Ron Paul and Barney Frank on Larry King Live

Show: Larry King Live
Channel: CNN
Date: 12/16/2009


Larry King: Good evening. The healthcare fight in Congress has stalled in the short run. Is it going anywhere in the long run? Joining us to debate the issue are two top members of the United States Congress. Barney Frank, Democrat from Massachusetts. He chairs the House Financial Services Committee. And Ron Paul, Republican of Texas, a member of the House Financial Services Committee as well. Ron is also a medical doctor.

Okay, Congressman Frank, we’ll start with you. Is this dead on arrival in the senate, or do we have a shot there?

Barney Frank: You know, one of the things that’s most troublesome to me is the lack of interaction between the House and the Senate. There is just an institutional barrier. They tell you this; I’m not really sure what’s going on. I’ve been pretty preoccupied up to last Friday with the financial reform regulation. So I haven’t looked at it. But I don’t think it is dead. There was a great need to do something. We do have some people who are always going to say, “It can’t be perfect, I’m against it”. Those are not the kind of people who ought to be elected in office, because that’s not the way a democracy works. So I believe you are still going to see a pretty good bill.

Larry King: And what do you believe, Ron Paul?

Ron Paul: I’m afraid he’s right. That’s something that will come down. Since I take the approach that we don’t need more government in medicine and blame so many of our problems that we’ve had too much government in medicine already. So I’m not anxious for anything to come. But really the question is how you pay for it. And I think more and more Americans, at least now, are getting worried about how you pay for it. And even though I have an idealistic approach to medicine and everything that I do, that we should do it with less government, I do think everybody should be concerned about paying for it. And that is the reason why we can’t hardly ever talk about anything economical without talking about foreign policy. And that’s why I’ve emphasized that the waste overseas is so bad and it gets us into trouble. And we’re fighting these wars that are never declared and they’re endless. So I’d save hundreds of billions of dollars by bringing our troops home. And I would be willing to put a lot of that into medical care. But I still wouldn’t endorse the idea that we need more government management of care.

Larry King: Do you both philosophically believe that no American should go without healthcare?

Barney Frank: Well, I don’t think we can guarantee that by the government. But I have to say something first, and I’m afraid it’s going to be very disappointing to many of your viewers. I agree 100% with what Ron Paul just said. The hundreds of billions, the trillions we are on the verge of wasting in wars that do us more harm than good. That surely is very important. And Ron Paul has spoken very accurately and I do believe that we ought to have a system that extends medical care. But you can’t guarantee it. I think we can do a lot better in providing it. And I would also say that, whatever my difference with Ron Paul is, I think Medicare is a good thing. I think for older people they’re better off on Medicare than what replaced it; and that’s government medicine. I would also say the most popular form of medicine in my experience is the wholly government medicine that is dispensed by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs. The veterans I talked to would get very angry and someone said we’ll abolish medical services of the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, which is after all wholly government owned.

Larry King: Congressman Paul, would you agree that the public at large doesn’t want you as a body to fail again to come up with something that improves what we have?

Ron Paul: Well, everybody does, but I might believe very sincerely that you can improve it with less government. Others would believe that you have to have more government. For instance, in the imperfect world that we have, I don’t think we should be cutting out funds from Medicare. You know, it’s in big trouble already. But they were talking about taking 400 billion dollars out of Medicare to so-called pay for these others. That doesn’t make a lot of sense. No, I agree with the idea that everybody should have good healthcare. But I just don’t believe that government delivers on their promises. And when you think about houses; we were going to give everybody a house. And look, the poor people lost their houses. It was good intention, but the programs didn’t work. So that’s why I’m afraid that when you promise people healthcare, that some of them will come up short.

Barney Frank: Ron, I think there is a difference here. The mistake that was made by frankly the Bush administration more than anybody else, but some others joined in, which was to give everybody a house to own. I continuously argue that for some people in certain economic categories and in some social categories, rental housing is the appropriate form.

Larry King: Barney, didn’t you support Fannie Mae and the like?

Barney Frank: For rental housing, yes. I was very critical. In 2004 George Bush ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to start buying low-income mortgages from low-income people. I opposed it. I made a big distinction. I think pushing people into owning houses when they couldn’t afford it and weren’t organized enough to do it was a mistake. I was pushing them to do more rental housing and that’s a big distinction.

Ron Paul: I don’t think that we should make those decisions. He may be right about what you should have rental or buying. I like people to make their own choices. But I do think that we push some of these programs with community reinvestment acts and easy credit. There were a lot of things that encouraged this. I am convinced that if had a little sounder monetary system and we didn’t have this so easy credit, people wouldn’t be making so many mistakes.

Barney Frank: I have to respond to that because Ron there has got it backwards. The Community Reinvestment Act is not the problem. The Community Investment Act only covers banks, things that are technically called banks, that take insurance deposits. And they made a small percentage of the bad loans. The bad loans were made overwhelmingly by banks not covered by the Community Reinvestment Act. And the problem was too little government; not too much. You had private citizens lending money to other private citizens without regulation. Many of us tried to get rules adopted to prevent that because we saw the negative consequences. The Community Reinvestment Act was not involved.

Ron Paul: Barney, I wanted to bring it up because I didn’t want him to think that we agreed on everything. But no. Okay, go ahead.

Larry King: The Republicans today had a freeze for few hours on the debate, insisting that the 767 page amendment be read aloud. There is obviously some stop. Key question: Barney and then Ron. Barney, are we going to get a bill?

Barney Frank: I believe you will. You know, they used to read things aloud in the parliament in England in 1600 because they didn’t have any typewriters, much less computers. But I think you are going to get a bill.

Larry King: Ron, we’re going to get a bill?

Ron Paul: No, I’m saying that we will not. We will get something, but not a real bill. I think there will be some incremental increase in government involved in medicine, but it won’t solve our problems. So I guess in a sense there will be a bill, but it’s going to be very, very minimal. And it will be just something where they can say, “Look, we did something”. But we’ve been doing this for 35 years; incrementalism. But we have corporatism, the corporations run this show. The drug companies, the insurance companies, the management companies. They run it, so the corporations are still being protected even with this administration.

Larry King: Barney Frank and Ron Paul remain with us. Ben Bernanke is Times Person of the year. Some other panelists join us. Should he be? That’s next.


Larry King: Barney Frank and Ron Paul remain. Joining us now in Los Angeles Tanya Acker, the political analyst with the Huffington Post, and Ben Stein, the economist and former presidential speechwriter and columnist for Fortune Magazine. Before we get back to the total economy, what are your thoughts, Ben and Tanya, about the role Joe Lieberman is playing in this healthcare question? Tanya, you first.

Tanya Acker: I have to say I am so shocked and appalled. Actually I shouldn’t say shocked; but I do find his behavior fairly appalling. Particularly his new stance about the Medicare buy-in. You know, he said in an interview last night with Daniel Bash that he had to take a principled stance against this bill. But it seems that he’s really taking a principled stance against himself. Because he used to support these provisions, but apparently doesn’t like them now because people he doesn’t like are supporting them. I think that he’s really a big disappointment.

Larry King: Ben, what’s your take on Lieberman?

Ben Stein: Well, last time I looked, he represents the state of Connecticut which still has a very, very heavy presence of insurance companies. I’m sure he’s obliged them, I’m sure he wants to please them. And anyway buyins for people 55 to 64 for Medicare would be very, very expensive to a government and a people who are already basically broke by government overspending. But he represents the state where the insurance companies are. It’s not much more complicated than that.

Larry King: But the people are very liberal.

Ben Stein: The people are very liberal but the people have lots and lots of money and who can give it in a concentrated way are with the insurance companies.

Larry King: Let’s get to business. We start with Barney Frank. What do you make of the Federal Reserve chairman being named Time’s Man of the Year? They said he just doesn’t reshape U.S monetary policy, he’s led an effort to save the world economy. There you see the cover. What do you think, Barney?

Barney Frank: Well, first of all I don’t subscribe to the concept of a man of the year or a woman of a year. I think it is kind of agonistic. When reporters ask me, “What’s the one thing you would do?” And I said, “Well unfortunately I have more than one thing to do”, so I never make the pick. I do believe that it is accurate to say that he’s been a major force; after all he is a major piece of continuity. He starts under the Bush administration. Ben Bernanke was a high ranking George Bush appointee, first on the council of economic advisors, then as chairmen of the Federal Reserve. He’s the one who initiated the whole intervention. It was his decision; not Congress and not technically the executive’s decision; although the Bush administration supported him, to give the money to AIG. The whole question of this intervention, or what’s been called bailouts, began in September. So, in fact, as a description of his impact, yes. Now I think he made a mistake in the way in which he did the AIG thing. On the whole, though, I think what he has done has been constructive. I guess I would say this. He gets partial blame for the fact that the crisis arose. Although I think more of it went down with Greenspan. I think he gets a lot of credit for the way in which he’s coped with it.

Larry King: Ron, what do you make of this selection?

Ron Paul: I think it’s pretty neat. He’s the most important guy in the world. And anybody that can create trillions of dollars secretly behind the scenes and spend it with no oversight, I mean that’s pretty important. And he is a counterfeiter. So he is the chief counterfeiter of all history. And I would say that’s very good. And I like it because it draws attention to the Fed, because the source of so many of our problems come from the Fed. The business cycle comes from the Fed. So this, to me, is a real delight. So I don’t have to agree for the reasons that they gave him Man of the Year. Well, yes. But it’s very important that we understand why he is so important and powerful.

Larry King: Tanya, were you surprised at this selection?

