served to worsen the severe crisis the Greek economy was undergoing with an unemployment rate of over 10% and a debt rating of BBB+ (not good). Soon George asked that the support mechanism be activated whereby the IMF loaned money to Greece, but only with the required austerity measures. Finally in 2011, the task too great, George stepped down to let someone else try to save Greece. This time when the fox was elected to run the hen house all the hens were gone – proving once again that socialists are not good people to enlist to straighten out socialist messes.
Australia – Bob Hawke. Australia is a country of approximately 25 million people of whom almost 90% are of European ancestry. The Australians have a long legacy of free government and are smart – they elect different parties about every six to eight years and this gives them a certain balance that seems to work in their favor. The Labor Party (liberal) is not very liberal and the Liberal Party (conservative) is not very conservative. Compared to the other people I have previously highlighted Bob Hawke (1929 - ?) is small potatoes but since Australia is a small continent and Bob Hawke was the longest serving Labor Party leader (1983-1991) he was my choice.
In 1969 Bob Hawke was elected to the presidency of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) by a narrow margin with the support of the left wing of the union movement including some associated with the Communist Party. Hawke declared publicly that “socialist is not a word I would use to describe myself” (socialists always say that). The Hawke government introduced a wide range of social reforms including reintroducing Medicare, a doubling of subsidized home care services, a 50% increase in public housing funds and significant changes to old age pensions and social security services. By the late 1980s recession, high interest rates and an unemployment rate of over 11% saw the Hawke government in significant electoral trouble.
Hawke, like most Australian politicians, was a mixed bag – but we always see the results eventually of social programs that cannot be paid for. Hawke, when in college, entered the Guinness Book of World Records by consuming 2 and ½ pints of beer in 11 seconds, a feat which he claimed contributed mightily to his political success.
---------------
Note: We always see similar patterns. They come in with a system ujamaa, Peronismo or whatever it is called (but actually it is just socialism). Socialism, as it always does, fails. Then the socialist organizations (the IMF, World Bank, Export-Import Bank or whatever) step in and engineer a new loan so that the country in trouble can use that money to pay back the old loans – throwing good money after bad. The net result of all this is that socialism and its failed policies are allowed to continue and therefore socialism is promoted and portrayed as a success. Who pays for all of this? The nations who contribute to these socialist organizations are the payees. Who ultimately pays? They are working people from successful countries who have now seen the value of their efforts reduced by the forces of inflation and the socialist governments they themselves helped to elect. When you vote for a socialist, whether you realize it or not, you are voting for your own destruction. At some point it will all have to end and then everyone will have nothing but at least, as Winston said, the misery will be shared equally. The forces of international socialism are like a giant spider that sucks the life out of its prey – in this case the prey is the successful countries that emphasize freedom and capitalism.
********************************
December 23, 2014 MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR
The United States Freedom Army wishes everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and best wishes for a wonderful holiday season. We hope that 2015 will be a year of prosperity for everyone and here is wishing to each person that his pursuit of happiness is filled with success.
----------------------------------------------
New Year’s Resolutions:
Over 90% of our enlistees signed up in the year 2014 so we have decided to use last year’s resolution: Always refer to the Democratic Party as the Socialist Party.
One more resolution for you to ponder: Enlist a like-minded friend in 2015.
When I was in the U.S. Air Force (1966-1971), because of some complications, I had to go through Basic Training for Enlisted Personnel followed almost immediately by Officer’s Training School. In the Air Force at that time they had a Buddy System, where if you and a buddy both enlisted together you were both guaranteed your first assignment would be to the same Air Force Base. In my basic training unit we had a pair of identical twins that had enlisted under the buddy system – I think they were from Indiana and I don’t remember their names. Both of these twins were extremely near-sighted and wore giant coke-bottle glasses – I don’t think either one of them could see more than 10 feet without their glasses. The day came when our unit had to qualify on the rifle range. They gave us 100 shots with M-1 rifles and if you got 90 in the target you qualified expert (I think it was something like that). I had been shooting most of my young life and I qualified expert. The twins decided it was too difficult to shoot and use their glasses so they took them off and fired 100 times. The twins did not qualify expert, but the four people on either side of them all qualified expert since the ones on either side all had over 100 shots in their respective targets. The twins were subsequently assigned to the Air Police. True story!
Lewis Shupe
The moral: Get a buddy to enlist with you but be sure he is a straight shooter.
--------------------------------------------------------
Federal Shoe Store:
We have often wondered what would happen if the federal government were in charge of all shoe stores (Socialism: government ownership of the means of production.) First they would decree that there are only four shoe sizes and everyone must wear one of the four sizes. Then they would require that everyone must buy their shoes from the federal store at a price $500 higher than they once sold for on the open market. Then you would be required to buy at least two pairs of shoes per year or pay a penalty on your taxes. We could go on and on, but you get the idea.
---------------------------------------------------------
Sophistry:
The ancient Greeks had a group of people that they referred to as Sophists. Sophists were educated people who were experts in using words to deceive. In other words, to the untrained eye, their arguments appeared logical but they were actually fallacious. The word sophisticated is derived from this word.
Sophistry did not die with the ancient Greeks, it is alive and well all over the world and is in general use in America. The reason for its effectiveness is that most of the words we use have no concrete meaning and cannot be measured, and therefore these words have different meanings to different people. Words such as fair, affordable, and needy immediately come to mind but there are thousands more. As long as people can avoid using words that are specific and can utter platitudes the art of sophistry will continue to flourish.
In America we have people trained in the finest law schools in the art of sophistry and we also have media people who seem to have taken sophistry to new levels of achievement. A few examples will suffice to show how this is done.
Several years ago there was something called “man-made global warming.” The idea was that human carbon emissions were causing the planet to warm up. Without going into a lot of detail this was never proven and the statistics for the past 18 years actually debunk the theory. The “global warming” crowd was losing the argument (Buffalo, NY, are you reading this?). Climate change is an established scientific fact; we know that the earth over its life has experienced massive changes in climate. The “global warming” crowd has now become the “climate change” crowd. Sophistry: Lump something unproven in with something proven and claim them both to be proven.
When the ACA (Obamacare) was being debated in the Supreme Court there was a lot of discussion about the parts that were constitutional but none about the parts that were not. Parts of the ACA are constitutional. What needed to be done was to remove every sentence that was unconstitutional and leave in every sentence that was constitutional. What you would have been left with was a law that made no sense. Sophistry: Claim that because part of something is true (or constitutional) all of that something is true (or constitutional).
Sophistry is nothing more than a clever way of lying. Beware!
-----------------------------------------
Just my opinion:
The playing up of the events in Ferguson, MO and NYC, NY by the socialist media is an act of desperation on their part to try and regain the narrative. They are losing arguments on intellectual grounds and they are losing elections, so they have to do something to try to enervate their audience. When all else fails follow the Marxist lead and try to generate class envy and class warfare. This is all part and parcel of trying to generate social divisions and is being stage managed from somewhere deep in the socialist underground. It seems to be backfiring since people are growing tired of these shenanigans and are growing tired of being called racists when they are no such thing.
The assault on entertainer Bill Cosby has reached a fever pitch. Perhaps he did all of it, some of it, or none of it. No one knows at this point how much of this is true. The question is, why, after 40 years, is this suddenly being revisited? A rhetorical question but also something that makes one wonder as to the reasons since in many cases the statute of limitations has run out on both criminal and civil legal actions. The answer is that Mr. Cosby has seen fit to attack liberalism as a main reason for the lack of progress in black communities; an attack with a great deal of merit and an attack difficult for liberalism to refute. Therefore, following the standard rule of the MSM, when you can’t attack the message attack the messenger. We have seen this all before in attacks on the Founding Fathers (they like it much better when the messenger is dead since he cannot fight back). When the MSM cannot attack the message their first recourse is to attack the messenger. If they cannot attack the messenger they go to Plan B. Plan B is to find some inconsequential statement in the message that is not exactly right and declare the entire message to be invalid (see Sophistry above). Keep your eyes and ears alert and you will often be able to see behind the screen and see the real reasons for what is being displayed.
Lewis Shupe
***********************************
**************************
December 9, 2014
by Lewis Shupe, US Freedom Army, Contributor @ Freedom Fighters of America
Karl Marx describes in his 1848 Communist Manifesto the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a communist socialist state. Marx designed these steps as a test to determine whether a society has become communist or not. If they are all in effect and in force, you then have a communist state. These steps are underlined with a few of my comments added afterwards.
Step 1: The abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. This one is so critical it would almost be sufficient in and of itself. Fortunately most of these efforts have been stalled by good people, even the attempts by the EPA.
