A Retraction

Last week I published a post here that included emails that passed between the Executive Director of the Canadian Action Party and me. Tim McCormick told me that the Bank of Canada was owned by the Canadian taxpayers and that, initially, Canada was able to function well without massive debt. But as a result of the G8 conference, commitments were made that caused the debt to skyrocket. This told me that the international money powers were still in control.

Still, I had hopes that, if the CAP was successful, Canada could one day be a beacon of liberty to guide us back to freedom. With that thought in mind, I listened to their radio program that I spotlighted in a temporary “Alert” post.

I really didn't like what I heard. The speaker talked of “human capital” and spoke of government financed education. “Human capital” reminds me of the change I witnessed here, starting about 30 to 35 years ago. Personnel departments began changing to departments of “human resources.” People were becoming “resources,” much like a ton of coal, a pig of iron, or a barrel of oil to be used up in the manufacturing process and then disposed of as industrial waste. Here we have human beings as the capital used to build the economy of the State through education.

I have a special loathing for the idea of government “educating” the people. Both Hitler and Mao are sometimes credited with having said, “Give me the child at three and he's mine for life.” The Fabians may or may not have said the same, but they've certainly practiced control through “education.” Still, I don't think it's necessary for the state to control the child's mind as early as three. Many parents here have noted a marked change in their children's thinking after attending a few years of college. An intensive indoctrination campaign, even one begun at a later age, can work wonders.

One advocate of universal education by the state was Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson is one of my heroes. He was one of the wisest men I know of, but his wisdom was born of 20-20 hindsight. He was well read in history and was able to learn from the mistakes of the past such as the threat to liberty of combining the power of the state with the power of the church. But I don't think there were enough examples for him to see the dangers of combining the state with education, so he made the mistake of thinking state sponsored education a means to further liberty. Maybe this would be true if we had saints to run the state, but then, liberty might also be furthered by a bank run nation if we had saints to run the banks.

After reading a few more of CAP's newsletters, I couldn't escape the conclusion that the party is a socialist party. I don't think they try to hide it. While there is an element of nationalism, of patriotism, in the Canadian Action Party that can make them a worthy ally in the fight against NAFTA, CAFTA, and the North American Union, beyond that we cannot look to them as an ally in the fight for freedom. Socialism can never be a path to freedom. The four major socialisms of the past century, Communism, British/American Fabianism, German National Socialism, and Fascism are all rooted in the philosophy of Hegel. Hegel saw the individual as worthless except as a cog in the gears of the State machinery. Socialism, in any of its forms, is a negation of the individual. As such, it can never be a beacon of liberty.

Return to TOC

Canadian Liberty...Lost...Regained...Lost Again

On February 4, I sent this email to the Canadian Action Party prompted by a newsletter I'd received from them:

Although I'm not a Canadian, I've been on your mailing list for awhile. We definitely have a common enemy in NAFTA and the NAU. I'm sure you're aware that the consolidation of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico is only phase one. The rest of North and Central America will be brought under the thumb later.

I was curious. How does the CAP stand on Canada's relationship to England. It's my personal belief that England, especially the Bank of England, has run America since shortly after the Revolutionary (Secessionary) War. When Hamilton and Washington set up "our" first national bank liberty was doomed. I know your connection to England is more open, at least on the surface. How deep does it run? Is the Bank of Canada a part of the international banking cartel?

I received this response from Tim McCormick, Executive Director, Canadian Action Party:

Agreed, NAFTA has done nothing but harm to decent, honest, hardworking Americans and Canadians, while enriching the top 1%.

Strangely enough Rick, we the taxpayers own the Bank of Canada. It was started by the same money powers behind the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve in 1935, but Prime Minister William Lyon MacKenzie King realized the importance of the government having monetary control. He nationalized it in 1938 and we used it until 1972 experiencing the countries most productive years. However, in 1972, we were persuaded to take a seat at the G8 which required us to outsource for government borrowing. Our deficit went from 15 billion to 588 in about 20 years and remains over half a trillion today. For a country of 35 million, that's a lot of money, but of course I don't have to tell you about debt or the dire consequences it can have on the future of society.

Our number one platform issue is monetary control followed by sovereignty (ending NAFTA). We are a no nonsense truth telling party. We are anti-war and very leary of the corporate assimilation of Canada, North America and the world. Many CAP members are admirers of Ron Paul because of his stance on monetary policy, the corporate agenda and the military.

There it is. Full circle from monetary slavery to liberty and back to monetary slavery.

For a very short time, the United States was a beacon of freedom to guide the world. That beacon was quickly extinguished by Hamilton and the bankers. All Americans should pray for the success of the Canadian Action Party. If it can restore economic freedom to the Canadian people and their country, Canada may one day be a beacon to guide us back to freedom.