Tanya Acker: I was a little surprised, but I have to say, with all due respect to Congressman Paul, I think here was a man who had to come onboard and run and manage things when we were really on the precipice of disaster. And you can call it counterfeiting or, you know, my understanding is the congressman has a very different view of government, the role of government, than I certainly do. But I would say that he deserves some kudos for at least staving off a much bigger disaster. There is still a lot more work to be done. But I think it was a good choice. Bravo.

Larry King: And Ben, what do you think?

Ben Stein: Well, he made terrible mistakes letting the monetary crisis get out of hand in the first place. Way, way, way too little regulation. Way, way, way, too much easy money going into people making mortgage loans. Way too little regulation of Wall Street. Wall Street was playing games with all of our monies walking off with billions in their own pockets and leaving us with trillions in liabilities. But even though he helped to create the problem, he helped create the solution; which was to flood the economy with money and you can call it counterfeit money if you want, representative. But it is money and it is under law money. And he did save the economy, but he had a huge part in harming it. But to me the man of the year is the American fighting men and woman fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe they should be there, maybe they shouldn’t. But they are the real stars in this world.

Larry King: Let me take a break and when we come back Palin and Schwarzenegger are going at it. We’ll talk about that later. We’ll be back in 60 seconds.

Let’s take a call on all of this. Bill […], Georgia, hello. Are you there? Are you there, Bill? Last chance.

Bill: Yes.

Larry King: Okay, what’s your question?

Bill: I want to ask a question: when do these individuals here… I know Bernanke was awarded the prize and that’s all great and wonderful. When do we anticipate seeing these community banks be able to turn lose the money to get the lower middle class and the middle class back to being able to borrow money?

Larry King: The other night Donald Trump said the banks have the money but they’re not loaning it, Barney.

Barney Frank: I’m frustrated by that. And I think here’s the problem; there was certainly no government or obstacles in policy. But you have this problem. The bank examiners, the people who work for the federal deposits insurance commission for the control of the currency. They go out and examine each bank. I’m afraid their culture has been to be too tough. No bank examiner has ever been rebuked because of a loan that should have been made, and wasn’t made. But more often they are rebuked for loans that were made that shouldn’t have been made. And I’ve tried very hard, we have talked to the chiefs of those agencies to urge them to get people to lend. A part of it, frankly, can be counted on the accounting rules can be a problem there. Because as the value of their assets deteriorates and the amount they can lend deteriorates, we’ve tried to fix that. But I think it’s fundamentally probably a problem of the culture of the bank examiners that we’re trying to change.

Larry King: You agree, Ron?

Ron Paul: Yes, to a large degree. I think several things happen. After there is a bubble burst, then even borrowers get very skittish. Even if interest rates are low, they’re worried. Bankers get skittish because they lost all their money and they get frightened. I think Barney makes a very good point that the regulators get overzealous. That, of course, is the reason I don’t like regulators. But he mentions and he has talked to the regulators. They’re overzealous. They overreact because, in a way, they’re a third factor. You have the consumer not wanting to borrow, the bankers not wanting to lend. Then the overzealous regulators come in and say, “You better be careful” and they change the rules right in the middle of the game. So I think that’s what we’re facing.

Barney Frank: The small business people already. They did have a problem. They are ready and we have got to regulators to tell us they agree and it’s just a very uphill battle. I tell you this and maybe this is where I think government can do more. The chairman of the Alaska small business community had proposed that we up the Small Business Administration instead of guaranteeing loans made by the community banks, make the loans directly for a while. I think the community banks once they see that they’d better get back in business. I think direct loans would be the way to go.

Larry King: Got to take a break. We’ll pick up with more when we come back.


Larry King: Okay, Tanya and Ben, you get in on this. Two big names in the Republican Party are in a public spat. Arnold Schwarzenegger questions Sarah Palin’s interest in climate change, saying it has more to do with her career and winning the nomination. Meanwhile, she shoots back saying, “Why is Governor Schwarzenegger pushing for the same sort of policies in Copenhagen that drove his state into record deficits? What do you make of that spat, Tanya?

Tanya: I think that’s absurd. I think that’s another one of the absurdities that we’ve heard from former governor Palin in recent weeks. As a citizen of the state, trying to reduce emissions is not what’s pushed California to the brink of disaster. That simply isn’t it. And the fact that she’s one of these global warming deniers for whom the jury is still out, I think really speaks to how she values science. Or rather how she refuses to value science. I firmly stand behind my Republican governor. That’s my bi-partisan moment for the week.

Larry King: Alright. Ben, what do you think? I know that you’ve put your face in your hands.

Ben Stein: Well, because I am somewhat a fan of Sarah Palin, I’m totally with her about climate change. I think the jury is still out. There are thousands and thousands of reputable scientists who say the jury is out. There is a lot of data that the earth is cooler than what it was 500 years ago or 1,000 years ago or 2,000 years ago. So the jury is very much still out about whether or not there is global warming that is caused by man. But the connection between that and California’s budget problems is nil. There is simply no connection at all. There is one big issue: climate change may be a fraud, anthropogenic climate change may be a fraud. California’s budget problems are incredibly real and painful, and they are not a fraud.

Larry King: You don’t like person or man of the year, Barney, but having said that, who would you have selected?

Barney Frank: I wouldn’t have selected anybody. I do want to get in on the Palin-Schwarzenegger disussion. I think government Palin is critical of Governor Schwarzenegger because he didn’t have the courage to quit his governorship. She defines courage as quitting. And she’s shaming him for not having the guts to quit the way she did.

Larry King: Who would you have named, Ron? I’ll try to see if you answer to the question.

Ron Paul: Well, I haven’t complained too much about Bernanke, he’s a good target. And I get to make my points about the Fed. And, you know, they don’t always pick people for that role for positive things. It could be for negative things. I think the biggest counterfeiter in the world is a pretty good event that we should concentrate on because it wipes out the middle class and hurts the poor and gives us unemployment.

Barney Frank: Ron Paul thinks all money is counterfeit.

Larry King: Barney, who would you have picked?

Barney Frank: I would go with Ben’s pick.

Ben Stein: I would, without question, pick the American serviceman and servicewoman fighting and serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, putting his or her life on the line day after day. Absolutely without question.

Larry King: Tanya?

Tanya Acker: I’m going to second that. I’m going to second that. I am.

Larry King: Alright. Obama writes a personal letter to the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il. The United States envoy delivers it. What happened to the axis of evil? Obama wants denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Do you see anything wrong with that? Ron Paul? You see anybody wrong?

Ron Paul: Oh no. I like that. I’d much rather him do that. I wished he’d write some more letters. I’d wish he’s write more letters to the Middle East, to the people in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iran instead of putting on sanctions and stirring up trouble and sending in more troops. So we need more letters and more talk. I mean, we left Vietnam in a terrible situation. Now it’s unified, they trade with us and they talk to us and there was no domino theory. The domino was towards capitalism and the West. But Korea, it’s divided. We have troops there, we spend all this money, so it’s about time we wrote some letters. I say more letters, more trade. Let the Koreans get together, let them settle their problems. Best thing in the world we can do is just come home from Korea, save another 100 billion.

Larry King: Ben, what do you think?

Ben Stein: Kim Jong-il is probably as evil a person as there is on the planet. He’s made his entire country into a penal colony, a gulag. He starves people to death by the millions while he lives the life of an incredible international playboy. This is a guy that has flawed every international law. The idea that you can change him by writing him a letter is comical. And the idea that we should not be defending South Korea against them is comical. I don’t know where these ideas come from, but it’s just comical.

Tanya Acker: I think the issue really is one of engagement. I think it’s been well known since his former boss President Nixon engaged with the really bad guy Mao Zedong who was running China. And so I think the whole issue was whether or not we were going to engage. Now, you know, whether it is writing a letter or picking up the phone. Look, I’m not going to speak to what are the mechanics of how we engage with people who we don’t like. But we’ve come up with the foreign policy where we’ve treated our interests like a video game where we said, “You don’t like us, we’re not talking to you until you do exactly what we say when we say it.”

Ben Stein: […] had already said he wanted to have an approach with the United States and already sent many messages to Nixon about that. If that happened with Kin Jong-il I’d be with you entirely. It hasn’t.

Larry King: Barney, quickly, what do you think?

Barney Frank: I’m very close to Ben Stein’s view. I would try sanctions, and I thought my friend Ron was being too cavalier about this. This is a terrible man who has done terrible things. South Korea has become a democracy with our help and we should be very proud of that. The frustrating thing is that the People’s Republic of China, who wants to be a responsible nation, is failing on its responsible by not helping us put pressure on North Korea. But North Korea with nuclear weapons is a very scary thought and it takes strong action to stop it.

Larry King: We thank Barney Frank, Ron Paul, Tanya Acker, and as always Ben Stein.

  • Cindy

    Barney Frank is GREAT, MA got it right sending him to DC!

    And our Governor is actually doing a great job too! I was regretting voting for him for awhile, but he’s back!
    Coporatism, Ron Paul is right about that part, let’s cut em back down to size.


    • Redfish

      Down to size?? BF is authorizing over a trillion dollars for an unnecessary consumer protection agency. Fat cats get fatter. Instead of trying to enforce existing regulations he and they create another level of bureoucracy at the taxpayers expense. Do you know that the CPA as proposed enshrines too big to fail with another 4 trillion $? Stop spending my money!! You have 100 terrorists in Afgan so we spend $3 billion and send over 30,000 more troops into harms way? Obama seems like just a shadow presidency of Bush. Nobel Peace Prize and he accepts it??!!! WTF kind of character is that??! I seriously regrets voting for that lame duck president running on a ticket of change and lies. Not one of his campaign promises does he keep. Not one. He lied to get himself elected. The guy disgusts me

      • Redfish

        Too big to fail is anti-competitive, anti-capitalistic and anti-free market. Too big to fail is a crime against nature. Enshrine anti-competitive in a democracy???!!!