Step 2: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. With an emphasis placed on the word “heavy.” Destroying wealth will ultimately destroy you.
Step 3: Abolition of all rights of inheritance. They will keep trying as long as you let them.
Step 4: Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. See Step 1.
Step 5: Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. Can anyone spell “Federal Reserve?”
Step 6: Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. I could have helped with this one with four words “Centralize everything you can.”
Step 7: Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. “Government ownership of the means of production” is the technical definition of socialism.
Step 8: Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. Words like communes and forced labor unions come to mind.
Step 9: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country. Things such as zoning restrictions, forced relocations, abortions and forced sterilization programs immediately become available to the government.
Step 10: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. I think I can sum this one up: Socialist indoctrination of children through the public school system.
One can decide for himself how America is doing in these ten areas listed above but as you can see many of the things necessary for the destruction of freedom are already in place.
Happy Thanksgiving
by Lewis Shupe, Contributor, Freedom Fighters of America
November 22. 2014
The United States Freedom Army would like to wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving Day is the day we give thanks for the wonderful freedoms we enjoy and the bounty we have been given by the richness of this land. Let us not forget that for others to continue to enjoy this richness and bounty we must strive to work diligently to see that it endures for our children and grandchildren.
Below is attached a short Thanksgiving story. Some of you are probably familiar with the story and have seen it written in various forms but it always bears repeating. It is often amazing what one can learn from history.
--------------------------------------------------------------
On August 1, 1620, a ship called the “Mayflower” left England with 102 passengers bound for the New World. The manifest included two groups. The Separatists, led by William Bradford, had fled their homeland and the oppressive Church of England under King James I. The Strangers sought the New World for other reasons. Together they formed the Pilgrims.
The contract the Pilgrims brokered with their merchant-sponsors in London specified that everything they produce go into a common store, with each member entitled to one common share. In addition, all the land they cleared and the structures they built belonged to the community. The Pilgrims were soon to discover that this arrangement did not work well.
William Bradford, Governor of the new colony, realized the futility of collectivism and abandoned the practice. Instead, Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family and permitted them to market their own crops and other products, thereby unleashing the power of capitalism and the free enterprise system. What Bradford had realized after a few years of poor crops was that these industrious people had no reason to work hard without the motivation of personal incentive.
The practice of collectivism had ended in failure and, fortunately for the Pilgrims, Governor Bradford had been wise enough to end the practice shortly after arrival. What William Bradford wrote about this practice of collectivism in his journal “Of Plymouth Plantation” should be required reading in all American History classes. What happened first when collectivism was attempted is as follows:
“The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.”
What happened second when collectivism was replaced by capitalism and the concept of private property:
“This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far greater content.”
The Pilgrims soon found they had more food than they could eat, so they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits they realized allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London and caused more migration to the New World.
These events can be summarized quite succinctly. Socialism did not work in 1620, 1720, 1820 or 1920 and has not worked up until the present time. It will also not work in 2020, 2120, 2220, 2320 or into the infinite future. It is a failed system that certain liberals and romantics persist in attempting to install. That attempt must be fought vigorously since it always leads to dictatorship and the best way to fight against it is to always try to avoid centralized political power. The Constitution of the United States makes such a provision but it must be followed judiciously or the nation will fall into disrepair.
***************************
A few comments on the election November 4
November 9, 2014
These are a few of my thoughts from the November 4, 2014 elections. It is solely my opinion and everyone is certainly free to disagree with any or all of the thinking below.
Lewis Shupe, Founder
United States Freedom Army
------------------------------------
The Republican Party had a terrific victory and this gives me confidence that things in this nation will improve. Certainly they will be better than they were before the night of November 4, 2014. The problem is that I see no evidence that any of our constitutional complaints will be addressed. If the U.S. Constitution is not restored no long term progress will be made, the socialists will regroup and come back, and the lingering problems will continue or reappear. That is why this organization and others like it must go on. Our complaints cross party lines and have not been addressed for about 85 years. The continuous constitutional violations are a major reason why this nation is slowly sinking into mediocrity. Socialism cannot function when the Constitution is being scrupulously followed.
I can name at least 20 Republican Senators (and there are probably many more) that are not conservative and do not give one whit about the rules governing this nation. They, like almost everyone else in high office, are primarily concerned about getting reelected and will do whatever they deem necessary to see that this is what occurs. If it involves violating the Constitution to assure their reelection they will do that. If it involves more unconstitutional government programs they will vote for them. Our complaints are long lasting and cross party lines and are philosophically based. We want the rules followed as the patriots who wrote the Constitution intended for them to be followed.
The trap. I have seen this so many times in my lifetime it is becoming almost comical. The Socialist (Democrat) Party loses. They then say they are ready to cooperate. Cooperating with the Socialists means doing exactly what they want. The Socialists then ask for the exact same things they wanted before and if the opposition party doesn’t give it to them they claim the opposition is being uncooperative. The Main Stream Media ably assists them in this farce. The Republicans were elected to stop Barack Obama and his Socialist agenda and for no other reason – they had no platform. Will they succeed? Don’t bet on it. Saul Alinsky: “Accuse your opponent of what you are doing yourself.”
Obamacare. Of all the items on the Socialist agenda that the Republicans were elected to stop Obamacare is perhaps the primary issue. Those of you who have read the entire U.S. Freedom Army website know why Obamacare is unconstitutional and know the correct remedy. By implication, if Obamacare is unconstitutional any changes to it are also unconstitutional and any new replacement health care bill is also unconstitutional. The Republicans should send a repeal to Obamacare (Obama will pocket veto it) to get all the U.S. Senators who do not favor the repeal on record. When that fails they should attempt to defund it but they should not send changes to it. Changes, as I have said, are unconstitutional but, even more importantly, changes legitimatize the bill and make it virtually impossible to remove. Once the Socialists are back in power the changes they may have agreed to will be changed back the way they want. Based upon what I am hearing from even conservative Senators they plan on modifying the bill. This is a long term mistake and will backfire but you can bet the ranch they will do it anyway. The Socialists will agree to minor cosmetic changes to Obamacare to further cement their position on this horrible piece of legislation.
Illegal immigration. The Republican Party should be reminding everyone who is here illegally that they cannot be made a citizen by Executive Order. What is done by Executive Order can be undone by Executive Order. Anyone here illegally who believes that an Executive Order by Barack Obama makes him a citizen is not thinking clearly. Attack BHO on this issue at every opportunity. As an aside, federal immigration laws are constitutional and the federal government does have the authority in this area.
Debt and inflation. The Federal Reserve will continue to print money because otherwise the government will shut down. The Socialists will fight tooth and nail for every government program and unless the Republican Party suddenly grows a spine nothing will be done. Ultimately the subsequent inflation, if left unaddressed, will destroy the U.S. economy. Look for a national debt in excess of $20 trillion before BHO leaves office.
Impeachment. Impeachment should not be attempted unless the necessary 67 votes in the U.S. Senate are certain. Leave Barack Obama alone – he is either destroying or severely damaging his party. If Barack Obama marginalizes his party and they become recognized for what they are – the Socialist Party – he will have done a great service for all Americans. In a year or so the Democrats in the Senate may be calling for his head – let them initiate this action.
Learn history. In January 2001, George W. Bush was President and the Republicans were in control of both houses of Congress. What happened? The Republicans blew this opportunity and nothing of substance was accomplished. What was the first thing of consequence “W” did? He huddled with Ted Kennedy and created the “No Child left behind Act” – another unconstitutional poor piece of legislation that plagues America to this day. The federal government only has constitutional authority in education if there is discrimination involved and for no other reason.
The three branches. The victory election night only gives the Republicans control of one branch of government. The Executive Branch we know about but people forget the Courts. The court systems are riddled with Socialists, Marxist, Progressives and Communists of various ilks who do not give a darn about what the U.S. Constitution says and they are appointed for life. These people make up 20% to 40% of the members of our courts yet socialists are less than 5% of the U.S. adult population. This is why Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option, so he could load the courts up with his people as much as possible before the disaster struck. These people have a goal and it is not to interpret the law, it is to destroy the Free Market System (Capitalism) and the American way of life. In this regard they are succeeding massively.
Conclusion. I do not believe the Republicans will do one thing I have suggested and, just like 2001, they will blow it again. I hope I am wrong. This is why this army and others like it must go on. Somehow, somewhere, someday someone must restore order or this nation will crumble and it had better happen fairly soon. About a year and one-half from now lift up your head and see what has been accomplished. I would venture to say not much.