Return To TOC

Go Ahead. Tread On Me.

I was very concerned that the alleged assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords would draw the anti-Gun Nuts out of the woodwork. It looks like this may already be happening.

Bruce Reed has been selected by Joe Biden as his chief of staff. Dennis Hennigan of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said he thinks Reed “has his heart in the right place on guns” and will want to do the “right thing on guns” says a Politico news story on the Reed appointment.

No doubt the “right thing” will be further unconstitutional infringements on our fundamental human right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and our country from criminal elements in our streets and in our governments. As “our” government becomes more and more tyrannical with each passing day, it's a good time to remind ourselves of what happens to disarmed citizens when faced with such tyranny.

The following are the words of Paul Harvey. I regret that my source did not list the date this aired.

********

Something To Think About
Paul Harvey on Guns

Are you considering backing gun control laws ? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment doesn't matter?

Consider: In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control.

From 1929 to 1953 approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

It has not been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide:

Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults are up 8%, Armed robberies are up 44% in that country's state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%.

It's time to state it plainly: Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.

********

There are a couple of lessons for Americans to learn from our own history. Remember that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right and is automatic for citizens of any nation. It is, however, not a right of subjects or slaves.

The American colonies experienced an attempt at gun control at Lexington and Concord. The British tried to deprive their American subjects of their arms. That attempt failed and, after a long struggle using the arms retained, a new nation was born, a nation of citizens not subjects.

We see another example of restriction of the right in the old deep South. Slaves were not permitted to keep arms. It makes sense when you think of it. Had they been permitted to bear arms even close to the quality born by their masters, they wouldn't likely have been slaves very long.

If we give up our right to keep and bear arms, we will be saying, “Go ahead. Tread on me.”

Return To TOC

Some Old Thoughts

In 1996 the Republican Party sent out a propaganda piece titled: Mandate for Leadership. I just found this while going through some files from an old computer. It was my response to the survey. I attached it to the form before returning it. My comments are just as valid today as they were 14 years ago.

MANDATE for REPRESENTATION

The following are my answers to the questions on the Republican National Committee’s survey, “Mandate for Leadership”:

1. Which of the following do you think is most important for Congress to do in 1996? (Lower taxes - Cut federal spending - Both)

The most important thing for Congress to do in 1996 is return the federal government to the bounds set by the Constitution. Do that, and reduced federal spending and lower taxes will follow.

2. Do you support Republican efforts to balance the federal budget by the year 2002? (Yes-No-Undecided)

Neither party has any intention of balancing the budget. The moneyed aristocracy of the New World Order would not permit it. Under the landed aristocracy of the old order, the serf was bound to the land. The American serf is bound to the national debt. Still, restore the Constitution and a balanced budget will follow. [I didn't say this at the time, but it is becoming obvious to more people that this applies to the serfs of all nations.]

3. Should this Congress try to simplify America’s tax code? (Yes-No-Undecided)

This is a joke--right? The tax code is complex by design. The idea has always been to create hidden “loopholes” so that those who benefit most from extravagant government spending can escape the crushing burden of taxes levied on the rest of us. “Tax Reform” usually comes when too many of us have learned of the “loopholes” and are using them. The code is then restructured to create new “loopholes” for the super-rich. Congress will not “simplify” the tax code.

4. Would you support abolishing the current tax rates and imposing a simple, flat tax rate, so that everyone pays the same percentage of taxes on their income?
(Yes-No-Undecided)

No one should be forced to pay someone else’s bill. Taxes should be apportioned according to benefit received. This means a “fee for service” concept of government wherever possible. A very low flat tax would probably be the fairest way to apportion the minimal cost of Constitutional government (see answer to question one) not covered by use fees. Of course, if taxation was based on a percentage of representation in Washington today, then the super- rich would pay one hundred percent of the taxes.

5. To create new jobs and protect current ones, should Congress focus primarily on policies to make the private sector economy grow, or should they try to create and fund new government jobs programs through higher taxes?
(Focus on private sector saving & investment policies-Create and fund new jobs programs-Other_____________________)

Government jobs are institutionalized unemployment. Once created they are unlikely to go away. They increase the burden on the productive (private) sector of the economy. This causes more unemployment and a “need” for more government “jobs”. The cycle continues until the economy collapses. Restore constitutional government. The Federal Reserve and the bulk of the Federal bureaucracy will be eliminated immediately. The giant corporations will gradually crumble under their own weight. Free enterprise will be restored. A free American people will restore the economy.