      • Redfish

        This is a culture of corruption. How you can sit back and just take it I don’t understand. No moral directive? Scary. Apathy usually is to those non

    • Redfish

      Cindy, please. Vote them all out, They are all crooks bought and sold

  • longshotlouie

    Hit them where it hurts

    • Redfish

      Hi longshotlouie: I did that a few months ago Closed out my B of A account and went to a small credit union. I also stopped paying on my “Too big to fail” banks credit cards – does that help? I heard on Bloomberg about an hour ago that the new consumer protection agency enshrines the “Too Big To Fail” banks. The guy read the whole bill, and it’s grown. He also stated part of the enshrining of those banks is a perpetual bail out fund (paid for by taxpayers of course) of at least $4 trillion. This government is out of control. Too big to fail is anit-competitive, anti-capitalistic and anti-free market. I know. I’m in real estate and the broker profession is all but gone and the appraiser profession is being decimated. All so the banks don’t have to compete and get to keep all the money from closings. The Fed has created a monster of greed that they will not allow to die and be put out of our misery.

  • The Democrats say “this is not perfect but we can pass it and then work on it as needed”(healthcare). Can you say INCREMENTALISM as in the frog in the pan who gets the heat GRADUALLY? This is what has happened with the FEDERAL RESERVE for 96 years! In 1913 the
    American people were told that the central bank (NOT federal(privately owned), NOT reserve (fractional reserve at less than 10%) and NOT a system but a printing press that charges the USGov. (you and me) interest for making the money that we are obliged to use. 16 years later the FED presided over the crash of 1929 and the GREST DEPRESSION.Why didn’t the Congress PULL THE RUG FROM UNDER THEM when they “ran us into the ditch? Did you know that much of the GOV. debt is interest to the FED? RON PAUL is RIGHT ON when he says BERNAKE is COUNTERFEITER in CHIEF and more powerful than the President.

    • That’s the most interesting question regarding the FED. It seems to be that most Americans were just as incredible stupid back then as they are now? Zombies they are, ignorantly losing the last hope of earth….

  • What I meant to say was will I be able to get affordable Medicare when I am 65! Also these guys give these little “SWEETHEART” Deals to these guys that would’ve otherwise voted against!
    We cannoy afford this so-called health care bill! Because We’re spending money on these mindless wars, spend congresses pet projects, and keep bailing out these failed banks! I didn’t say we spend money on the automotive industry because I live in MI not to far from the Detroit area and we rely our economy on this specific industry unfortunately! I think that I shouldn;t have to rely on just one industry to keep our economy moving! Also my state has the highest unemployment rate in the country at 14.7%!
    Besides some of the good provisions in this bill won’t be in effect til’ 2014! Which is another reason why it should be shot down!

  • As much as I disagree with him on some issues! He’s right! That Government has gotten too big! I am also glad that he don’t want to see these big greedy corporations get bigger as well! Barney Frank thinks he know’s everything! But he don’t! This Health Care Bill that the Senate is debating is meaningless! It will not insure all Americans! Some of the provisions that I like won’t be in effect until 2014! Also the Government and the Insurance companies will invade into our decision making! The Cost is way to high! I don’t want to be fined and jailed for not getting health care! Because it’s already too expensive! Just wait until it get’s free! & I’m only 24 years old! In the next 41 years or so I’m worried if I’m getting to get affordable health care! & will there still be benefits!

    • S

      any useful health bill should include penalty for mind control so that people can be ok the next for decades.

      And allow people to develop reliable measurments of it, so that we all can see life in next 40 or more years.

      Bottomline: your nick inspired that sudden thought and I just typed it.

  • Suasponta

    Mr. Magee, your post is a lot to take in quickly. And I’ve read some of this petition, but, please a quick synopsis on the core of it would be nice. The federal government took the state of Mississippi agriculturally? Basically stole it from the farmers? What?

    • The basis of the petition is that the Federal government has neglected to enforce the law of the land allowing the wealth of the raw material producers of our Nation to be stolen.

  • Mailed 12/18/2009 from Hattiesburg, Mississippi via USPS to Washington, D.C.

    I need Amicus Briefs in support of my petition against the Fed.