***************************
November 3, 2014
by Lewis Shupe, Contributor, USFA/Freedom Fighters of America
“Socialism is the religion people get when they lose their religion.” Richard John Neuhaus
Pastor Neuhaus could just as easily have substituted for “socialism” the words “global warming” or “environmentalism” or “world peace” or any of the many mantras of the world’s true believers. When you lose your belief in God something must fill the void to make your life have meaning – without that void being filled all types of behavior are possible. Problems also may occur when that void is filled, however, since fanaticism is sometimes the result.
You will often encounter many well-meaning (and occasionally not well-meaning) clerics and other people in all walks of life that say the Bible is socialistic and has many references to social justice and those people sincerely believe that to be so. The implication is that the Bible condones and encourages this sort of behavior. Once again we have a problem with semantics. Socialism, social justice and any offshoots of these words mean that government is involved in the process. It requires government for these concepts to function. The technical definition of socialism is government ownership of the means of production.
Nowhere in the Bible have I found one passage that approves of the government taking something from one person and giving it to another. Nowhere in the Bible is there approval of a government redistribution of wealth. What the Bible talks about is charity. Charity is substantially different than social justice. When a famous person goes to a grief stricken area and gives his time and money freely to help others he is heroic. When a famous person asks the government to demand that I go to a grief stricken area and give my time and money he is a villain.
Charity is the road to salvation – social justice is the road to destruction.
*************************
A few comments about gold
by: Lewis Shupe USFA, Contributor, Freedom Fighters of America
October 18, 2014
-------------------------------------
An ideal currency “should be absolutely invariable in value.” Precious metals are not perfect but they are “the best with which we are acquainted.” David Ricardo
Gold fits almost perfectly all the criteria required for an item to be used as money. It is instructive to give a list of the requirements for an item to be a good candidate to be used as money:
Durability – It must be able to stand the wear and tear to which money is subjected without degrading over time.
Portability – It must have a high amount of worth relative to its size. In 2014 a one ounce American Gold Eagle carried in one’s pocket is about the size of a silver dollar and is worth about $1,250.
Divisibility and consistency – It must be able to be broken into smaller parts and still retain the same value. A ¼ ounce gold coin is exactly one-fourth of the value of a one ounce coin. A diamond, for example, when split into four parts will not retain the same value as the original stone. The purity and weight of gold can be precisely measured.
Intrinsic value – It must have some worth in and of itself. Gold is used in various ways and has a value above and beyond its value as money.
Scarcity – The world stocks of gold have consistently risen about 1.5% per year on average with very little fluctuation, giving it an edge over silver in this respect. Silver stocks have shown a somewhat greater tendency to fluctuate.
Difficulty of counterfeiting – Since gold is a basic item, number 79 on the periodic table, it has yet to be duplicated by any technique known to man. Also its authenticity can be easily discerned through various tests.
---------------
This is a quiz for you. Who made the following statements? Hint – they were all made by the same person.
“When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve’s attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us … The “Fed” succeeded: it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market – triggering a fantastic speculative boom…. As a result, the American economy collapsed.” (Sound like now to anyone?)
“The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit….”
“The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy’s books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes….”
“In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold…. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.”
“This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the “hidden” confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights.”
---------------
I’ll spell his name backward so you can’t scan down the page and peek: - napsneerG nalA –
In 1987, after being appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, he apparently forgot everything he ever learned and was swallowed by the monster, proving once again that the need for power almost always overcomes principle. The “Maestro” became nothing more than a front man for the big banks and the Socialists in Congress, with the people behind the curtains pulling the levers. Today he is still probably babbling about his favorite straw man, deflation, proving once again how corrupt people can become to gain the trappings of power.
*************************
United States Freedom Army Weekly
October 4, 2014
by Lewis Shupe USFA, Contributor, Freedom Fighters of America
In 1954 Darrell Huff wrote the book "How to Lie with Statistics." Sixty years later, it still should be required reading for students of all levels above middle school. Let me give some of the examples.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), sometimes called the Bureau of Lying Statistics or simply (without the L) BS, has a government charter to produce accurate statistics regarding the economy. These include employment and unemployment data, inflation and prices measures, productivity, and pay and benefits. This requires nine regional offices and a gaggle of statisticians as well as the usual number of clerks, secretaries, managers, etc. etc., etc. Let us look at what we are getting for all this money.
There are numerous measures of unemployment. U3 is the measure that is normally reported in the newspapers since it gives the lowest number and makes the government look best. U6 is another number given and includes short-term discouraged workers, marginally attached workers, and forced to work part-time workers (none of these are included in U3). In 1994, for reasons known only to the BLS, long term discouraged workers were defined out of official existence. This caused the unemployment numbers to drop substantially. On June 30, 2012, U3 was reported as 8.2% and U6 was reported as 14.2%. If unemployment had been calculated in the same fashion as prior to 1994, it would have been 22.6%. Ah, but the trickery does not stop with the unemployment numbers.
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is the government measure of the level of inflation. This is the index used to calculate such important things as how much ones social security check will increase each year. It is also used for numerous contracts and documents that require a cost-of-living adjustment to be calculated. From the 1700s until 1980 inflation had been estimated consistently by measuring price changes in a fixed-weight basket of goods. In 1980 and 1990 this method was altered by the BLS based upon input from certain “university statisticians” and the reported CPI became substantially lower. The culprit was something called a substitution based approach. In other words, when the price of something became too high you found an acceptable substitute and that kept the price low. So if, for example, steak had been in the basket and the price of steak was getting too high, you simply substituted hamburger and the price went down. If the price of eggs and bread are becoming too high they may substitute one cup of Cream of Wheat. Well, you get the idea – you keep doctoring the basket of goods until you get an answer you can live with. In 2009 (a bad year) the CPI was shown as 5%. The CPI using 1990 calculations was 9%. The CPI using the calculations prior to 1980 was 13%. The aggregate impact of the changes since 1980 has been to reduce the reported level of CPI inflation by roughly seven percentage points. Using the old numbers, one can see that the gap between household income and the cost of maintaining that household has been increasing dramatically.
The artificial lowering of the CPI to make people imagine that inflation is under control is but only one benefit of the new calculation. The lowering of social security payments naturally has the hidden effect of taxing people on social security and thus lowering the deficit and projected shortfalls. Lower CPI also has the effect of causing GDP to be overestimated, thus falsely portraying a more active economy than actually exists. When growth in the GDP is calculated it is thus higher. GDP growth, in and of itself, is a statistically meaningless number since it usually averages about 3% with a statistical variation of +3% to -3%.
The broadest and best measure of the money supply that we have at present is M3. Taking its cue from the BLS, Chairman Bernanke of the Fed stopped publishing M3 in 2006. Since no one knows what the Fed has been doing from 2006 until the present we have no idea what constitutes the national money supply.
In the 1960s Mollie Orshansky, a statistician in the Social Security Administration, developed a formula for measuring poverty and began publishing articles on the United States poverty level. In 1963 she measured the poverty level for a family of four as an annual income of $3,128 or below. In 1969 the U.S. Bureau of the Budget (now the U.S. Office of Management and Budget) issued a directive that made the threshold the federal government’s official statistical definition of poverty. Other than adjusting this baseline number upward for inflation, this calculation has never changed. Common sense tells one that there is more required than just this one number to determine if someone is poverty stricken or not. The reason for the unvarying nature of this calculation is obviously because the amount of people counted as living in poverty needs to be as large as possible. How else can you create a crisis and generate a War on Poverty if very few people qualify?
The first problem with the calculation is that the massive benefits now available for people below the poverty line generated by all the welfare programs since 1963 are not included. So food stamps, free housing, free medical and all of the numerous welfare assistance plans that were not available in 1963 are not in the calculation. Furthermore, people are not properly means tested. A family of four could own outright an expensive home in a good neighborhood, two cars, life insurance policies and have numerous other assets and this would not disqualify them from being considered as in poverty. It is entirely possible for a person who is a multi-millionaire to be considered in poverty. In point of fact, it is often in the best interest of some people to stay below the poverty line and not work since working would create an overall reduction in income. The calculation creates an incentive for many to not work for wages.
In 1995 the National Academy of Science did a study called Measuring Poverty: A New Approach. This study and every other study addressing this subject has been systematically ignored by the OMB. Do I need to tell anyone why? I think the reason is clear.
**********************************
A short primer on Fabian Socialism
September 25, 2014
by: Lewis Shupe, Contributor, USFA/Freedom Fighters of America
You say you want a revolution - Well, you know - We all want to change the world.
You tell me that it’s evolution - Well, you know - We all want to change the world.