6. Do you believe our Social Security system is financially sound for future generations? (Yes-No-Undecided)

A pyramid scheme is a confidence game based on trickery and deceit. It can never be “financially sound” for its victims—present or future.

7. Of all the following issues, which do you think is the most important for Congress to achieve in 1996? (Lower taxes - Create new jobs - Repeal Social Security tax increase - Cut federal spending - Simplify tax code - Cut government regulation/red tape)

Restoring the Constitution is the most important thing Congress could do. All of the choices given in this question will naturally follow.

8. Do you want to see Bill Clinton defeated in 1996?
(Yes-No-Undecided)

Bill Clinton is a Rhodes scholar. Cecil Rhodes, the wealthy British Imperialist who established the scholarships, dreamed of the day America would police the world for the empire. At Oxford, Rhodes Scholars are indoctrinated in Fabian Socialism as a domestic policy and British Imperialism (euphemistically called “globalism”) as a foreign policy. Clinton and other Rhodes Scholars should be registered as agents of a foreign government. They should not be allowed to serve as President. The Tories have controlled America too long. British domestic policy has been our domestic policy. British foreign policy has been our foreign policy. Rhodes’ dream has become America’s nightmare.

We need an American in the White House. Someone who will stop the squandering of young American lives all over the world and of our wealth at home and abroad. We need someone who believes in true internationalism as expressed by George Washington — friendship to all and entangling alliances with none — and who will work with Congress (not over or around) to bring an end to the interventionism that now posses as internationalism.

Unfortunately, globalist Dole is no more qualified for that role than Clinton.

9. Will you support the RNC and its effort to send out this Mandate for Leadership Survey to thousands of taxpayers in the next 60 days.
(Yes-No-Undecided)

No American can support a Mandate for “Leadership”. The basic principle of American government is representation not “leadership”. The leadership principle (das Führerprinzip) was born in Nazi Germany and should have been buried with the Führer (the Leader). America was built on the premise that the people are better able to manage their own affairs than are a gaggle of bureaucrats and politicians. I’m wary of megalomaniacs who want to “lead” a whole nation. I’m wary of would be Führers. The people should be, too!

Return to TOC

PLEASE HELP!!!

It was never my intention to make money from this blog or to use it to solicit funds for any cause, but a crisis has arisen that makes it a humanitarian necessity.

On October 26, 2010 an article by Megan Murphy in the UK's Financial Times has revealed a heart-rending story of a devastating financial crisis that has hit a small segment of the world's population.

A Swiss bank, hit hard by the financial crisis, is trying to get the Swiss financial regulator, Finma, to drop a $1m cash bonus cap for its top bankers. The bank has received “complaints it has strained some executives’ personal finances.”

The bonuses are not limited to $1m, but remainders are to be paid in deferred cash and share awards. The bank wants the additional cash for “their top earners” says the Times.

According to one UBS banker, the limits are creating a hardship making it tough for the top earners to make their mortgage payments and keep their kids in [elite] schools. [Heaven forbid their kids have to go to public schools and rub shoulders with our kids.]

Murphy reports that other investment banks such as Credit Suisse, Barclays and Goldman Sachs, are having the same problems. To get around it some have increased base pay for these executives. The Times says, “A managing director at a global investment bank, for example, can now expect to earn a $500,000 salary before bonus, up from $200,000 to $250,000 before the crisis.”

It's very important that we be especially kind to that incredibly well dressed family that just moved in next to us in one of the many tent cities springing up all over the globe. They may have just had their villa on the Riviera foreclosed.

But just being kind may not be enough. I'm now soliciting funds to help bailout the bank executives. I'm asking everyone to send what they can up to regulatory limits*. Please send checks or money orders (no cash please) payable in Uzbekistanian Som. Make checks payable to “Save Our Bankers” and send to the West Bank of the Delaware. On behalf of S.O.B. and the S. O. B.'s we're helping, I thank you.

*International rules require a limit of 500 in whatever currency is used for private charitable donations to help out bankers. Please do not exceed the limit.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a3eded6c-e133-11df-90b7-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss&ftcamp=crm/email/20101026/nbe/AsiaMorningHeadlines/product

Return to TOC

Regulation, Reform, and My Uncle Remus

Regulation, Reform, and My Uncle Remus

People often say that Big Business controls the government. I agree wholeheartedly, but when those making the statement are asked, “What can we do about it?” the answer usually comes back, “We have to give Congress more power to control Big Business.” Duhhh! If Big Business controls the government, and if we give more power to the government, then we're giving Big Business more power to destroy their competition through regulation and taxation. That's exactly what has been happening.