    In The
    Supreme Court of the United States
    acting through the FARM SERVICE AGENCY
    On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
    to the United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit
    1452 SCR 50
    Mize, Mississippi 39116
    In Almighty GOD’s most Holy and Wise Providence the petitioner a citizen of the sovereign State of Mississippi comes to this the highest court in our Republic seeking reconciliation for the redemption of his families lost constitutional property rights by government fiat by the perversion of justice. As Martin Luther so aptly stated and I concur “Here I stand I can do no other.”
    1. Whether the USDA appraisal is in conflict with Article I Sec. 8 of the constitution depriving a protected economic citizen of these United States of his property based on an unconstitutional fiat-inflated currency issued by the Federal Reserve Banking Corporation as the basis of the appraisal?
    2. Whether the statutory and regulatory schemes implemented during the depression under 7 U.S.C. 601 & 7 U.S.C. 602 if not enforced place a burden on farmers constituting a taking of private property under the “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment without just compensation?
    3. Whether the Court of Appeals violated the petitioners “Due Process Clause” protection under the Fifth Amendment by the denial of the damage claim by the agency without administrative appeals being offered to the petitioner?
    Petitioner Marvin Clyde Magee, Jr. was the plaintiff in the district court and the appellant in the court of appeals.
    Respondent United States of America acting through the Farm Service Agency of the United States Department of Agriculture was the defendant in the district court and the appellee in the court of appeals.
    Petitioner has no parent corporation, and no publicly held company owns 10% or more of its stock.
    QUESTIONS PRESENTED…….……………………..i
    OPINIONS BELOW…………………………………….1
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE………………………..2
    1. The Complaint…………………………………….2
    2. The District Court’s Decision……………………3
    3. The Court of Appeals’ Opinion………………….3
    AS REQUIRED BY LAW NO LONGER EXISTS.…..………………………………………………7
    APPENDIX A: Opinion of the Fifth Circuit
    Court of Appeals, dated July 20, 2009…………….1a
    APPENDIX B: Order of the Fifth Circuit
    Court of Appeals denying en banc rehearing
    dated, September 21, 2009……………………………….5a
    APPENDIX C: Opinion of the District Court
    Southern District of Mississippi, dated, July
    18, 2008………………………………………………..7a
    APPENDIX D: Statutory Provisions Involved…22a
    Appley Bros. v. United States 164 F.3d 1164 8th Cir. 1999………………………………………………………13
    Hepburn v. Griswald 75 U.S. 603 (1869)……………6
    Lewis v. United States 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)……..11
    McBride Cotton and Cattle v. Veneman 289 F.3d 89 D.C. Cir. 2002…………………………………………..12
    Mellott v. Heemer 161 F.3d 117 (3rd Cir. 1998)…..24
    Sugar Cane Growers Co-op of Florida v. Veneman 290 F.3d 973 9th Cir. 2002……………………………12
    U.S. v. James Daniel Good Real Property et al (92-1180), 510 U.S. 43 (1993)…………………………….11
    U.S. v. Mitchell 463 U.S. 206 (1983)……………….11
    Article I Section 8…………………………..13, 18, 22a
    5th Amendment………………………………………22a
    5 U.S.C. 601………………………………………….22a
    7 U.S.C. 602………………………………………….23a
    Beck, Sen., Kentucky………………………………..19
    Castelar, Emilio, Roman Catholic scholar………..22
    Chase, Samuel P., Chief Justice SCOTUS…6, 7, 16
    Congressional Record………………………………..18
    Dickens, Charles, Novelist…………………………..17
    Grant, U.S., POTUS………………………………….18
    Greenspan, Alan, Fed Chairman………………22, 24
    Hazzard Circular……………………………………..19
    Jackson, Andrew, POTUS………………………13, 27
    Johnson, Lyndon, POTUS…………………………..22
    Ladd, Sen., North Dakota…………………………..18
    Lincoln, Abraham, POTUS……………………..15, 18
    Lodge, Henry Cabot, Sen., Massachusetts…….…14
    Luther, Martin, Reformer…………………………..21
    Madison, James, POTUS…………………………5, 21
    Marshall, John, Chief Justice SCOTUS………….13
    Marx, Karl, Author-Communist Manifesto………23
    McFadden, Congressman Louis T……………..14, 26
    Morrill Tariff…………………………………………..17
    New York Times………………………………………15
    Patman, Congressman Wright……………………..25
    Pickering, Judge Charles. …………………………..24
    Ranke, German historian……………………………21
    Rockefeller, David, Chairman of Chase Bank……10
    Smith, Dr. E.W………………………………………..21
    Taylor, John of Caroline, Colonial Leader………..16
    von Bismark, Otto, Chancellor of Germany………16
    Webster, Peteliax, Colonial Leader………………..20
    Marvin Clyde Magee, Jr. respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgement of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth District.
    The opinion of the court of appeals (App. 1a-4a) is unreported. The order of the court of appeals denying petitioner’s petition for rehearing en banc (App. 5a-6a) is unreported. The opinion of the district court (App. 7a-21a) is unreported.
    The judgement of the court of appeals was entered on July 20, 2009, and a timely petition for rehearing en banc was denied on September 21, 2009. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254 (1).
    The pertinent statutes and constitutional provisions are reproduced in the appendix. The statutes involved are 7 U.S.C. 601 & 7 U.S.C. 602. The constitutional provisions involved are Article I Section 8 & the 5th amendment.
    The Fifth Circuit and the U.S. District Court of Southern Mississippi have abdicated their oath of office by allowing the existence of a quasi-federal central bank owned by private stockholders independent of the three branches of government and blatantly unconstitutional. Congress and congress alone has the sole power over monetary value. This power to plunder and loot the people was given to a private cartel of bankers in 1913 using paper money through deflation and inflation.
    The Complaint
    May 12, 1933 the United States in the midst of the Great Depression entered into a covenant with the states to regulate the prices paid to farmers in the marketplace, which elevated their economic status to that of being a public utility regulated in the interest of National Security. The State of Mississippi gave up its constitutional right and freedom to regulate agriculture within its borders. The petitioner purchased a 676 acre farm on his 23rd birthday May 12th 1976 and produced crops and livestock for market from then until February 2006 when notified by a USDA official to vacate the farm or face eviction by U.S. Marshals. The petitioner then filed to protect his constitutional rights in the U.S. District Court for Southern Mississippi. Judge Wingate failed to protect his
    civil rights by failing to issue an injunction barring
    USDA from evicting the Magee family from their residence until litigation was terminated. The USDA decision-maker John T. Crout stated on tape during a National Appeals teleconference that as long as litigation was in process leaving the farm would not be required. The petitioner requested this case to be dismissed without prejudice since an injunction was not issued. A complaint was then filed in Smith County, Justice Court to protect the petitioners’ property rights and the maximum judgement was granted. The complaint in question was then filed in state court and then removed by the U.S. Attorney to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi as case # (3:06-cv541-HTW-LRA).
    The District Court’s Decision
    The District Court opinion was completely deferential to the agency and their appraisal of the property based on an inferior paper currency with no legal defined value. The prices Magee received for his commodity crops do not reflect this valuation. This decision came at the expense of the Magee’s individual civil and property rights, which has resulted in bankruptcy being filed by them on October 16, 2009 as a direct result of the forced removal from the farm they spent working for 30 years (1976-2006).
    The Court of Appeals Opinion
    The Fifth Circuit in its opinion stated that “The second claim is based upon various policies of the federal government, which he asserts depressed his
    income. Had it not been for these policies, he argues, would have made over two million dollars more than he actually did.” The court stated that these policies of government have no merit in this case. If that be true, then prisoners have no right to petition the court about their treatment by the Mississippi Department of Corrections or Federal prisons. Another example would be the Mississippi Public Service Commission not being accountable to the citizens for maintaining adequate power at an affordable price. The commission is required by law to allow the utilities to furnish energy to the consumer at a price that will be profitable for them to operate. USDA by law is responsible to maintain the markets farmers sell into regulated as to provide prices sufficient to generate a profit for farmers just like a public utility receives prices to cover their costs and make a profit. The 1933 law required USDA to regulate market prices received by farmers so as to offset the cost of production inputs. According to USDA’s own records for the past 30 years farm prices on average have failed to reach 50% of the legal price published each month by USDA for farmers to remain profitable. Does the court system not provide checks and balances when the legislative or executive branches have failed to do their duty under law to protect the property rights of farmers? The crops and livestock owned by farmers are property and they must receive a fair price from the market. In the first
    claim for review of the agency’s appraisal, the Fifth Circuit and the District Court dodged the issue differing to the agency and their USPAP guidelines. This begs the question then which laws are more important or carry more weight than regulating the market so farmer’s gross income reflects that of the other sectors of the economy, which figured prominently in the inflated USPAP appraisal for the property? Does this not amount to outright thievery by government fiat? An appraisal should have been based on the farm productive value of the property gauged by a physical equivalent currency of intrinsic value.
    This is discrimination at the highest level. The Great Depression of the 1930’s was directly attributed to the low farm prices received by the nation’s farmers as a result of Federal Reserve action in 1920. We are once more gripped by another Depression caused once again primarily by 30 years of neglect by the federal government to keep the covenant made in 1933 with the states to maintain profitable prices for farmer’s crops and livestock based on true physical value.
    James Madison gave as his reason for withholding his notes from the constitutional convention was that; “its publication should be delayed till the Constitution should be well settled by practice.” These notes were published in 1840 over 50 years after the Constitution became the law of the land and 30 years before President U.S.
    Grant added two more judges to the court, which overturned 80 years of settled law regarding paper money prohibited by the Constitution as understood by the founders. The Fifth Circuit turned its back on the protected individual and property rights of the petitioner in violation of the U.S. Constitution. In Hepburn v. Griswald Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase stated in the majority opinion that;
    “There is in the constitution no express grant of legislative power to make any description of credit currency a legal tender in payment of debts.” He went on further to say “The making of notes of credit a legal tender in payment of preexisting debts is not a means appropriate, plainly adapted, or really calculated to carry into effect any express power vested in congress, is inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution, and is prohibited by the constitution.” The appraisal in question is defined in Federal Reserve promissory note dollars that are not constitutional money with a definitive value set by Congress. In Hepburn Chief Justice Chase said; “At the time when the note was made, as also at the time when it fell due, there was confessedly no lawful money of the United States, or money which could lawfully be tendered in payment of private debts, but gold or silver coin.” Chase went on to say; “Five days after the day when the note by its terms fell due-that is to say on the 25th of February, 1862-in an exigent crisis of the nation in which the government was engaged in putting down an armed rebellion of vast magnitude, congress passed an act authorizing the issue of $150,000,000.00.
    The compelling reason for this petition lies in the due process of the law. As the Chief Justice stated;
    “The question is whether an act which compels all those who hold contracts for the payment of gold and silver money to accept in payment a currency of inferior value deprives such persons of property without due process of the law.”
    The $899,000.00 USDA appraisal could never pass constitutional muster in terms of physical intrinsic value. A government printing press creating unlimited promissory notes (bills of credit) is no substitute for physical labor, mining, manufacture, or agriculture production in terms of constitutional gold or silver.
    There is no standard of conversion between the physical raw material economy and the financial obligation of the USDA appraisal when it is based on the value of Federal Reserve currency, which does not possess the constant value necessary for determining the amount of raw material production required to pay for the property. This appraisal is represented by false and fictitious money having no existence and represented only by credit and debit figures upon the books of banks. An imbalance has been created by this divergence of the physical and financial economies to the detriment of those producing raw materials in the physical economy.
    Mr. Magee purchased the property in question for
    $225,000.00 in 1976. The year before average prices received by farmers for corn, wheat, soybeans, and cattle according to USDA statistics were as follows;
    corn-$2.54/bu, wheat-$3.55/bu, soybeans-$4.92/bu, and cattle-$.32/lb.
    In 2005 the year of the appraisal average prices received by farmers according to USDA statistics were as follows; corn-$2.00/bu, wheat-$3.42/bu, soybeans-$5.66/bu, and beef-$.89/lb.
    The $899,000.00 appraisal is at odds with the productive capacity of the farms ability to pay the value based on Federal Reserve currency.