The Beatles
If the Beatles had written "Revolution" in 1884 it could have been the marching song for Fabian Socialism. The Fabian Society was founded in 1884 in Great Britain as a socialist movement, whose purpose is to advance the principles of democratic socialism via gradualist and reformist (evolutionary) means rather than Marxist (revolutionary) means. This is the point of the song “Revolution” by the Beatles – they extol the virtues of the gradual, non-violent approach to the implementation of socialism.
The Fabian Society was named in honor of the Roman general Fabius Maximus. His Fabian strategy advocated tactics of harassment and attrition rather than head-on battles against the renowned Carthaginian general Hannibal. When called upon to strike Fabius did so and his overall strategy ultimately forced Hannibal’s forces to withdraw. One of the symbols of the Fabian Society is a turtle with the motto: ”When I Strike, I Strike Hard.” From 1933 to the present the United States has been in the grip of Fabian Socialism. Barack Obama entered office under the assumption that the time to strike is now. Hopefully for America this analysis will soon be proven incorrect and America will begin to wake up from its slumber.
It is important to understand Fabian Socialism or more accurately, as it has been called in America, creeping socialism. Instead of advocating a socialist state, the Fabians advocate a welfare state. The key is to move slowly and play upon the fundamental desire of people to receive benefits from the government without working for them. The Fabians have had success almost everywhere there is a freely elected system but they have had more trouble in the United States because of the decentralized nature of our system of government – that is why in America they must continue to place an emphasis on central planning and violating the U.S. Constitution, a document that restricts their activities. The key is to never identify oneself as a socialist and to hide under various names that strike a positive tone. Fabian Socialists will call themselves almost anything to remain hidden. Some common names in America are liberal Democrat, progressive Republican, statist or populist. When exposed, like cockroaches exposed to the light, they run and hide until they can re-emerge with a new name that does not include the word socialist.
Once the welfare state becomes large enough it can then be easily replaced by the socialist state. At that point all the forces of socialism will be brought to bear and the goals of all socialists will be realized. The socialist dictatorship will be installed and all the instruments of production (land, buildings, labor, capital and ideas) will be owned by the state. Ultimately only the state is allowed to have wealth and everyone works so the state can be wealthy and then, at that point in time, we will have successfully completed “The Road to Serfdom.” The socialist state will provide for you to the extent it is able but in return you must surrender your freedom.
----------------------------------------------------------------
“He is a modest man with much to be modest about.” Winston Churchill in reference to Clement Attlee
You can often tell about someone by the company they keep. Clement Attlee (1883-1967) was the best thing to happen for the Fabian Socialists since their founding in 1884. As Prime Minister of England from 1945-1951 his government nationalized major industries including the Bank of England, coal mining, railroads, utilities, and steel. When he was finished about twenty percent of the British economy had been nationalized. Attlee also created the National Health Service (socialized medicine). This was all based upon the assumption that full employment would be maintained by Keynesian policies and that a greatly enlarged system of social services would be created that would be beneficial to all. We all know what has happened as a result – Great Britain is almost broke and cannot financially maintain its socialist system for much longer. In 2004 Attlee was voted the greatest British prime minister of the 20th century (over Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher) in a poll of 139 academics (presumably all Fabian Socialists hand-picked by the organization in charge of the poll).
At the core of the Fabian Society were Sidney (1859-1947) and Beatrice (1858-1943) Webb. They wrote numerous studies of industrial Britain based upon the ideas of Fabian Socialism. In 1932 Sidney and Beatrice travelled to the Soviet Union and later published in support of the Soviet experiment with “Soviet Communism: A New Civilization?” and “The Truth about Soviet Russia” – apparently Uncle Joe Stalin put on a good dog and pony show for them. On Beatrice’s death her ashes were interred in Westminster Abbey, where they were joined subsequently by the remains of Sidney and Clement Attlee, her one-time secretary (in 1909).
Sidney and Beatrice were quite busy – they co-founded the London School of Economics and published a weekly pamphlet, the New Statesman. Clement Attlee, George Bernard Shaw and John Maynard Keynes were all contributors to the London School of Economics and the New Statesman and were Fabian Socialists to the core. The New Statesman still exists and publishes its usual amount of socialist twaddle. The London School of Economics is going strong and continues to subtly pursue its primary objective – socialist indoctrination.
The heart and soul of any socialist movement is the creation of a crisis. The crisis must be perceived to be so massive that it requires immediate federal government intervention to curb the crisis. It is essential that the public believe there is a crisis and the machinery of the liberal press is always enlisted to accomplish this task. So health care is a crisis (it isn’t), global warming is a crisis (it isn’t), child abuse is a crisis (it isn’t), and on and on. The only real crisis is when people like the socialists denoted above are running the government and are listened to for advice on public policy – then you have a crisis.
Once when Clement was in the men’s room Winston walked past him and walked to the stall as far away from him as possible and began unzipping his pants. Clement said “What is wrong Winston, are we not speaking?” Winston replied “You make me nervous Clement. Every time you see something big you nationalize it.”
**********************************
by Lewis Shupe, Contributor, US Freedom Army
September 8, 2014
Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. (1859-1924) was one of the greatest Americans who ever lived. No, not the one who flew across the Atlantic, I am referring to his father who was a United States Congressman from Minnesota (1907-1917).
Born in Stockholm, he came at an early age to Minnesota and subsequently studied law at the University of Michigan Law School, graduating in 1883 and being admitted to the bar the same year. During his lifetime he became an expert on money and banking and in 1913 he wrote Banking, Currency, and the Money Trust. The year 1913 was auspicious since the Pujo Committee exposed the members of the Money Trust and the Federal Reserve Act was passed in December. Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. (CAL) was the fiercest opponent of the Federal Reserve Act in Congress. Although he had many supporters, CAL stood out because of his thorough understanding of the topic – an understanding that far exceeded any of his colleagues.
Once CAL opposed the Federal Reserve Act he was attacked from all corners. The liberal media called him every conceivable name and the government had agents confiscate and destroy plates of his book. CAL had correctly diagnosed that the Money Trust was pretending to oppose the bill when in fact they secretly favored its passage. When the congressional committees met to discuss the Federal Reserve Act they refused to let CAL or any of his associates speak.
In 1917 CAL wrote Why is Your Country at War?, attributing high finance to America’s involvement in the war, a position with a large amount of substance. His enemies used this book to destroy Lindbergh’s reputation and subsequently sully his contributions to the field of finance. As is now evident, Lindbergh’s opposition to the Federal Reserve has been vindicated and his attack on it was completely justified.
Here are some quotes about the Federal Reserve from CAL to give you the flavor:
“This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on Earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the monetary power will be legalized, the people may not know it immediately but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed … the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.”
“The Aldrich Plan is the Wall Street Plan. It means another panic, if necessary, to intimidate the people. Aldrich, paid by the government to represent the people, proposes a plan for the trusts instead.”
“The financial system … has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That board administers the finance system by authority of … a purely profiteering group. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people’s money.”
“The remedy for our social evils does not so much consist in changing the system of government as it does in increasing the general intelligence of the people so that they may know how to govern … if they do not learn how to govern themselves intelligently, socialism will be the result.”
“[The Money Trust is] an established and well-defined identity and community of interest between a few leaders of finance which has been created and is held together through stock holdings, interlocking directorates, and other forms of domination over banks, trust companies, railroads, public service and industrial corporations, and which resulted in a vast and growing concentration of control of money and credit in the hands of a comparatively few men … ” (Note: named by CAL as “the most active agents in forwarding and bringing about” this concentration were: J.P. Morgan & Company; First National Bank of New York; National City Bank of New York; Lee, Higginson& Company of Boston and New York; Kidder, Peabody & Company of Boston and New York; Kuhn, Loeb, and Company – the very people who were at Jekyll Island.)
“[The Money Trust] caused the 1907 panic, and thereby forced Congress to create a National Monetary Commission, which drew a bill in the interests of the Money Trust, but Congress did not dare to pass the bill as coming from that Commission. The main features of that bill, however, were copied into this [Federal Reserve Act]. I made a speech predicting that that would be done, and, further, that the Money Trust would cause a money stringency in order to force its bill through Congress. All this has now taken place. This bill is passed by Congress as a Christmas present to the Money Trust.”
“Wall Street, backed by Morgan, Rockefeller, and others would control the Reserve Association, and those again, backed by all the deposits and disbursements of the United States, and again backed by the deposits of the national banks holding the private funds of the people, … , would be the most wonderful financial machinery that finite beings could invent to take control of the world.”
“ … the plain truth is that neither of these great parties, as at present led and manipulated by an ‘invisible government [i.e. the Money Trust],’ is fit to manage the destinies of a great people, and this fact is well understood by all who have had the time and have used it to investigate.”