The old mantra was regulation, today it's “reform.” I caught onto “regulation” a long time ago and I think I have a pretty good handle on the meaning of “reform” if experience with tax “reform” is any indicator. Every ten or fifteen years, politicians, bureaucrats, and the media are “shocked” to learn of massive loopholes in the tax laws through which extreme wealth escapes taxes. Usually, this happens after the loopholes have become more generally known and many less wealthy people are beginning to use them. The laws are “reformed,” and the cycle begins again. It then takes another fifteen years for the new loopholes built in for the wealthy to become more generally known and then the “shock” and “reform” repeats.

One of the latest developments in the regulation and “reform” arena is reported by Brooke Masters, Quentin Peel and Francesco Guerrera of the UK Times Sept. 12 & 13. The subject was a meeting of the global regulators of the Bank for International Settlements in Basel where new global bank capital standards were being set.

The reporters indicated that most BIG [emphasis mine] US and European banks would not have much difficulty, but smaller banks could struggle to meet the new requirements. [Nothing to worry about. The big guys will be happy to absorb their business.]

The Times does report warnings that the new, stricter requirements might crimp economic recovery, but not all agreed (or at least admitted it).

Still, Masters, Peel and Guerrera tell us “One senior banking executive said the rules would prompt banks to hoard capital and cut lending capacity at a time when the US economy is struggling...”

“There is nothing we can do: more capital on our balance sheet means less capital available to the rest of the economy,” the executive is quoted.

Welcoming the agreement, the Times informs us, is Tim Geithner, US Treason secretary and CFR and Trilateral Commission member who the Times quotes as calling it the “next step on the way to strong global financial reforms.” There you have it. The money powers behind the CFR and Trilateral Commission want these “global financial reforms” and national sovereignty and the well-being of the peoples of the world be damned.

In light of this development, I thought it might be appropriate to relate this little story my Uncle Remus told me a long time ago, when “regulation” was the buzzword. Uncle said:

“One fahn day, ole small businessman Brer Fox finally caught da corporate monopolist Brer Rabbit and was decidin' what ta do wit him. Jus' den Brer Rabbit he say to Brer Fox, 'Yo can do anythin' yo want ta me, but please, please, please don't fling me in dat thar heavily go'ment regoolated en controlled economy. Hearin' dat, Brer Fox he chuckle' to hisself en flung dat rabbit right smack dab inta da middle o' dat regoolated economy.

Fo' a while Brer Fox he jus' listen' en laugh' at da loud weepin' en wailin' en gnashin' o' teeth comin' from dat regoolated economy. Den dere was nuttin'. Hah!, thunk Brer Fox. Ahv'e finally done away wit thet selfish, greedy rabbit. But, soon, Brer Fox he hear laughin' en singin' en da clinkin' o' gold coins from da regoolated economy. Den da rabbit he call' out, “Brer Fox, Ah tol' yo not to fling me in hayah. It was in da medieval economies o' Europe, heavily regoolated by da trade guilds en corporations, dat mah family grow' en prosper'. We loves da go'ment regoolated en controlled economy becuz we controls da go'ment.”

Today, Mom and Pop Fox's little store is gone, replaced by a unit of the Lickety Split chain. The tiny Fox Manufacturing Co. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rabbit Enterprises, Inc., and the Brer Fox Savings and Loan, having been lured into an economic trap by agents of Bunny Investments, has been swallowed up by the First Hare Commercial Bank of America. Brer Fox himself ended his days as unskilled labor, barely scratching out a living in a division of Rabbit Enterprises. Sadly, as John L. Lewis predicted,* his sons were killed in the New Dealers' War.

*In 1940, John L. Lewis, head of the United Mine Workers Union, urged his followers to vote against Roosevelt or he would make cannon fodder of their sons. This at a time when the whole New Deal swore we would stay out of Europe's war. The “New Deal” turned out to be the same old dirty deal from the bottom of a stacked deck.


Return to TOC

Still Working The Plan

Still Working The Plan

In a recent UK Financial Times' article, Times writers Whipp and Anderlini reported that China is on its way to passing Japan as the world's second largest economy.

Understandably, Japan's per capita GDP remains well ahead of China's.

Regardless of the per capita standings, according to the Times reporters, Cornell professor Eswar Prasad, a former head of the China division of the IMF said China passed Japan in influence and dynamism long ago.

I don't think anyone should be surprised. We've been working for decades to make China the premier economic and military power in Asia. This is being done to facilitate creation of the United Republics of China encompassing most of Asia as depicted in the New World Moral Order map and plan from 1941-42. I noted that this was going to happen when I first posted segments of the map in various political discussion group galleries some 15 years ago.

http://phreedomphan-lostliberty.blogspot.com/2008/07/new-world-order-death-of-america.html

Return to TOC