    Measuring the farm value worth of the property between 1976 and 2005 there is a huge discrepancy in the actual physical raw material productive intrinsic value of the land, when measured by the loss in value of the Federal Reserve currency.
    For corn adjusted for loss of value in the Federal Reserve currency a price of $8.71/bu. would be needed to equal the 1975 price in 2005.
    For wheat adjusted for the loss of value in the Federal Reserve currency a price of $12.18/bu. would be required to equal the 1975 price in 2005.
    For soybeans adjusted for the loss of value in the Federal Reserve currency a price of $16.88/bu. is required to equal the 1975 price in 2005.
    For beef adjusted for the loss of value in the Federal Reserve currency $1.10/lb. is necessary to maintain the 1975 price in 2005.
    As the court can plainly see the constitutional prohibition for not having depreciating paper money as currency is as clear today as it was in 1787 when it was prohibited by the founding fathers.
    It would require the production of 449,500 bu. of corn at the 2005 price $2.00/bu to equal the value of the USDA appraisal. In 1976 it took only 88,582 bu. of corn priced at $2.54 to equal the value of the property at the time of its original purchase. If the property was based on corn production its value would only have been $177,164.00 in 2005.
    It would be necessary to produce 262,865 bu. of wheat at the 2005 price $3.55/bu. to equal the value of the USDA appraisal. In 1976 it took only 63,380 bu. of wheat to equal the original purchase price of the property. If the property was based on wheat production its value would be $216,760.00 in 2005.
    It would require the production of 158,833 bu. of soybeans at the 2005 price to equal the value of the USDA appraisal. At the time of purchase in 1976 only 45,731 bu. of soybeans were needed to be of the same value as the property. If the value was based on soybean production it would have to be $258,838.97 in 2005.
    It would require the production of 1,002,229 lb. of beef at the 2005 price to match the value of the USDA $899,000.00 appraisal compared to the 1976 Federal Reserve currency value, which then needed
    only 698,757 lb. to equal the original purchase value of $225,000. In terms of beef production if it were used as the basis for the appraisal $626,785.45 would be the value. An overall average
    of these four farm commodities that were produced on this farm for the production value basis of the appraisal would equal $319,886.88 in 2005 instead of the agency appraisal based on a speculative bubble of paper assets on bankers balance sheets.
    In real physical raw material productive value using USDA’s own statistics, these figures clearly show that the property’s farm value is considerably lower than when it was originally purchased in 1976 primarily because of an unconstitutional depreciating currency and an executive branch government agency that refuses to enforce laws to have a fair market for farmer’s crops and livestock.
    This court can stand up for the bankers or for the Magee family. In the book The Other End of the World author Professor Roger Rusk the brother of former Secretary of State Dean Rusk quotes Mr. David Rockefeller a few years ago from a dinner held in honor of Mr. Robert McNamara in Washington at his retirement as head of the World Bank, when he made the following statement:
    ”The world which we have worked to construct is threatened. The gravity of this moment, when Mr. McNamara and others are about to leave their posts while a new administration re-examines American foreign aid policy, is great. If we are going to save the international institutions we have put in place, the moment is now or never, for the struggle between the old guard and the new is going to go far beyond the reduction of capital appropriations. It is going to endanger the The New World Order which we have based on the alliance between Wall Street and Washington. While we men of firms and banks organize international channels of economy and Raw Materials, the government is now building its own diplomatic and economic bridges between Washington and foreign governments. By our methods, our governments
    contribute to the stability and economic growth of the world, our multinationals benefit, and when it is necessary, they contribute their political support. NOW RADICAL CONSERVATIVES ARE ATTEMPTING TO DESTROY ALL THAT IN SEEKING FIRST AND FOREMOST TO SERVE THE NATIONAL INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES.”
    This is evidence that a conspiracy exists to defraud the people of the United States by the bankers and to vilify and try to silence those who would stand in their way, especially conservative Christians that subscribe to the laws of GOD, which this nation was founded upon.
    In U.S. v. James Daniel Good Real Property et al (92-1180), 510 U.S. 43 (1993) held that “Absent exigent circumstances; the Due Process Clause requires the government to afford notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before seizing real property subject to civil forfeiture.”
    In U.S. v. Mitchell 463 U.S. 206 (1983) the Supreme Court held that; the U.S. is accountable in damages for alleged breaches of trust in connection with its management of forest resources on allotted lands of the Quinault Reservation.
    In Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982) the plaintiff sued the Federal Reserve for damages.
    The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Circuit Judge Poole affirmed the district court ruling that Federal Reserve Banks are not federal agencies.
    The 9th Circuit in McBride Cotton and Cattle v. Veneman 290 F.3d 973 9th Cir. 2002 ruled NAD lacks authority to hear arguments that a USDA policy is improper, unlawful or unconstitutional.
    In Sugar Cane Growers Co-op of Florida v. Veneman 289 F.3d 89 D.C. Cir. 2002 USDA failed to Comply with APA procedure. This was not harmless damage it was caused by increasing the supply of sugar thereby depressing the value. This precedent applies to USDA as well as the Federal Reserve increasing the supply of Federal Reserve promissory notes in circulation causing the existing notes in circulation to be lower in value and the loss of purchasing power by American farmers. USDA is charged to maintain parity in the marketplace like the way the NFL has preserved parity among its teams by allowing the teams with the worst records to get the first picks in the draft selecting the best players and maintaining salary caps to keep the teams with the larger markets from dominating the league. The same is required of USDA to keep the farm marketplace from being dominated by large capital corporations from control of the farm market and deprive farmers of the price needed for their crops and livestock. Corporations must be held accountable by USDA and not be able to depress prices with their market power to the detriment of the nation’s farmers.
    In Appley Bros. v. United States 164 F.3d 1164 8th
    Cir. 1999 the 8th circuit ruled that the Appley brothers claim was based on the USDA breach of a mandatory duty. The Appley brothers sued USDA to recover losses suffered on account of USDA negligence. The court awarded the farmers $517,000.00 in damages. In MAGEE v. USA the private property of Mr. Magee has been confiscated through expropriation by USDA’s breach of a fiduciary contract to maintain profitable prices in the marketplace as required by the law passed in 1933, when the states gave up the people’s freedom to have a fair market over to the authority of the United States government for the expressed purpose of maintaining parity for farmers to keep the overall economy in balance.
    In Marbury v. Madison Justice Marshall stated that; “The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States.”In 1913 congress passed the Federal Reserve Act allowing control of Article 1 Section 8 legislative authority over the value of the people’s money to be
    given to a private cartel of banking interests.
    During his time in office President Jackson broke the power of the bankers in the demise of the 2nd National Bank allowing the government of the
    United States to become debt-free within months. The war that split the country 25 years later would
    install the bankers once again through the National Banking Act in 1863 making it impossible for the nation to ever get out of debt without destroying the promissory money supply that was to become the forerunner of the Federal Reserve Note currency.
    In his speech given on the U.S. House floor June 10, 1932 Congressman Louis McFadden stated:
    “One of the greatest battles for the preservation of this Republic was fought out here in Jackson’s time; when the second Bank of the United States, founded on the same false principles of those which are here exemplified in the Fed was hurled out of existence. After that in 1837, the Country was warned against the dangers that might ensue if the predatory interests after being cast out should come back in disguise and unite themselves to the executive and through him acquire control of the Government. That is what the predatory interests did when they came back in the livery of hypocrisy and under false pretenses obtained the passage of the Fed.”
    On December 17, 1913 a few days before the Federal Reserve Act came up for a vote Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts wrote a letter to Senator John W. Weeks as follows:
    “Throughout my public life I have supported all measures designed to take the Government out of
    the banking business. This bill puts the Government in the banking business as never before in our history. The powers vested in the
    Federal Reserve Board seem to me highly dangerous especially where there is political control of the board. I should be sorry to hold stock in a bank subject to such dominations. The bill as it stands seems to me to open the way to a vast inflation of the currency. I had hoped to support this bill, but I cannot vote for it cause it seems to me to contain features and to rest upon principles in the highest degree menacing to our prosperity, to stability in business, and to the general welfare of the United States.”
    In 1861 the northern industrial business interests went to war with the southern agricultural states that left the union fleeing the taxes of the incoming Lincoln administration 50% tariff of which over 75% of this tax burden fell on the south. The armada sent to Charleston Harbor by Mr. Lincoln to provoke the south was in response to the Confederacy passing a revenue tariff to fund its government in the range of 10-15%. The northern business interests knew all commerce would leave the northern ports because of their high taxes on foreign imported goods and go to the low tax southern ports.
    On March 26, 1861 the New York Times ran a story stating that; “The first thing to be done without which all attempts to do anything else are futile and foolish is to prevent the seceded states
    from achieving their independence.”
    The Chancellor of Germany, Otto von Bismark observed; “The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States. If they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economic and financial domination over Europe and the world. Of course, in the inner circle of Finance, the voice of the Rothschilds prevailed. They saw an opportunity for prodigious booty if they could substitute two feeble democracies, burdened with debt to the financiers,…in place of a vigorous Republic.”
    Salmon P. Chase Secretary of Treasury in the Lincoln administration stated that greenbacks were an “indispensible necessity” in the war on the southern states. Eight years later after the war and as the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court he declared them unconstitutional.
    In 1820 John Taylor of Caroline prophetically wrote in the Constitution Construed on page 298;
    “The great pecuniary favor granted by congress to certificate-holders; begat banking: banking begat bounties to manufacturing capitalists; bounties to manufacturing capitalists begat an oppressive pension list; these partialities united to beget the Missouri project; that project begat the idea of using slavery as an instrument for effecting a balance of power; when it is put in operation, it will beget new usurpations of internal power over persons and property, and these will beget a dissolution of the union.”
    Mr. Taylor foresaw the trouble ahead for the Republic. A proper respect for property would have overcome the dissolution of the union in 1861, because of the north over-taxing the wealth of the south. The war resulted in the whole country being enslaved to the bankers.
    In the year 2009 the nation finds itself at a crossroads in regard to the right of property once again with government and business interests in collusion with the Federal Reserve plundering the people’s wealth with unconstitutional bills of credit borrowed into circulation. MAGEE v. USA represents a microcosm of the nation and the effect this collusion is having on the physical wealth of the people in every state of the union.
    This is directly attributed to the subjugation of the south and their fight for freedom in defense of the constitution. The well known novelist Charles Dickens published a lengthy editorial in which he blamed the war for southern independence on the Morrill Tariff. This editorial stated; “The quarrel between the north and the south is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.” Once the south seceded from the Union there was no longer any opposition in congress to high protectionist tariffs and the Morrill tariff passed March 2, 1861. Mr. Lincoln stated in his first inaugural speech;
    “ The power confided in me, to hold, occupy, and
    possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion-no using force against, or among the people anywhere.”
    Collect the tariff from the south and no invasion, fail to collect and there would be one according to Mr. Lincoln.
    On February 7, 1870 in reaction to the Hepburn opinion handed down by the court President Grant blatantly added two new justices to the Supreme Court for the sole purpose of overturning Hepburn, which they did making paper money legal tender in violation of Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution. Did the constitution change or did men’s depravity or inclination toward evil deprive the people of the protections guaranteed by this document? This is the purpose for checks and balances to counter the evil hearts and minds of those holding authority in our United States government