“From now on, depressions will be scientifically created.”
*****************************
A Visit to the Dictionary (my comments in parenthesis).
August 25, 2014
by Lewis Shupe, USFA & Contributor, Freedom Fighters of America
Communism – a: a theory advocating elimination of private property (translation: and therefore freedom) b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed (translation: there will soon be no goods) c: a totalitarian system of government (translation: a dictatorship) in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production.
Liberal – a: marked by generosity (translation: marked by using other people’s money to be generous) b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way (translation: by opening someone else’s hand) c: not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms (translation: if we do not like a rule or a law we’ll just ignore it or “reinterpret” it).
Progressive - a: one believing in political change and esp. social improvement by government action (translation: a social liberal advocating big government) b: increasing in extent or severity (translation: the government gets bigger, and bigger, and bigger, … )
Socialism - a: any of various political and economic theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (translation: the government owns everything, and that includes you) b: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property (translation: It takes a Village – the government is the village and you are the child) c: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state (translation: is this all starting to sound the same?) d: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay by work done (translation: so why work? No one else is going to).
Marx-Hegel Dialectic (not in the dictionary but here goes) – Feudalism evolves into Capitalism which evolves into Socialism which evolves into Communism and then eventually the state withers away (translation: one of the dopiest ideas ever foisted upon the human race, but there are still people who actually believe this will work).
Is all this beginning to sound the same? Well, as I have said before, these are all branches of the same tree, the Tree of Collectivism.
As a matter of interest, we need to see the differences between Socialism and Fascism. Fascism is a reaction from the right, Socialism is a reaction from the left, but the result is always the same – dictatorship. That is why Socialism and Fascism will often seem to be the same although there are differences.
Fascism – a political movement, philosophy, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible oppression of opposition.
Fascists do not necessarily wish to redistribute wealth or property except in the case of their political opponents or as needed in the functioning of the state. Fascists still want to retain an incentive system insofar as possible, but wish to refocus certain industries to the use of the state. Fascists are more interested in centralized control but do not necessarily wish to operate businesses and retain certain aspects of Capitalism as much as possible. Fascists strictly control the activities of their citizens, but do not necessarily need to control the means of production nor do they necessarily provide benefits to citizens who produce no labor and are a burden to the state. Fascism does not necessarily reward failure and punish success.
Socialism is much easier to foist upon the people. Even though you are drinking poison, the socialists make it taste good. By rewarding all sorts of people who have essentially done nothing, Socialism appears to offer an elixir to society’s woes. Socialism has an appearance of goodness that transforms the masses into a herd of lotus eaters. When Barack Obama was running for president in 2008, I often referred to him as the Pied Piper of Hamlin - he would play on his flute and the children (i.e. voters) would follow him anywhere. Now, because of our past indiscretions, we have to pay the Piper to save our children. Socialism is sweet, laden with good intentions, but like the fruit of the Tree of Collectivism it bears an ominous result.
**************************************
THE STRATEGY & TACTICS OF SOCIALISM
August 16, 2014
by Lewis Shupe, Staff Writer, Freedom Fighters of America
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical … the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.” Saul Alinsky
The strategy of socialism is clear – it is the old Fabian Society (with a boost from the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci) augmented by the work of Cloward and Pivens. The tactics are clearly articulated in Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky.
STRATEGY:
Go underground – Never identify yourself as a socialist. Hide under various names (liberal, progressive, populist, statist, or whatever) that evoke positive feelings from the people. When asked if you are a socialist deny it and say you are only working to help others. Never say that you detest the existing system and want to destroy it, only reply that you are “working hard to make a better country for everyone.” Tell whatever lies are necessary to distract attention away from yourself and stop people who do not share your beliefs from asking too many pointed questions. Try to focus people’s attentions on the problems you have identified.
Create crises – Make the people believe that a crisis exists and that the only solution is more government programs. It is not important whether or not a crisis actually exists, it is only important that people believe it to be so. Use your media allies to assist you in inflaming peoples’ passions so that a response to the “crisis” can be mobilized. Constantly reinforce the idea that only through the central government can a solution be found. Attract people to set up agencies to work on the “crisis” – they will soon become afraid of losing their income and will aid and abet you in doctoring information to “prove” that the crisis still exists. Never give specifics on the “crisis” since then responsible people will be able to prove that it is over – the “crisis”, once established, must go on forever so that the government programs can be perpetuated. (Note: There are only two crises – war and socialists running the country).
Expand the Welfare State – Place more and more people on welfare. Change the rules so that larger and larger numbers of people can qualify for assistance. Make the welfare state so massive that it collapses the country’s financial system (Cloward and Pivens). Pass out liberal amounts of money to schools, environmental groups, labor unions and businesses so that they will demand an ever expanding central government (this is a little like getting people addicted to drugs). When problems appear blame them on the failure of capitalism and greedy businessmen or blame it on evil rich people – in this respect use all the tools available to exploit class envy and direct people’s attention away from the real problem, the socialist expansion of government. Expand the number of people depending on the government for their income or their survival to the point that you achieve critical mass – the point where your reelection is guaranteed. Assert that what people are receiving from the government for free is their “right” under the Constitution.
Make gradual changes – Do not force anything upon people. Convince them that the poison they are drinking is “good for them.” Slowly get them to think that the changes being made are a normal part of the evolution of society and are for the better in the long run. Withdraw anything that provokes a violent reaction and figure out how to repackage it to make it palatable the next time. Phase into the government at all levels (including the military) people you have identified that are supportive of your activities. Use the politics of personal destruction to destroy the careers of anyone who disagrees with your approach. Slowly and gradually get people to believe that violations of the rules of the society are normal and more sophisticated and that the older generations “just don’t understand the modern world.”
Centralize political power – This is the most critical strategy of all. Without this everything else is useless. Take as much power as possible away from the state and local governments and from the people. Regulate from the central government to the greatest extent all human activity. Also important is the corollary – if anyone tries to decentralize or take away centralized power “go ballistic.” Find people who are damaged by this loss of centralized power and recruit them to join in political protests and become violent if necessary. If you cannot find these people pay people to protest. Do not under any circumstances allow any of your gains to be taken away – if this collapses the country’s economic system so much the better.
TACTICS:
Do not flaunt your radicalism – Cut your hair, bathe, clean up, put on a suit and tie and run for political office. Do not take to the streets unless there is no other option. If you take over a business, school, labor union or any other organization politicize it and form close working relationships with government entities – do this all in the name of expanding your business or improving society, or whatever justification works for that situation.
The end justifies the means – Use whatever techniques are required to achieve the desired results. Violate any or all of the Ten Commandments if needed. Doctor information and misquote experts. Use experts within your framework to give the false impression that facts and fiction are somehow linked in one master idea. When you violate rules to achieve an end clothe it in a moral argument so that you can pretend that what you have done is justified.
Utter platitudes – Never say anything concrete about what you are doing. Use generalities that appeal to people without defining what they mean. Good slogans are words such as fairness, change, common good, racial equality, challenges, fiscal responsibility, efficient and effective. Use the First Amendment of the Constitution liberally to justify what you are doing since it is vague – try not to refer to those parts of the Constitution that are specific. Never, ever, define your terms in ways that can be objectively measured.
Arouse discontent – Find out what makes people unhappy and fan the flames of discontent. Use irreverence, sarcasm, humor or whatever technique you can locate to get people sufficiently aroused to act. Always try to find an external reason why they are discontented so they can blame their unhappiness on something else – never let anyone know that the real solution to their unhappiness probably only requires a look into a mirror. Once you find what excites them to action keep hammering away at the source of their discontent. Repetition works – use the media for repetition if at all possible.
Discredit your enemy – Make him live by his own rules and attack him with irrelevant arguments. Attack God and the churches at every opportunity and make them appear immoral. Find ways to discredit the existing rules of society so that people have no faith in the systems under which they live. Make art, literature, buildings and music as repugnant as possible. Break down the civility of your system of government so that people believe everyone in a position of power is corrupt. Find fault with everything your opponents accomplish so that people believe nothing good is being accomplished. If you cannot find anything wrong with an opponent’s argument try to discredit him personally (whether alive or dead) – even if this requires lying. By the time people figure out it was you who was lying it is too late for him – you just apologize, the damage has been done, and no one remembers that you lied.
******************************************
The Roaring Twenties
August 4, 2014
by Lewis Shupe, Staff Writer, Freedom Fighters of America
“I have no trouble with my enemies but my damn friends, they’re the ones that keep me walking the floor nights.” Warren G. Harding
“How can they tell?” Dorothy Parker upon being informed that Calvin Coolidge had died.
The presidential period from 1921-1929 was the last time conservatives were in the White House and the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. It should be noted that Ronald Reagan never during his presidency had Republicans controlling both houses of Congress.
In 1920 the Republican from Ohio Warren G. Harding (1865-1923) was elected on the promise of a “return to normalcy.” After the whirlwind eight years of Wilson apparently the nation was ready for his conservative, affable and “make no enemies” campaign. One of the reasons for his smashing electoral victory was his effective use of the new media, radio. Harding was at best a mediocre president who did little but he would sign laws put forth by the Republican controlled Congress and that made his term in office reasonably successful in reversing some of the actions of the Wilson administration.
Harding’s legacy was determined primarily by the people he appointed to positions of trust – the choices were either outstanding or horrible. Harding made some great choices including Charles Evans Hughes as Secretary of State, Herbert Hoover as Secretary of Commerce, Andrew Mellon as Treasury Secretary and, most importantly, Calvin Coolidge as Vice-President. Coolidge was famous for his actions as Governor of Massachusetts in the Boston police strike and people were ready for someone with a no nonsense approach to problems. On the other side of the equation Harding appointed many of his political cronies to key positions and these people kept the Harding administration scandal filled. His worst appointments were Harry Daugherty, his campaign manager, as Attorney General and Albert Fall as Interior Secretary. The Justice Department was a constant source of scandal and Albert Fall was subsequently sent to prison for his role in the Teapot Dome scandal. There was no evidence that Harding was ever personally involved in anything improper but his political cronies, the “Ohio Gang”, made his administration a misery.
Harding assumed office while the nation was in the midst of a postwar economic decline, referred to as the Depression of 1920-21. Harding’s Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, ordered a study that demonstrated as income tax rates were increased, money was driven underground or abroad (see previous writing: Laffer Curve) and concluded that lower rates would increase tax revenues. Tax rates were reduced annually in four stages from 1921 to 1925 and revenues to the treasury increased substantially and unemployment also continued to fall. The combined declines in unemployment and inflation were among the sharpest in U.S. history. Wages, profits, and productivity all made substantial gains during the 1920s ushering in the period known as the Roaring Twenties.
On August 2, 1923 Harding died somewhat unexpectedly from a somewhat mysterious heart ailment. His death made his Vice-President, Calvin Coolidge (1872-1933), the 30th President of the United States. While most of the nuts and bolts legislation revising the Wilson presidency came from Congress, Harding was at least an enthusiastic cheerleader and supporter for the changes and did sign the bills.
Coolidge restored public confidence in the White House after the scandals of his predecessor’s administration and left office as an extremely popular president. Coolidge, elected in his own right in 1924, gained a reputation as a small-government conservative and a person who embodied the slogan “That government is best which governs least.” Coolidge was also known as a man who said very little in private but very much in public, holding 520 press conferences during his administration (that is about one every four days for you math majors).
Coolidge disdained regulation and proved it by appointing commissioners to the Federal Trade Commission and the Interstate Commerce Commission who did little to restrict the activities of businesses under their jurisdiction. The regulatory state under Coolidge was “thin to the point of invisibility.” While Coolidge supported many measures as Governor of Massachusetts he did not support these measures as President because he correctly realized that these measures were, under the United States Constitution, the function of state and local governments. Due to the reductions in Income Tax passed during the period 1921-1929, the federal debt was substantially reduced. Coolidge opposed the McNary-Haugen farm bill saying that agriculture must stand “on an independent business basis” and declaring it as unsound and likely to cause inflation (people actually worried about inflation once upon a time in America).
1921-1929 was the only time from 1901-2014 that the descent into socialism was somewhat reversed. This was greatly facilitated by the fact that these were the only two presidential terms when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress during the entire term and there was a Republican President. This situation has never reoccurred again. If the nation had retained such conservative leadership for eight more years the Great Depression would probably have not occurred and the socialist policies inaugurated by subsequent administrations would have been greatly muted. Alas, it was not to be.
---------------
A few Coolidge quotes are in order here:
“Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery.”
“Don’t expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.”
“Civilization and profit go hand in hand.”
“If you don’t say anything, you won’t be called upon to repeat it.”
********************************
July 31, 2014
The problem with Robin Hood and his merry men robbing the rich in Sherwood Forest is that, pretty soon, the rich stop riding through the forest. Arthur Laffer
It is appropriate that we talk about Arthur Laffer (pronounced laugher) even though the insights he gave us are no laughing matter. The Laffer curve, although initially counterintuitive, refutes one of the holy grails of liberalism – that the government can get more revenue by increasing taxes on the rich.
The Laffer curve is associated with supply-side economics and was popularized by the supply-sider Jude Wanniski in the 1970s, with Wanniski naming the curve after the work of Arthur Laffer. Laffer later pointed out that the concept was not original, noting similar ideas in the writings of both 14th century North African polymath Ibn Khaldun (in his 1377 Muqaddimah) and John Maynard Keynes (yes, you read that name correctly). Amongst others, David Hume expressed similar arguments in his essay Of Taxes in 1756, as did fellow Scottish economist Adam Smith, twenty years later. Even Ali ibn Abi Talib, the first Shi’a Imam and fourth Caliph of the Islamic empire has made an argument along similar lines. Numerous historical precedents exist for its correctness.
At a 0% tax rate, the curve states that no revenue will be raised. At the extreme rate of 100%, the government theoretically collects no revenue because taxpayers change their behavior in response to the tax rate: either they have no incentive to work, find a way to avoid paying taxes, or possibly go to some kind of barter system. There is, therefore, some point between 0% and 100% where tax revenues will be maximized. The debate is over where exactly that maximizing point resides and that debate can never be fully ended since shifts probably often occur. In practice, the shape of a hypothetical Laffer curve for a given economy can only be estimated.
Every person has their breaking point. Each person reaches a point where he decides that the government is taking too much of his earnings and decides to react. There are two consequences of setting tax rates too high. The first is that total revenues to the government will go down. The first consequence is not as devastating as the second. The second consequence is that the taxpayer becomes convinced the government is trying to take his money and will not take risk and expose his assets. The second consequence means that projects will not be undertaken that would normally be undertaken and the economy subsequently suffers. The gap between rich and poor becomes even greater since the poor cannot find work and are thus deprived of an opportunity to advance. The paradoxical effect of raising taxes on the rich is that the gap between rich and poor may actually be widened.
Some examples of the Laffer curve in action:
In 1921 Andrew Mellon was named Secretary of the Treasury by President Warren G. Harding. Andrew Mellon was one of the most brilliant and successful individuals in American history. Mellon had a four part plan for solving the economic problems left by the Wilson administration and World War I: cut the top income tax rate from 77% to 24%, cut taxes on low incomes from 4% to ½%, reduce the Federal Estate tax, and reduce the size of government. Mellon reasoned that if tax rates were set more reasonably, people would have less incentive to avoid paying and revenues would climb. In 1923 he was able to get his program passed. Guess what, it worked! Tax revenues to the treasury increased and from 1923 to 1931 Mellon reduced the national debt from about $26 million to $16 million (in 1920 the national debt was 26 million and in 2020 it was 20 trillion – those crafty socialists.) By 1935 Franklin D. Roosevelt had increased the top rate to 80%, wiping out all those gains. In a politically motivated action, the Roosevelt administration subjected Mellon to intense investigation of his personal income tax returns. The U.S. Justice Department empaneled a Grand Jury, which refused to issue an indictment. A two year civil action initiated in 1935, dubbed the “Mellon tax trial”, eventually exonerated Mellon, albeit after his death. That 80% top tax rate was not a great idea since it helped prolong the Depression for another six years.
In 2009 the state of Oregon attempted to close its budget gap without doing what it should have done, namely, cut spending. Instead in June 2009 Oregon raised its “piggy-back” state income tax on the richest 2 percent of its residents retroactive to January 1, 2009 (sandbagging the residents). Only New York City’s rates were higher than Oregon. Receipts from the new tax fell from $180 million to $130 million in one year. This was primarily due to the number of filings in Oregon dropping from 38,000 to 28,000 as predicted by at least one statistical organization with some objective number crunchers. Gee, 10,000 rich people in Oregon just disappeared or became, as the newspaper article deemed them, “Vanishing Millionaires.” This is merely a replay of America’s “vanishing millionaires” after the first federal income tax went into effect around the time of World War I. The same thing happened again in 2008 when Maryland instituted its own “millionaire tax.” Roughly one-third of Maryland’s millionaire households vanished from the tax rolls after rates went up. Not all these rich people leave their respective states, some just hire tax people to find clever ways to get around the tax. The socialists in the Oregon legislature couldn’t figure out what had happened, so they just blamed the “poor economy.” Yeah, sure. The socialist spin on this disaster was absolutely astounding but we do not have the time, space, or desire to repeat it all here.