    In the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE February 23, 1923 on page 4361 Sen. Ladd stated:
    “Silver was demonetized by an act of Congress that for treachery, perfidy, and deception has no precedent nor a parallel in the annals of representative government. President Grant, who signed the bill, said that he did not know that the act of 1873 demonetized silver.” Sen. Morgan of New York stated that: “It can not even be fairly said that Congress did it. It was done at the instigation of the bondholders and other money kings, who now, with upturned eyes deplore the wickedness we exhibit in asking the question even.
    Who did this great wrong against the toiling millions of our people?”
    Sen. Beck of Kentucky added that: “The bill demonetizing silver never was understood by either House of Congress.” This made the national debt of the United States payable in gold.
    Sen. Ladd read the The Famous Hazzard Circular issued in the fall of 1862 by an American agent of British financiers and distributed to the nations wealthy it stated:
    “Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power and chattel slavery destroyed. This I and my European friends are in favor of for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborer, while the European plan, led on by England is capital’s control of labor by controlling wages. This can be done by controlling the money. To accomplish this, the bonds must be used as a banking basis. We are now waiting to get the Secretary of the Treasury to make this recommendation to Congress.”
    As the gatekeeper of the Constitution it is past time for this court to repair the injustices at the hands of past evil office holder’s neglect of conforming to the letter of the law as stated in our nations founding document. This generation of Americans must be allowed to overcome the lies and abuses of the past, replacing them with truth, honesty and justice.
    Since 1950 gross farm income in these United States has increased by about 200%, while all other sectors of the economy such as wages, government, industry, etc. have enjoyed increases of 2500-3000% during this time all at the expense of farmers. For every dollar crops and livestock or for that matter any raw material product is produced below the actual cost of production this is added to the national debt exponentially. In response to the Great Depression the Roosevelt administration declared a National Emergency and all the states of the union ceded their power to regulate farm markets to the federal government to regulate farm
    markets so that prices would be more than the cost of producing the crops or livestock. Low farm prices were a major contributing factor causing the Great Depression, brought on by this imbalance of prices.
    This is a quote from Mr. Peteliax Webster a colonial leader in 1789 after the experience of the Continental dollar:
    “Paper money polluted the equity of our Laws, turned them into engines of oppression, Corrupted the justice of our Public Administration, destroyed the fortunes of thousands who had confidence in it, enervated the Trade, Husbandry, and
    Manufactures of our Country, and went far to destroy the Morality of our People.”
    In Federalist 51 James Madison stated that; “But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels no government would be necessary.” Madison was schooled in Calvinism, which taught that men are totally depraved as a result of the fall of Adam. Two
    thirds of the population, who took part in the American revolution were trained in the precepts of John Calvin and the Protestant Reformation started by Martin Luther. Madison patterned the structure of the U.S. government with its checks and balances after the Presbyterian form of government derived from the Bible. The House of Representatives represent the office of Deacon, the Senate represents the Session or Elders and the Pastor, the President or Executive with the church courts or Presbytery the Judicial branch.
    Dr. E.W. Smith said it well; “If the average American citizen were asked, who the true author of our great Republic, he might be puzzled to answer. We can imagine his amazement at hearing the answer given to this question by the famous German historian Ranke, one of the profoundest scholars of modern times. Says Ranke, ‘John Calvin
    was the virtual founder of America.’
    The Roman Catholic scholar Emilio Castelar, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Madrid and later President of the Republic of Spain in 1873, acknowledged:
    “It was necessary for the republican movement that there should come a morally more austere than Luther’s, the morality of Calvin, and a church more democratic than the German, the Church of Geneva. The Anglo-Saxon democracy has for its lineage a book of a primitive society-the Bible. It is the product of a severe theology learned by the few Christian fugtives in the gloomy cities of Holland and Switzerland, where the morose shade of Calvin still wanders….And it remains serenely in its grandeur, forming the most dignified, most moral and most enlightening portion of the human race.”
    In 1966 prior to becoming Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan stated that; “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.”
    In 1964 President Johnson prior to signing the Coinage Act of 1965 removing silver coins from coinage stated: “Silver has become too valuable to be used as money.” This paved the way for
    unlimited debt to be placed on the backs of the American people via his Great Society programs, which passed Congress in 1965.
    In the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto Karl Marx states in the 5th plank: “Centralization of credit in the hands of the state , by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” The Federal Reserve has that monopoly on credit creation for use by the central socialist federal government planners.
    In natural law, when gold or silver are used as money and the forces of supply and demand are thwarted by government intervention, the amount of new metal added to the money supply will always be closely proportional to the expanding goods and services which can be purchased with it. Long-term stability of prices is the dependable result of these forces. This process is automatic and impartial. Any attempt by politicians to intervene will destroy the benefit for all.
    The following is a synopsis of the results of bailing out the Mexican government and U.S. Bankers by the U.S. Treasury via the Federal Reserve following the devaluation of the Mexican Peso after the North American Free Trade agreement went to effect and the negative effect the crisis had on the Magee family. It was during this 1994 and 1995 time frame that Marvin Clyde Magee, Jr. defaulted on his production loans due to the Peso devaluation, which flooded the U.S. market with Mexican tomatoes driving the price down for Magee and other producers, which resulted in USDA seeking foreclosure of his farm
    and home. This was done while the bankers were being bailed out by U.S. taxpayers courtesy of the Federal Reserve bankers meeting in secret with the public made aware 5 years after the fact. On March 25, 1999 in Magee v. Glickman (2:99-cv-PG44) Judge Charles Pickering a former dairy farmer intervened by signing “Order Holding Cause In Obeyance” for the Magee’s stopping the foreclosure since he knew how farmers were treated by USDA. The Magee’s were offered leaseback/buyback and it was accepted and now after 30 years of labor and production lay in the balance because District Judge Henry Wingate for the Southern District of Mississippi did not stand up for the petitioner and his families civil and property rights by not issuing an injunction stopping the threat of removal from the property by U.S. Marshals. The Magee family had no choice but to move due to the publicity in January of 2006 from the U.S. Senate confirmation of one of this courts present members, who ruled that gestapo tactics were o’k to be used by U.S. Marshals in the removal of a Vermont dairy farm family from their home and farm in Mellott v. Heemer 161 F.3d 117 (3rd Cir. 1998) in his 3rd Circuit opinion.
    In the Federal Reserve FOMC meeting minutes 7/5-7/6 1995 Chairman Greenspan states: “Do you mean that we can lower the debt to the public by moving the price of gold up to the market price? That could cut the debt back by a not insignificant amount!”
    Mr. Jordan responds: “I have been trying not to
    mention that publicly for fear that someone might want to do it.”
    Mr. Greenspan: “It’s probably too late; we just mentioned it.
    Mr. Jordan: “It will become known five years
    from now!”
    Mr. Lindsey: “Five years from now, it will be read in the transcript for this meeting.”
    Chase Bank and other banks played a major role in and profited greatly from the collapse of the Mexican economy in the 1990’s while receiving taxpayer funds via the monetization by the U.S. Treasury of the Federal Reserve’s created money on a balance sheet out of thin air. Where are the checks and balances envisioned by the founders?
    Is this what our founders had in mind when they met in Philadelphia in 1787 to guard the people from the central government? I don’t think so. I hope and pray that this court would honor the founders by reviewing this case brought by the petitioner to regain the protection of his and the American peoples freedom, liberty, and property rights from a tyrannical oppressive government in collusion with modern day Wall Street pirates.
    This money creation which is put into the system when banks extend loans, eventually becomes a source of funding when our government bonds are sold to the public. Here is how Wright Patman former House Banking and Currency Committee Chairman for 16 years summarized the process:
    “I have never yet had anyone who could, through the use of logic and reason, justify the Federal Government borrowing the use of its own money….I believe the time will come in this country when people will demand that this be
    changed. I believe the time will come in this country when they will actually blame you and me and everyone else connected with the Congress for sitting idly by and permitting such an idiotic system to continue.”
    On May 23, 1923 Congressman Louis T. McFadden another former Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee brought formal charges against the Federal Reserve for numerous criminal acts including conspiracy, fraud, unlawful conversion, and treason in a petition for impeachment of its officials. In 1934 McFadden made a speech on the House floor condemning the Federal Reserve, here are excerpts of that speech:
    “Mr. Chairman, We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known…The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the nations debt…They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers, and rich and predatory money lender. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man’s throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures’ there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set in motion their gigantic train of crime.”
    “These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this Country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us our hospitality by under mining our American institutions.”
    After this speech Cong. McFadden suffered two attacks on his life. The first when he was exiting a cab at Washington hotel two shots were fired at him, which lodged in the cab and another time when he became violently ill at a political benefit in Washington. He was saved by a physician friend at the banquet, who procured a stomach pump using it to remove the poison from him. He survived to live only a while longer until October 3, 1936 dying from heart failure sudden-death after a dose of intestinal flu.
    President Andrew Jackson stated in reference to the bankers: “You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out.” And he did by the grace of GOD while being shot at on the capitol steps and almost impeached by Congress for taking on the bankers.
    The petitioner and the American people are hanging in the balance waiting for the scales of justice to prevail preventing the foxes (bankers) from guarding the henhouse (people). This court must once again reassert its role as the gatekeepers of the people’s rights as defined by the letter and law of the U.S. Constitution. Resolution of this case is critical to maintain the integrity of the U.S. Constitution and should not wait because of the harm being done to the people by the Federal
    Reserve’s behind closed doors actions, which have resulted in the American people’s hard earned wealth being confiscated by an unconstitutional paper Ponzi Scheme. To GOD alone be the Glory.
    The petition for writ of certiorari should be granted.
    Respectfully submitted.
    1452 SCR 50
    Mize, Mississippi 39116
    DECEMBER 2009
    July 20, 2009
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    No. 09-60009
    Summary Calendar
    Plaintiff – Appellant
    acting through the Farm Service Agency,
    Appeal from the United States District Court for
    the Southern District of Mississippi
    USDC No. 3:06-CV-541
    Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    In September 1999, Marvin Clyde Magee conveyed his 670-acre farm, located in Smith County, Mississippi, to the Farm Service Agency
    (“FSA”) insatisfaction of a $686,349 debt. In 2000, Mr. Magee entered into a five-year agreement to lease back the property from the FSA. Under the lease agreement, he had the option to purchase the property at the price that, in accord with FSA regulations, would be determined by an independent appraisal.
    In 2004, Mr. Magee expressed his intention to exercise the purchase option, and a Mississippi State Certified Appraiser appraised the property at $899,000. The FSA’s Review Appraiser confirmed the appraisal after determining that it satisfied the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (“USPAP”). See 7 C.F.R. § 761.7 (requiring that agency appraisals comply with the standards contained in the USPAP).
    Contending that the appraisal was inflated, Mr. Magee took an administrative appeal to the National Appeals Division (“NAD”) of the United States Department of Agriculture. A hearing was then held in which he argued that the comparable sales relied upon by the appraiser were not the best