Here is another short example, just for good measure. During the Reagan administration the top tax rate was lowered to 50% in 1981 and lowered again to 28% in 1986. When Reagan entered office in 1981 Federal Income Tax Collections for 1980 were $309 billion. When Reagan left office in 1989 Federal Income Tax Collections for 1988 were $549 billion.
**************************
July 22, 2014
by Lewis Shupe, Staff Writer, Freedom Fighters of America
******************************
Herbert Hoover: Why Progressive
Republicans are as bad as Socialists
July 4, 2014
by Lewis Shupe, Staff Writer, Freedom Fighters of America
Excerpted from Presidential Diary II – Last Chance before Armageddon; Part 4 – Descent into Socialism
---------------------
“What the hell has Hoover got to do with it (his salary being larger than that of the President). Besides, I had a better year than he did.” Babe Ruth 1930
Calvin Coolidge had been reluctant to choose Hoover as his successor and on one occasion he remarked that “for six years that man has given me unsolicited advice – all of it bad.” Coolidge had no desire, however, to split his party and did not intervene in the selection of Hoover as the candidate of the Republican Party, a decision that would have unfortunate consequences for the nation and prove Coolidge’s remark to be incredibly accurate.
Herbert Hoover (1874-1964) won the 1928 election in a landslide riding the wave of prosperity from the Roaring Twenties. The people were soon to understand that not all Republicans are alike. Hoover was a Republican progressive in the mold of Theodore Roosevelt and had supported the “Bull Moose” Party in 1912. The “Progressive Movement” had been declared officially dead in 1924 with the defeat in the 1924 elections of Robert LaFollette, its founder. We all know of course that “Progressive” is just a term that socialists use to hide under and so, after 1924, they started hiding under the term “Liberal” – nonetheless it is all the same and their basic approach never wavers. Hoover was never tagged as a Progressive Republican, even though that was exactly his approach.
Hoover’s one term was bound up with the Stock Market Crash that occurred shortly after he took office and the subsequent Great Depression that rocked the nation economically. Unwittingly, Hoover’s reaction to these cataclysmic events formed the blueprint for the subsequent actions by the Roosevelt administration that extended and prolonged the misery. When the Depression struck Hoover responded with large scale government intervention, a policy that sealed his doom.
At the outset of the Depression Hoover rejected Treasury Secretary Mellon’s suggested “leave it alone” approach and called many business leaders to Washington to urge them not to lay off workers or cut wages – the beginning of many bad decisions Hoover was to make. Hoover adopted pro-labor policies after the stock market crash that accounted for close to two-thirds of the drop in the nation’s gross domestic product over the two years that followed, causing what should have been a two-year recession to slip into the Great Depression. Hoover raised the top Income Tax Rate from 25% to 63% and made increases in the corporate income tax rate and the estate tax – all policies that as we have seen only make the situation worse. The Federal Reserve was not helpful at all, reducing the nation’s money supply when the opposite remedy was required.
In the election of 1932 Franklin Roosevelt cynically blasted the Republican incumbent for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, blocking trade, and placing millions on the dole of the government. Roosevelt attacked Hoover for “reckless and extravagant” spending and of thinking “that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible.” The Democratic vice-presidential candidate, John Nance Garner, accused Hoover of “leading the country down the path of socialism.” All of these assertions were of course correct. The fact that Roosevelt subsequently did these same things in an even more drastic manner was later conveniently forgotten by anyone associated with his administration.
The charge that Hoover was responsible for the Depression stuck and Hoover suffered a large defeat in the 1932 election. After the election Hoover requested that Roosevelt retain the Gold Standard as the basis of the U.S. currency – Roosevelt refused.
Hoover lived until 1964 and his good works from the period 1933 until his death restored his image in the eyes of many. Hoover was rather the Lazaro Cardenas of the United States – a good man with a flawed vision. His intentions were good but his policies were to begin a period in American history that many people who lived through them were to remember with grief and anguish.
******************************
Some thoughts on the “Welfare Clause” of the United States Constitution
June 21, 2014
by Lewis Shupe, US Freedom Army, for Freedom Fighters of America
In the preamble to the U.S. Constitution it says “promote the general Welfare” and in Article I Section 8 Part 1 it says “The Congress shall have the Power to …. provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States;”. These references and any others of like kind are generally referred to as the “Welfare Clause” and give the federal government the authority to protect the people and their welfare. What exactly did the people who wrote the Constitution mean by the phrase “general Welfare”? A few quotes will suffice to get us started.
Let us start with the author of the Constitution James Madison:
“With respect to the two words “general Welfare” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the “Articles of Confederation” and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former taken for granted.” (Translation: If you have not been given the power to do something, you cannot use “general Welfare” as a justification for doing it. This is not the intention of these words.)
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” (Translation: Just because you feel sorry for someone, the federal government has no authority to help him).
“The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government.” (Translation: Just because you feel sorry for someone, the federal government has no authority to help him).
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one … ” (Translation: Once you start spending money willy-nilly to promote the general welfare you have destroyed the entire concept of limited government.)
“As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.” (Translation: When the government gets too big you will lose your freedom.)
“There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” (Translation: Eighty years of gradual socialism is just as dangerous as any sudden usurpation.)
“The powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.” (Translation: Reread Article 1 Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment if you haven’t grasped it yet.)
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” (Translation: None needed.)
A few more from the author of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson:
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated.”
“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”
“The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers.”
“Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”
“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
“I see, … And with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power… It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic.” (it sounds like the socialists were trying to get started around 1825.)
Summary:
The Welfare Clause is the most abused part of the United States Constitution. The forces of socialism claim it gives them the authority to pass any type of law they want to help people; this claim is false. They then cite certain Supreme Court rulings to buttress their claim; those rulings were invalid since the courts may not contradict the Constitution.
The people who wrote our founding documents were consistent in their writings about the Welfare Clause. They said you could not use the Welfare Clause as an excuse to exceed the Enumerated Powers of the Constitution. The destruction of the meaning of the Welfare Clause (coupled with the destruction of the meaning of the Commerce Clause) was the key to the destruction of the concept of limited government and the subsequent rise of socialism.
***********************
Some things we could learn from Mexico
June 9, 2014
by Lewis Shupe, USFA for Freedom Fighters of America
Many people seem to think Mexico is a backward third world country that will never advance economically or socially because of its system of government and its corruption. A few facts may convince you that Mexico may be more astute than the United States in certain areas regarding its approach to democracy and that perhaps the United States could take a few pointers from how Mexico operates. A few examples follow.
To vote in Mexico every eligible Mexican citizen must have a tamper-proof photo-ID card with a thumbprint and an embossed hologram. All citizens are required to personally enroll and show proof of birth or citizenship. Applicants are required to personally return to collect their voting credentials. So why can’t the U.S.A. at least upgrade to Mexican standards? Perhaps it is because one of our political parties depends upon voter fraud to perpetuate itself and is not interested in an honest election count.
Mexico has three political parties: Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) founded in 1929; National Action Party (PAN) founded in 1939; Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) founded in 1989. The PRI is a party made up of what we in America would call moderate and left of center Republicans (sometimes called RINOs) and right of center Democrats. The PAN is a conservative party and while the PRI has dominated Mexican politics the PAN is gradually growing stronger and is now the approximate equal of the PRI. The PRD is the party of the communists, socialists and various other left wing groups that constantly rant about their particular political causes. The PRD rarely wins any elections and controls politically only two of Mexico’s 32 states.
This political construction in Mexico is interesting because Mexico’s left wing (the left wing in America is about 20% of the adult population) has its own party (the PRD) and is effectively marginalized. The PRD cannot win elections because they have been identified as radical and wanting the kind of socialist politics we see destroying countries like Venezuela and Argentina. Here in America the left wing has taken over the Democratic Party (notice how Marxists like the word Democratic in their party name although they have no interest whatsoever in democracy). The sooner we can marginalize the 20% in America the better.
This is why Americans should not be afraid of a conservative third party movement. About 40% of Americans identify themselves as conservative and it would be an effective counterweight to whatever is left of the Republican and Democratic Parties. It would also begin to isolate the left wing radicals into the Democratic Party and eventually marginalize them. While in the short run there would be some tough going for a new conservative party, in the long run it could come to easily dominate American politics as long as it stood by conservative principles.