    available. He also argued that the timber on the property was valued too high and that some of the appraiser’s calculations were incorrect. The Hearing Officer affirmed the appraisal. Mr. Magee then exercised his right to a review by the Director of the NAD. See 7 C.F.R. § 11.9. The Director affirmed the Hearing Officer’s determination.
    Mr. Magee then filed an action in federal court seeking review of the appraisal, but shortly thereafter he requested that it be dismissed without prejudice. He filed a second action, the one
    underlying this appeal, in Mississippi state court. In the caption of his complaint, he listed George W. Bush and the United States Government as defendants. The complaint implicated all branches of the federal government and several previous presidential administrations. All, he asserted, had conspired to defraud him of his God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The executive branch, he claimed, had failed to keep food prices stable and neglected its duty to keep farmers, like himself, financially strong. The United States Congress, he argued, aided this fraud by subsidizing mega-farms. Finally, he asserted that the federal judiciary, unduly influenced by the University of Chicago Law School, had been willing accomplices in this injustice. For these wrongs, he sought $2,376,292 in damages and an injunction preventing the sale of the farm.
    The FSA removed the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The FSA then filed a motion seeking dismissal or, in the alternative, summary judgment. The court granted the FSA’s motion for summary judgment. Mr. Magee now appeals.
    The first of his two claims sought review of the agency’s appraisal. When federal courts review an FSA determination, we are required to apply a standard that gives great deference to that agency’s ruling; we can set aside an FSA determination only if it acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner, or
    not in accord with the law. Kinder Canal Co. v. Johanns, 493 F.3d 543, 547 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.).
    Mr. Magee bore the burden of proving that the $899,000 appraisal was erroneous, see 7 C.F.R. § 11.8(e), yet he has offered nothing that indicates that the appraisal must be disregarded. We, like the district court, must conclude therefore that he has failed to show the courts that the FSA’s decision was arbitrary or capricious.
    The second claim is based upon various policies of the federal government, which he asserts depressed his farm income. Had it not been for these policies, he argues, he would have earned over two million dollars more than he actually did. Here is a list of some of the policies and events that he blames for his revenue shortfall: (1) a grain embargo placed by the United States in 1980; (2) the entrance of millions of illegal aliens into the United States; (3) the North American Free Trade Agreement; (4) the failure of the United States government to adequately enforce antitrust statutes; and (5) the failure of the Secretary of Agriculture to maintain market conditions favorable to farmers.
    Mr. Magee’s claim for damages, based on policies of the government that only have broad general applicability, has no merit. We therefore affirm the
    district court’s grant of summary judgment.
    For the above reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    No. 09-60009
    acting through the Farm Service Agency,
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson
    (Opinion__—-,_, 5 Cir.,, F.3d)
    Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIUM: Filed September 21, 2009
    The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be-polled on Rehearing En Banc, (FED,R,APP.P. and 5TH Cir. R. 35) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is also DENIED. () The Petition for Rehearing
    is DENIED and the court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the court and a majority of the judges who are in regular active service and not disqualified not having voted in favor, (FED. R. APP. P. and 5TH CIR. R. 35) the Petition for Rehearing EN BANC is also DENIED.
    ( ) A member of the court in active service having requested a poll on the reconsideration of this cause en banc, and a majority of the judges in active service and not disqualified not having voted in favor, Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.
    United States Circuit Judge
    Order on pet for reh and re EB-REHG4A
    v CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06-541 HTW-LRA
    Acting through the Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, et al. DEFENDANTS
    Before the court is the motion of the United States of America (United States) asking the court to dismiss the above-styled and numbered cause to the dictates of Rule 12(b)(6)i, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or to grant to defendant summary judgement under the aegis of Rule 56 (b) & (c)ii, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, [Docket No. 21]. Plaintiff here is Marvin Clyde Magee, Jr., who challenges a decision by the Farm Service Agency (‘FSA) of the United States Department of Agriculture under the Administrative Procedure Act, Title 5 U.S.C. §§701, et seq.iii This dispute involves a 670 acre farm and homestead located in Smith County, Mississippi.iv By this lawsuit, plaintiff Magee seeks: (1) to enjoin the defendant United States from selling or disposing of any part
    of the farm and homestead; (2) to require the United States to restore in his nam title to the farm and homestead; and (3), to compel the United States to award him compensatory damages in the amount of $2,376,292.00.
    The defendant here objects, the United States objects to any finding of liability against it and has responded with its motion to dismiss or for summary judgement. Plaintiff also has submitted a motion for summary judgement, his being under Rule 56(a)v Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, [Docket No. 25] wherein he contends that he, not the United States, is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. For the reasons which follow, this court is persuaded to grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgement and to deny that of the plaintiff’s.
    On September 2, 1999, plaintiff and his wife conveyed to FSA 670 acres of land located in Smith County, Mississippi. This conveyance was prompted by the Magees’ decision to settle their indebtedness to FSA of $686,349.87.
    On May 4, 2000, the plaintiff Magee and his wife entered into a lease agreement with the FSA pertaining to that same 670 acre farm and homestead the Magees previously had conveyed to FSA in settlement of their defaulted The lease was for five years with an option to purchase and an expiration date of May 4, 2005.
    On August 2, 2004, the Magees expressed an
    intention to exercise their option to purchase the property from FSA. So, on September 21, 2004, Bill J. Morris, the FSA’s appraiser, and a Mississippi State certified General Real Estate Appraiser then completed a real estate appraisal of the property and determined the market value of the property to
    be $899,000.00. Merchantable timber was valued at
    On November 23, 2004 Charles Cole, Jr., the FSA’s Review Appraiser, completed a technical review of Bill Morris’ appraisal and found itr to be in accordance with the requirements of 7 C.F.R. §761.7vii (previously 7 C.F.R. Part 1922) and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). Cole, too, is a Certified Real Estate Appraiser.
    On January 19, 2005, Clyde Magee met with the FSA to discuss reconsideration of the November 23, 2004, review appraisal had overvalued the property. The FSA informed Magee and his wife that they failed to provide any information that could refute the value or the accuracy of the appraisal or affect the amount of the purchase price. The Magees, then, were informed of their appeal rights.
    The Magees took an administrative appeal of the FSA determination to the National Appeals Division (“NAD”) of the United States Department of Agriculture. Nevertheless, NAD rejected the appeal. The Hearing Officer was unimpressed with the Magee’ argument that the comparable sales relied upon by FSA were not the best available for the appraisal, that the timber was valued too high,
    and that some of the calculations with regard to buildings were in error. The Hearing Officer further concluded that the FSA had not erred when it offered to sell the 670 acres back to the Magees for $899,000.00.
    After the decision was issued, Magee requested a review of the Hearing Officer’s decision by the Director of NAD pursuant to 7 C.F.R. §11.9.viii On October 20, 2005, the Director issued a determination affirming the decision of the Hearing Officer and the FSA.
    Aggrieved with the NAD’s appeal determination, Clyde Magee first filed in Federal Court a lawsuit addressing this matter, but then voluntarily dismissed it. On September 13, 2006, Magee filed a second lawsuit, this time in the Circuit Court of Smith County, Mississippi, asserting his dissatisfaction with the FSA ruling, the outcome of the NAD appeal, and seeking injunctive relief.
    The United States removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on September 29, 2006. Magee sought to remand the case to state court under the authority of Title 28 U.S.C. § 1447ix. This court denied the motion to remand on September 10, 2007, finding that this action seeks judicial review of a final agency decision by the FSA, and the affirmation of that decision by the FSA, and the affirmation of that decision by the NAD. Consequently, this court concluded that this case falls under the Administrative Procedure Act, Title 5 U.S.C. §§701, et seq. See also, Title 7 U.S.C. § 6999 x and 7 C.F.R. § 11.13 (same). Thus, this is
    persuaded that this lawsuit is properly in this federal forum for the purpose of reviewing an administrative agency’s decision. xi
    The United States now submits that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the United States is entitled to judgement as a matter of law. This court, faced with a Rule 12(b)(6), as well as a
    Rule 56 motion, chooses to analyze the facts of this controversy under the summary judgementxii standard of Rule 56, rather than dismissal under Rule 12.
    Marvin Clyde Magee, Jr. is the sole plaintiff in the case. His complaint asserts that once the United States government approved the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mexico was able to flood the United States market with tomatoes, driving down prices, and causing Magee, a produce farmer, the financial harm which led to his inability to pay his loans.
    Magee next derides the “Chicago Schoolxiii” of economics which he believes to be overly influential upon the judicial branch of government. Magee complains that the United States favors corporate interest over the rights of the common man. He also argues that the appraisal in question has enabled the government to confiscate his property.
    Magee says his claim for damages against the United States is based on the failure of the United States Congress to maintain the value of the dollar, permitting it to become too soft against other
    currencies and ruining Magee’s ability to obtain goods and services, all in violation of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States.xiv
    According to Magee, his gross farm sales between
    1980 and 2004 were $4,374,712.00, but would have
    been $7,200,000.00 if the value of the United States currency had remained stable. The difference between these two figures is $2,376,292.00, the amount of damages now sought by Magee. The failure of the FSA to respond to this claim for damages prior to his filing of this lawsuit, says Magee, constitutes tacit agreement by the FSA that this amount is the true measure of his damges.
    Finally, seeking to attack the amount of the FSA appraisal, Magee contends that a comparable sale of property in the area shows the inaccuracy of the FSA appraisal. Magee refers to a March 4, 2005 sale of 53 acres located within ten miles of the farm and homestead in question that was sold for only $25,385.00.
    The United States responds that Magee’s’ allegations utterly fail to contradict the FSA’s contract appraisal. Magee’s assertions pertaining to NAFTA, the alleged influence of the Chicago School
    of economic thought and devaluation of the United States dollar are irrelevant on the issue of appraisal. Further, says the United States Magee’s reliance on an alleged comparable sale of property on March 4, 2005, within ten miles of the farm and homestead is misplaced.
    Judicial review by this court of a National Appeals Division determination is defined by the following principles: (1), it is limited to the agency record. See Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142, 93. S.Ct. 1241, 36 L.Ed.2d 106 (1976); and Texas-Capital Contractors v. Abdnor, 933 F.2d 261, 264 (5th) Cir. 1990): (2) agencies are given deference by courts when agencies’ administered regulations and statutes are interpreted. ld., at 264; and (3), review of their actions is limited to final agency actions. Title 5 U.S.C. § 704.
    The courts review final agency decisions to determine whether the agency decision was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Title 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); Camp, 411 U.S. at 142. Under the scope of review outlined at Title 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D), the reviewing court shall also determine if the agency action, findings, and conclusions failed to observe procedure required by law. A decision is arbitrary or capricious when it is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise. Wilson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 991 F.2d 1112, 1215 (5th) Cir. 1993). The decision must have a rational basis. ld., at 1215. A court is not to substitute its judgement for that of the agency. Motor Vehicle Manufactures Association v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983). The grounds upon which an administrative order
    must be judged are those on which the record discloses that the agency’s actions were based. SEC v. Chenery, 318 U.S. 80, 87, 63, S.Ct. 454, 87 L.Ed. 626 (1943). The burden of proof rests with the party
    challenging the agency action and that party must show that the agency action was arbitrary and capricious. Ward v. Campbell, 610 F.2d 231, 235 (5th Cir. 1980).
    Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment shall be granted if, “[t]he pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Summary judgment is mandated in any case where a party fails to establish the existence of an element

    • Ted O’Connor

      Cut to the chase – did you win? What was your victory literally

      • Siegfried

        I believe Magee lost everything…. it appears that Mr. Magee sent this appeal to the US Supreme Court this Friday 18th 2009 in a last ditch appeal for the fox guarding the hen house to reconsider. In my non-legal opinion, the Summary Judgment should not have been affirmed by the Court. Because…
        1. The FSA hired gun appraiser was a self fulfilling outcome to disadvantage Magee. Magee might have nullified the FSA appraisal had he acted premeptively and paid two equally credentialed appraisers to come to the table with values in the $218,000 range. Appraisals that might have given weight to the NFTA produce flood, USDA non-support pricing and, other market conditions suppressing demand for farm land. I would venture a guess that some Big Ag has snatched up the land for 40 cents on the dollar by now?
        2. Agency appeals are worthless (complaining to the Fox about the Chicken count) in that they fail as neutral and unbiased arbiters of the facts. The FSA is simply a foreclosing agency that stands to gain windfall profits by confiscating farms.

        Magee’s plight is exactly what Congressman Paul is pushing to change. The Fed Reserve is simply a tool of the Elitist to Confiscate the Wealth of the middle class and it’s working very well.

        • The farm is presently growing up in weeds, not being farmed.

  • Suasponta

    As Dr. Paul stated, “That Time Magazine doesn’t always give the man of the year title to good, honest people.” Adolf Hitler was Times Man of The Year 1938! After extolling and honoring a murderous sociopath like Hitler, you would think that the Times Publishers would be ashamed and embarrassed to continue to do it.

  • Oh-Freedom

    America is WAKING UP! HOORAY for liberty. Obama was at the great Copenhagen HOAX and was certainly on the defensive. He repeated that “there is no question whether or not this is real … ha ha ha …. if there is “no question” then why is he having to bring it up? And he certainly looked uncomfortable. He said “this is science.” He should have said “This is science fiction, just to extract more taxes out of the American people and out of the poor.” These scoundrels are relentless BUT the great GIG is UP! We know what your game is and it’s a total scam! They keep repeating this Copenhagen nonsense over and over again, even on supposedly trustworthy radio stations. The military industrial complex truly are masters of deception. And even Bernanke is on the defensive with his ridiculous Time magazine cover as person of the year! He is the criminal of the year and should be tried for treason. Let all honest and humble people unite and oust the scoundrels from their wicked roosts. They may be powerful, they may have money and they have no regard for human life (see youtube PROOF that they were behind 9/11). How can people be so evil? The problem is, that evil often masquerades as likeable and even protective. DO NOT FALL FOR IT. They want more for themselves and less for everyone else. They have committed atrocities throughout the world and will continue to do so until they are fully exposed for what they are – cowardly villians. And George W. Bush WILL be brought to trial for his obvious knowledge of 9/11 (see youtube for proof of his lies). We love you, Ron Paul. Give us victory or give us death. Freedom or nothing. We are supporting you. We are here for you and you are a wonderful human being. Keep up the outstanding work.

  • JustMe

    Dr. Paul is one BRAVE and honorable man. Let’s just go through the basics here – first off, the Federal Reserve was deceptively formed in 1913 by 7 of the world’s wealthiest bankers. This is public knowledge and is detailed in the GREAT book – “The Creature From Jekyll Island” by Griffin. The thing to remember about this initial group is that they were masters of deception. They knew exactly how to get people to trust them and they were able to manipulate any situation toward what they desired. They illegally deceived Congress into allowing them to take charge of the money system. Since then they’ve been creating expansion and contraction of the economy and making HUGE amounts of money in both directions. They’ve also loaned money to both sides of any war that was going on. As Kennedy warned in his speech (just before he was shot – because he tried to take power away from the Fed), this military industrial complex has ENORMOUS amounts of money. Over the past 60 years they have bought up any institution that is able to wield influence over people. In this way, they’ve created a mass “hypnosis of social conditioning” to suit their needs. HOW do you control people? You get them to trust you (like with our current president) and then you just keep telling them the same message over and over and over again, for decades. As Aaron Russo (a friend of Nick Rockefeller) said – “if you tell people enough times, they’ll believe anything.” So, when we see who won the nobel peace prize, perhaps we should ask WHY someone who is expanding war would win such an honor? Maybe the game is RIGGED … big time. Surely there are better people in the world to win such a prize beside someone who is supporting war! Wake up America! Do not listen to mainstream media … they are lying to you, every day. Even so caled public radio is owned by these deceptive thugs. The only way to save our country and our freedom is to have more and more people wake up to the truth – we’ve been decieved by a very clever bunch of killers. And these people are ruthless. Just do your own research and think for yourself. Unfortunately Alex Jones communication style comes across as a bit brash and wild, but he is definitely on the right track. I’d encourage you to see his videos on youtube or just look up “New world Order” on youtube. All the best and keep up the great work, Dr. Paul! You are a TRUE HERO and nothing can take that away … ever … into eternity.

  • Suasponta

    Korea, Japan, Europe, Asia and South America. Seems like a world chessboard for the U.S. Government. The American Military Industrial Complex, full swing. It seems like the United States only real job market is killing these days. Purveyors of death. Perhaps, because 3rd world slaves have pulled out the underpinnings of the U.S. Industrial complex?

    I could go on, however, It’s refreshing to hear Frank agree with Dr. Paul about too much U.S. Global intervention, militarily, and the trillions of dollars needed to keep it so. And, Tanya Acker (and may I say, Tanya, you look marvelous!) agreeing with Dr. Paul on letting some of these nations just do their own independent negotiations and face one another down.

    If it gets too crazy don’t think for one minute that the U.S. will let its interest down, militarily. I know first hand that the U.S. can be anywhere in 18 hours time laying the hurt down. No need to be right in their back yard. Some great football coach once said that the best offence is a good defense, or something to that effect.

    What aggravated me was how they all snickered when Dr. Paul was trying to point out that, in effect, Bernanke is a great counterfeiter. And what they missed was that you can print up tons of paper money. And, unless you have the resources to cycle it to profit, it becomes worthless. All and all, Dr. Paul made good sense, as usual, and had opponents agree with him. Rock On.

  • Jones

    For lack of will power to a needed agreement on the health care issue:

    1-make one hand to contact your brain and another your heart, then start focusing on the issues without political baggage. If you have problems remembering the reason of the meeting or getting distracted just have a needy citizen walk around the round table with a big sign remind you of the issue, like the ones used for the boxing arena.

    2- get out of the office onece in a while, put on a custom and just plainly find out directly from the people what their needs are, then go home and contrast that to what is published or gets to your desk. I really think you’ll find out a drastic difference, and there will be no need to spy on the public for personal habits in search of clues as to what to do for important decisions. Government is disconnected from the governed crowd, there’s a big divide, so both sides are easily conquered by whoever can do that.

    3- the more the public is made hyper and more extreme controls are made to look needed the bigger the mess and the more profits for somebody else not even putting the face to the public, as a health care provider or as government.

    Any illiterate can read through the situation because they are living it for real and are also seeing the woods rather than a tree.

    • Jones

      It does not mean that the solution is to make healthy people sick to be capable of arriving to a health problem solution. That is a totally different issue belonging somewhere else.

  • Jimmy

    I do not know why Mr. Paul goes on shows like this with guests like that. It is obvious that Ron’s views are unconventional yet correct & Ben Stein & al. follow the traditional way of thinking with no cause for change.

    Yeah, Stein, you proverbial buffoon, it is counterfeit $$$$ & eventually all that printing will lead to delution & inflation. I wish Ron Paul could gather enough support to start an actual independent party, like the one Ross Perot tried but lost because of people’s ignorance & stupidity, just like those high school king & queens.

  • jim

    Poor Ron. I think he is so polite with Barney so he can get things passed through congress even though he almost fundamentally disagrees with him. And Barney just seems to use Ron to make himself feel more important. Anyway, thanks for all your hard work Dr. Paul.