It would not be easy to form such a party but the work must be done. The Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, Independent-American Party and the various other conservative parties must come together under one banner and attract conservative politicians to their cause. The Mexican system could work very well here if all the pieces were put together properly and the conservatives had a solid set of principles.
*********************************
June 3, 2014
LESSON FOR THE DAY
by Lewis Shupe, US Freedom Army for FREEDOM FIGHTERS OF AMERICA
Below are two favorite quotes of the United States Freedom Army:
“A law that is repugnant to the Constitution is void.” John Marshall, Chief Justice United States Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison 1803
“[S]hould Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the government, such [acts are] not the law of the land.” John Marshall, Chief Justice United States Supreme Court, McCulloch v. Maryland 1819
Note: Not the exact quotes but close enough. You get the idea! (See Obamacare, Helvering v. Davis, Wickard v. Filburn, et. al. for examples).
Marbury v. Madison established the concept of judicial review and also clearly delineated what occurs when Congress passes laws that are not within the permissible framework of their powers. The notion that Congress can pass laws outside their limited powers and have them approved by the courts is false. The important thing to remember is that Congress can pass a law, the President can sign the law and the courts can approve the law but if that law exceeds the powers of the federal government that law (and any subsequent rulings based upon that law) is void and in order for that law to be passed in the future the Constitution must first be amended.
Liberal thinkers want you to believe that the courts determine the meaning of the Constitution and their decision is final. That thinking is false! While the Constitution is vague in some areas and may require court interpretation, in most areas it is quite specific if you read the writings of the people who wrote that document. Careful reading of the Federalist Papers and other related letters and documents make it quite clear that the Constitution itself is the actual determinant of the meaning of the Constitution and court intervention is often not required. It is clear that Obamacare is void and any State (such as South Carolina) that wishes to ignore it may do so without referral to any of its provisions.
Back in the early 1900s liberalism (socialism, Marxism, communism, progressivism, statism, whatever you want to call it) had a huge problem. The limiting provisions of the Constitution were standing in the way of their ability to centralize power, the key ingredient needed for them to take over the nation and turn it into their “liberal utopia.” In order for them to achieve their goals legally they needed to constantly amend the Constitution and they knew they would never be able to accomplish this. They needed a new strategy. So they decided in liberal law schools (and this slowly migrated to all law schools) to teach judicial precedent and to teach the idea that judicial precedent trumped the Constitution itself. This allowed liberalism to change the Constitution without amendment if they could only get the correct judges in place. It is a little like a bad sports team that instead of getting a new coach or new players decides to get their friends in as referees so they will always win. Ever since 1937 liberalism has dominated the court systems and that is why bad governmental systems and unconstitutional laws always triumph. It is also why Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option – to ensure that their side will always win into the future.
Your lesson for today: The Congress cannot pass a law that contradicts the Constitution and, if they do, that law is void regardless of the actions of the Executive or Judiciary.
*******************************
May 19, 2014
The United States Military and the Oath of Enlistment
The military Oath of Enlistment says “… that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic …” (underline is ours) and it also says “… that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States ….” So what happens when these requirements are in conflict?
All military personnel know that they can refuse to follow a direct order if they deem that order to be illegal or improper (often at great potential risk to their careers). An unconstitutional order is illegal. So if it comes to a choice between supporting and defending the Constitution and obeying the orders of the President the former choice is the correct one.
Now what happens if the President orders the U.S. Military to confiscate the weapons of all citizens? The correct procedure is for all military personnel to refuse to obey that order since it is unconstitutional and therefore illegal. What happens if the President orders the U.S. Military to shoot American citizens who are protesting peacefully and not in violation of any law? Once again, the military should refuse. What happens if the President orders the Department of Homeland Security (or any other Executive Branch agency) to confiscate the weapons of all American citizens? The United States Military should step in and stop this process.
This is the critical question. What will the U.S. Military do? A thrust of the United States Freedom Army is to identify with the U.S. Military, remind the military of their oath and what it means, and also to educate them on exactly how their oath is expected to be honored. If the military does not or cannot honor their oath in the appropriate way there will be dark days ahead for this Republic.
**********************************
May 12, 2014
by Lewis Shupe
Communism and socialism share the same goals and only differ as to tactics. Communists want to overthrow a government by violent means while socialists want to overthrow a government by infiltration. In free societies a communist revolution is extremely difficult so the socialist method has been adopted to break down free market countries. The primary goal of all socialists is a world government built upon socialist principles. The fact that socialist systems always fail in the long run and always lead to dictatorship does not occur to those committed to the cause since they always believe the next time socialism will work. Socialism’s goal in a free market system is to build up the welfare state until the nation’s economy collapses and then rush in to seize control and install their socialist agenda.
The 6 Agenda 21 points of emphasis are:
1. Global Warming/Climate Change
2. Fear of over population
3. Goal to Destroy the Free Market system
4. Cheap Energy is the enemy of the Earth
5. Common Core Indoctrination
6. Government Healthcare
Agenda 21 is nothing more than an orchestrated attack on the free market system using Marxist principles to achieve the goals of socialism. It uses manufactured crises to intimidate people and to achieve control over their lives so they can be manipulated into thinking that free markets are the cause of all these problems and will accept the thinking that a world government is the only solution to these problems. Agenda 21 is Marxism in action.
You know you are hearing a socialist when he continuously (but often cleverly) plays on these themes: centralization of power; class warfare; redistribution of wealth; the evils of the free market. When you confront a socialist and tell him what he is you will hear a denial and then he will hide under another name – liberal; statist, progressive; populist (or whatever) – and say he is only trying to help people and make America better. In spite of what they may say, these people do not care one whit about anyone else – their goal is to achieve power and topple the capitalist system. They hate capitalism and want to see it eliminated.
A socialist world government would ultimately turn the entire world into North Korea – everyone except the people in power would be starving. A very small percentage of the American public that is militant, well-funded, politically active and committed to their cause is working hard to see that Americans lose their freedom and will stop at nothing to achieve their goals.
******************************************
May 8, 2014
A Few Words from Lewis Shupe, Founder of the United States Freedom Army
Advise us by email that you will be writing tweets and include your twitter name (@xxxxxxxxxx). In order for us to use your tweet it must contain the name of our web site spelled correctly in Twitter format USFREEDOMARMY.COM (or usfreedomarmy.com) and should include the word Enlist (or join). If you can also include U.S. Freedom Army in the tweet that is good but is not required. Pictures are good – they attract people – especially pictures that are large enough to be visible. One or two a day on average is fine – you do not have to exceed that limit. Be creative – we have people writing for us that have done a great job being creative.
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE CLIVEN BUNDY MATTER
May 5, 2014
by Lewis Shupe, Freedom Fighters of America
The federal government owning and administering raw land within a State is a direct violation of the Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Part 17 (known as the Enclave Clause) which states in part that the only reason for the federal government to own land within a State is “for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful Buildings.” The fact that some States agreed as a condition of Statehood to cede certain of their lands to the federal government does not alter the fact that that action at that time was and remains unconstitutional.
Ultimately, this is Mr. Bundy’s complaint. He does not recognize the authority of the federal government to administer lands in Nevada that do not have the required buildings upon them and he therefore wishes to not make grazing payments to the federal government but rather to some other properly constituted authority. He also sees the growing power of the federal government as a threat to liberty and as an attempt to enslave the citizenry.
The writers of the Constitution gave vast powers to the federal government in foreign affairs but very limited powers to the federal government in domestic affairs. This was done for a reason – to protect the citizens from dictatorship. All Americans should read carefully Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution (the Enumerated Powers) and its corollary Amendment X. Any careful reading of those sections will also show that the federal government has no authority to protect endangered species and actually has no authority to do about 90% of the things they presently engage in.
The continuous and growing unconstitutional intrusions by the federal government into the lives of private citizens is one major reason for the anger on display at the Bundy Ranch. Until the federal government starts following the rules this anger will only increase and the civil divisions will intensify.
**********************************************
May 2, 2014
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE by FREEDOM FIGHTERS OF AMERICA
The UNITED STATES FREEDOM ARMY (USFA) has joined the Freedom Fighters of America Team. Lewis Shupe, Founder of the USFA has been donated a page from the Freedom Fighters of America to write about the laws of our land, recruit Soldiers and defend our constitution. They maintain their own website at www.usfreedomarmy.com.
I am a proud member of the USFA and ask all of you to become one too and to welcome Lewis and the USFA to our family. They're a solid addition to any Freedom Fighter group.
Thanks for passing this on and for your support of Freedom Fighters of America and the USFA.
JOIN US, BLUE BUTTON, UPPER RIGHT COLUMN, JOIN THIS SITE!
*************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment