Majority of Americans Believe Obama is a Socialist




Ron Paul, Tim Carney, James Taranto and David Asman weigh in on President Barack Obama’s policies.

Date: 07/09/2010

Transcript

David Asman: Hi everybody. Happy Friday, I’m David Asman. Thanks for joining us. Kicking off tonight; “Obama’s a socialist”. Now that’s the view of 55% of American voters, according to a new poll. Now this isn’t coming from a Republican pollster. It comes from Democracy Core. This is a poling group started by a life long democratic operative, James Carville and his partner, Stan Greenberg. When this group asked 1000 voters in mid June “How well does the term ‘socialist’ fits President Obama?”, 55% said well or very well. That’s a BIG group of people! Now this must scare the HELL out of the elites in the media and academia who think such talk is just a provice of folks like Glenn Beck, not the majority of voters. But YES and yes again; It IS Glen Beck and it IS the American people who now think this way.

And when you look at the evidence it IS hard to dispute it. Nationalizing companies in all industries, overriding constitutional laws regarding property rights…. these ARE socialist policies. It’s fair to assume that the man directing socialist policies IS a socialist. And Americans have always been fair. They were fair to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and elect him and after seeing him in action, they are fair to think he’s a socialist. His recess appointment of the new health czar, Donald Berwick, helps confirm that impression. Remember, HE’S the guy who says that “The only way to improve health care in America is to force the redistribution of wealth in this country.” Now that’s the kind of socialist non-sense you hear in academic circles all the time.

And in academic circles, this talk most of the time goes unchallenged. These folks believe people are poor because other people are rich. They even extend that belief to the entire world, believing that the only reason poor countries exist, the only reason they’re poor is because they were exploited by us, the rich countries. Now that’s called “Dependency Theory”, but it’s really just warmed over socialism and it’s got the same emotional core as socialism, drawing its energy from guilt, from envy and from jealousy.

When these ideas are isolated in academic circles, well they’re just another theory to argue about late at night over coffee and cigarettes. But when they’re played out in reality, they can cause devastation. The world has buried in it far more corpses resulting from the envy of socialism than it has from the greed of capitalism.

Now thankfully most Americans, even inside the beltway, understand that income redistribution is NOT the key to our social problems or to helping health care or to anything else. They understand that the ultimate outcome of that belief is to make everybody poor. Americans don’t want a society that pushes everybody down, they want one that brings everybody up, or at least that provides the opportunity for everyone to succeed as high as they can go.

And it is on those great heights that our next guest has been focused over a lifetime of service as a doctor and as a politician. Joining us now from Clute, Texas, near Houston is Republican congressman, Ron Paul of Texas. Congressman, great to see you, thanks for coming in.

Ron Paul: Thank you, David. Good to be with you.

David Asman: Appreciate you being here. So, what do you make of this poll?

Ron Paul: Haha. Very interesting. I think it is bad news for Obama. It certainly is. But you know, we could be a stickler for a precise definition of socialism, but he certainly is socialistic. He doesn’t come out and advocate total ownership of insurance companies and drug companies and health management companies, but he works very hard with them. So it’s a form of corporatism, which lends itself to socialism. I think it’s very dangerous. I usually like to use the word ‘authoritarian’. People who are authoritarian are very socialistic and it can lead to total socialism and I’m afraid that’s the way we’re going.

But there are certainly different versions. Nazism was a form of socialism, communism, Russian communism was socialism, so there’s a lot of variety. But there is no doubt he is an authoritarian, he’s a big government guy, he’s socialistic. I think it’s bad news for him. And I don’t think socialism is a good word. I don’t think the American people like it. They like the words about freedom and liberty and things like that.

David Asman: They don’t like it, but Congressman, but they are fair. The American people have this tremendous sense of fairness and they were fair, as i mentioned, to elect this guy president and now they’re looking at him, they’re looking at his policies and they think they ARE socialist. I mean, Americans; not only are they fair, they love to boil things down to simple points. And that is a simple point, is it not?

Ron Paul: There’s no doubt about it and that’s why I say it’s very bad news and it’s good news for Republicans in general, you know, in the fall because that’s not the direction that we want to go. And I think this came out, sort of, in the health care debate. The country and the people who railed against it knew which direction we were going in. We weren’t going toward more freedom and medical savings accounts and independent choices and alternatives like that. They knew we were going for more government control and redistribution of wealth as now it finds out his appointees are probably a little more blunt with where their heart really is, and that is into socialism and forced redistribution of wealth and that’s a bad sign for…

David Asman: Well you know he’s the guy who appointed him. You know, the buck stops with him. The buck stops with President Obama. As Harry Truman said, the buck stops with the president. I mean, he’s the guy who appointed him, he knows the history of this guy. He’s appointing a guy to head up, to become our health czar, to become the head of Medicare and Medicaid, who does believe that the only way to get better health care is distributing wealth. I mean, he is appointing these guys. He is nationalizing whole industries and yes he is working with the healthcare companies, but don’t you think eventually those health care companies will go out of business as the government takes over more and more?

Ron Paul: Oh yeah. They’ve taken over insurance companies already so i think that definitely will happen. But we can expect the quality of care to go down and the movement is in that direction. But Obama, on his appointees, some people give the president a pass “because it was his advisors and it wasn’t him,” but like you point out very correctly is we, whether it’s me and my congressional office, or if it’s the president making his appointment, we’re responsible because we pick these people, so he can’t duck and say “Oh I didn’t realize he had these beliefs.” He probably very well knew exactly what the beliefs are of every single person that he has appointed.

David Asman: The fact is that American people are not giving him a pass anymore. They are saying “You are now a socialist!” 55%. By the way, I have to re-emphasize. This is the democratic poll. It comes from James Carville, the most democratic Democrat around. So if Carville is saying, you better expect it to be true. So how does the president get out of this? I mean, is this a label he will not be able to duck for the rest of his presidency?

Ron Paul: I don’t see how he will. I mean the more he gets up and the more he denies it, the more attention it will draw. He’s not going to fire all of these people that he appointed and have these viewpoints and I don’t think he’s going to change HIS viewpoints. And still, I will argue the case that possibly he doesn’t have in his mind that he wants the government owning every single thing. I still think that he’s an authoritarian. I-

David Asman: Now YOU’RE giving him a pass, but the American people… I’m surprised I’m hearing Ron Paul giving the president a pass on this!

Ron Paul: Well, I think actually if you understood what I mean by corporatism-

David Asman: No, I get you.

Ron Paul: it’s a much worse system. It leads to fascism is what it is. I mean in Germany, the business people still own their businesses. You can’t have a worse type of socialism than the German fascism did. So the word itself is a healthy word to identify what’s happening. That’s why I would slightly qualify it; socialistic means he wants to take over and to go in and run things and take care of his buddies and bail out his friends. I mean, they’re still involved with a monetary system where they bail out banks and their friends. That isn’t pure socialism when they use this banking system and the Federal Reserve to bail out big banks and big corporations. So he’s in the pocket of big corporations and big banks and that’s a form of authoritarianism, which just for me is a better description.

David Asman: Well again, a rose is a rose. The point is that politically it’s a killer. This label, if he doesn’t get out from this label, it is really devastating politically. Congressman Paul, stay with us please. We want to bring in James Taranto. He’s a member of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, he’s written about this also. Tim Carney, of the Washington Examiner, who has also written about it. Tim, first to you. You agree with Ron Paul, by the way, about how socialist is the wrong term, right?

Tim Carney: Well, I absolutely agree that corporatism is the right word. I mean, Congressman Paul said everything that I was going to say. That it’s a corporate socialism. Socialist isn’t an incorrect word, but there are better words and frankly, George W. Bush made us more socialist than we were. He’s the one who took over AIG through the fed, he’s the one who bailed out Bear Stearns and did the tarp and then started the Detroit bailout, so they are better words to use I think.

David Asman: Yeah, but again, James Taranto, I think this is the sort of thing academics discuss at night, whether it’s corporatist or redistributionist or socialist. I mean, the American people have simplified the issue, I think in a sort of an eloquent way, “It doesn’t matter. Look, the guy’s a socialist. He doesn’t agree with the economic ends that we do”.

James Taranto: I think you’re right. I wrote a column a week ago saying that I think calling the president a socialist is a gross exaggeration and perhaps that shows what an out of touch, liberal, mainstream media elitist that I am.

David Asman: Hahaha, absolutely, as always you have. Has this been picked up on by the way? This is one of the things James does if you don’t know, to study the blogs out there, to find out what the Internet chatter is all about. What are they saying about this poll?

James Taranto: It’s getting a lot of attention, it’s getting a lot of interest, especially among conservatives. But I want to go back. What’s fascinating is how this has gotten into the mainstream, this idea that Obama is a socialist. There were two polls done early in this year, in the winter and spring. One by the Daily Kos, although apparently there might not actually have been a poll there. He’s now accused as a pollster of making up numbers. But another one by Harris Interactive which was inspired by a book by a fellow named John Avlon, who’s arguing that conservatives are wing-nuts as he calls them. And also they shouldn’t engage in name calling. So these polls ask a series of questions that are designed to show that Republicans are crazy. So they ask you agree or disagree to the following statements. And there are things like “Obama wasn’t born in America” “Obama is a Muslim” “Obama may be the anti-christ” “Obama is a socialist”, so the idea that Obama is a socialist, a few months is something only right wing lunatics believed, but now according to this poll, it’s believed by about 55% of the American people. It’s quite astonishing how this idea has moved into the mainstream.

David Asman: Congressman, one thing that’s interesting while this label may be sticking to Obama, other labels for people that the mainstream media and others can’t stand, like your son for example, Ran Paul, they tried to label him as a racist by some of the comments he made. That label doesn’t seem to be sticking, does it?

Ron Paul: Well it’s so extreme and in that instance it was based on a false charge and it wasn’t even correct and there had to be apologies for misconstruing what he said, and you can go too far. And once again, I think you have to give the American people some credit. You know, I’ve been hit pretty hard in a few of my campaigns over the various issues, but sometimes they were just very extreme and the people that knew me in the district were like “Eh we don’t believe that,” and it just passes by them. So I think that is what happens, but it looks like in THIS case, like it was just pointed out, calling him a socialist seems to be pretty appropriate because it seems it was the same percentage that said he was too liberal. So being too liberal and being a socialist is very much the same and I think that’s probably a legitimate comparison.

David Asman: Well James, you were complaining about the term socialist before and you said it’s like you have these wing nuts on the left who were calling Bush a fascist during Bush’s presidency, but you never had 55% of the American public believing that Bush was a fascist. At most it was maybe 20% of the American public. This has gone beyond wing nut, the label socialist.

James Taranto: Yes, and Bush was not even arguably a fascist, there was nothing fascist about Bush’s administration. I mean, there was no effort to silence opposition.

David Asman: But what I’m saying is that the effort to label Bush as a fascist cannot be similar to the effort to label Obama a socialist because the level of American people never came up to 55%.

James Taranto: But this was the contrast I raised. I said calling Bush a fascist was a complete falsehood, whereas calling Obama a socialist is merely a gross exaggeration.

David Asman: Or just a matter of opinion. Tim, what about what’s happened to Rand Paul and other conservatives by the mainstream media, their attempts to label them racist or something abhorrent have failed and have fallen on deaf ears in the American public, have they not?

Tim Carney: Well, yes they have, but it’s incredible because this is all that I see the left talking about. I have a lot of liberal friends and I always say to them, “Why is the most important thing for you to try to bring down Rand Paul or bring down Sharron Angle when your party is in power and is doing, again, this corporatist stuff, this selling out the liberal base,” but on the left I think they are sort of averting their eyes to that and to sort of pick on people who have ideas that are easy to pick apart and that’s what’s going on with Ran Paul and Sharron Angle.

David Asman: Congressman Paul, I just want you to be assured that Scoreboard has many times pointed out the connections between the Obama administration and a lot of corporate entities such as Goldman Sachs, like BP for example. There was no bigger supporter of BP among politicians than President Obama.

Ron Paul: Yeah, that’s right and of course and we find out that BP was a strong supporter of cap and trade, and they were in bed with the government in many ways. So that’s why this connection between big governing corporations is the big and most serious thing going on right now. But the concern about socialism is real and realistic and the people are interpreting it right, even though there might be a technical definition that we all have a slight disagreement on, but I don’t think that’s really too important because I think it’s the direction of the country that counts. You know, when they these questions in all these poles, “are we satisfied with the direction of the country?” and they are not satisfied in the way we are going socialistic, believe me, simplisticly they say “Wrong direction, change the party”.

David Asman: James, I think that’s the point is you know you will never find a 100% of anything whether its capitalism, socialism, it depends on what trend you’re directing towards and clearly it’s THAT trend that concerns the American public.

James Taranto: Well, right, and to some extent when people say “Obama is a socialist,” it’s their way of expressing disapproval for him. Just like when people say “He may be the anti-christ,” or “He wasn’t born in America”, that’s why you get bigger answers to those questions among Republicans. It doesn’t really tell you anything about what they believe except they don’t like Obama.

David Asman: James Taranto from The Wall Street Journal, Tim Carney, Washington Examiner and of course Congressman Ron Paul. Great to see you all, have a wonderful weekend and actually, James is going to be coming back in just a moment and we want to know what you think. “President Obama is a Socialist”, is that declaration a buy, sell or a hold.



style="display:inline-block;width:728px;height:90px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-3666212842414688"
data-ad-slot="9478233584">

»crosslinked«

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

329 Comments:

  1. Well i see a lot of posts here where people are simply trying to figure out the difference between socialism, corporatism, capitalism, etc. and i'm also seeing several very encouraging posts from people who have figured out that there is no difference between them as well. This is something that should be apparent to any 6 year old child who was willing to give the matter a moments thought, but it seems to escape so many adults who would rather jump on some bandwagon all of which are invented by the same people, and believe what they are told, as opposed to simply thinking, looking at whats going on around them and figuring things out on its own.

    What people here generally term as Capitalism involves private banks having control of our currency and credit system, owning our primary means of exchange, introducing currency into the system as debt and progressively removing more than they put in through interest. This enables them to accumulate progressively more and more of the nations wealth at the expense of those contributing toward its useful production, which they do not, which also enables them to establish power and control over our political system, ensuring that it will serve their interests against those of the population which control by this point is absolute, and we are given their choices of whom to vote for in every election, which is evidenced by the actions of our last two presidents from opposing parties and a great many before, and also by the fact that the Republican party did not give Ron Paul a chance to run for president in the last presidential election, despite the fact that he was coming in with over 40 % of the popular support in the initial straw poles, which was more than 3 times the support of any other candidate and the fact that they knew that with him they would have one the election with the greatest landslide in history with full control of both the senate and congress. Bottom line, Ron Paul was the single and only candidate who was not owing his political career to America's banks, and as long as their power remains in place, he will never be our president, nor will anyone else who doesn't exist in service to them.

    Socialism is the final evolution of capitalism, and is simply the end result and the purpose of capitalism, where the banks have managed to accumulate all of the countries wealth, which by this point they have as evidenced by the current and permanent economic crisis, leaving absolutely nothing for its population, have established complete and absolute control over its political process as they have now too, and institute a socialist police state in order to force the population to continue serving them when they no longer have either the means or the will continue to do so.

    Those arguing in favor of socialism should love the capitalists, because they are promoting the end result that the socialists all desire, abject poverty for everyone and absolute power and control over ever aspect of their lives. Those arguing in support of capitalism need to understand that they themselves are the cause of the socialism.

    It should be blatantly obvious to anyone with even the smallest amount if intelligence, who is willing to spend at least one minute thinking about this instead of simply believing what he or she is told, that an economy which functions on debt, and exists simply and only to serve the interests and establish power for parasites who contribute absolutely nothing to it, cannot sustain itself and must eventually collapse as the American economy is in the process of doing right now. If we intend to save America, and save our freedom, and save our constitution, and finally establish the great and abundant prosperity which the population of America is entitled to, and is entirely capable of creating for itself, given the lack of banks manipulating our economy on order to prevent this, the single and way this will be accomplished will be by the introduction of a free and debt free public currency, without the benefit of banks, which exists simply and only to facilitate trade and production and cannot be used in order to buy power for private interests at the expense of that trade and useful production. This is the original American currency, put into circulation by Franklin and the colonies prior to the revolution, and the single and only currency which generated prosperity for the American people far beyond any which existed anywhere in the world at the time, which lasted until the British banks got King George to outlaw the colonial script and forced them to use pounds sterling instead, after which overnight the great prosperity turned into 75 % unemployment.

    The solution should be obvious, stop promoting political and economic philosophies which are invented by the banks to serve their interests, kill the banks that invented them, establish a free and abundant economy where the standard and primary means of exchange which exists simply and only to maximize trade and production and generate the greatest possible amount of prosperity for the American population where this prosperity is determined by our natural ability to produce useful goods and services for each others benefit, and not by the ability of private banks to manipulate that economy for the sake of their own power.

    If America is going to survive beyond the next couple of years, it will be a result of the American people acting together independently of the political process which exists to serve the banks, killing its banking system, killing capitalism, killing socialism, and replacing them with a free currency, a free economy and a free and abundant enterprise system where every persons prosperity is contingent simply and only on the nature and amount of useful work that he or she can do for the benefit of others, and thereby contribute to everyone else's prosperity in the process. Once the power which has prevented our economic freedom is eliminated then our remaining freedoms will be secure as well as there will be no power left to pose a threat to them.

    I am neither a capitalist, nor a socialist. I am an American, I support freedom. I support a free and public currency which exists simply and only for the benefit of the people it is intended to serve. I support the free and abundant economy which would be created by that currency and the establishment of the greatest possible level of prosperity for the American people, where they only limit on it is our ability to produce. Capitalism and socialism are the enemy of same and are my enemies and should be the enemies of anyone who believes in any form of freedom as well.

    Anyway as stated on many of the other blogs here, this is what some of us are trying to motivate on the "Sound Money" blog, so if anyone agrees then get on there and help us do it. Right now its a matter of getting information into the hands of the general population and forcing them to think instead of believe, so were asking everyone to simply scroll back through the posts and forward anything they agree with to everyone on their email lists an get them circulating. We need more posts to forward too, so anyone willing and capable of contributing to that would be appreciated as well. Once we have enough peoples attention, we can propose a course of action to bring this about, which at this point could be as simple as simply organizing enough of the population to simply stop paying all bank payments and federal taxes all at once.

    We do have to try, and every one of us will have to be willing to contribute a lot of time and effort toward this too, as the alternative is something that no one here will want to live with, and as an immigrant to this country, i already have as well. I will die before i live so again, and if the American people allow the destruction of America by capitalism / socialism, there will be no place left in the world for them to escape to.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

    • David I just watched an amature video economic 101 called the goldsmith on youtube. It just stated everything you just said explaining both inflation and fractional reserve banking. I agree both with you and the video completely, the banks have got to go.

      Just a couple of quick questions.

      1. Without private banks where would we put our money. Would we create a public institution that holds on to our money that is non-profit. (Mainly saying it can't loan out money). Just trying to picture this society. If not, all our money would be at home. Not as bad as we have today but wouldn't there be alot more B@E's. Just don't like the idea of someone walking into my house with a gun and taking all my currency leaving me destitute.

      2. I know you're not the biggest proponent of gold but would it work better for you in this scenario. I would still rather something that can't be artifically engineered.

      3. They only thing I take exception to is the idea that in this society you can create a currency that as you said "only maximizes trade and production." You can never kill intent. Sure it will be alot harder for people to make exberant amounts without a banking system behind them , or a currency that can be inflate. But this society still wouldn't be socialist. You would keep what you earn right? You can still get a Bill Gates in this society. Meaning someone who invents an incredible service, without fraud, and becomes insanely rich. No matter what the currency is could it not still buy political power. The ability to influence lawmakers. I only bring this up because I hope someday this planet has a population that is ever vigilante and therefore forever free and prosperous. What I'm hoping is that the people are safe guarding laws that are just as honest as the currency you want to establish. Both are needed.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      • Hi Jim, and thank you.

        Yes, what i said and the video you watched that confirms this is simple common sense. All a person has to do is look at the cause and effect of the way things have been run here and the inevitable result is obvious, and as an immigrant who has watched this happen already, i can guarantee it, and within the next very short time as well, short of the mass action we need by the American population to stop it.

        In terms of your questions, we've discussed this to death on the sound money blog, and if you'll scroll back through the many posts there, you'll find much more detail on this than i have time to give here tonight.

        In terms of killing the banks as you say, they have got to go. What we need to do is to create a simple, stable and efficient economy which will allow each individual to use his or her natural ability to create useful goods or services for the benefit of the population and allow them to profit from this accordingly so that they can purchase and benefit from those created by others as well. The only possible way i can see to do this, is to create a government, under public control (for the people of the people and by the people, and not for the banks of the banks and by the banks as it is today), that will do the single and only thing that we need it to do, which is create and administer the public commodities which are needed by each and every person in the entire population, the most important if these being the currency we need to trade with each other. This is the exact opposite of socialism and consequently the current form of capitalism as well, and this is how Franklin and the colonies created such tremendous prosperity for the American colonies prior to the revolution. The colonies had no banks so the colonial governments were the banks, they created paper currency which had absolutely no intrinsic value, and created it in sufficient quantities to pay for the full value of what everyone in the colonies could produce. The village blacksmith lived in a mansion, because there was a dollar in circulation for every dollars worth of work that he was able to do, and since his work was useful and was needed by the others maximum prosperity was generated, not only for him but for everyone who benefited from his services, and whom he paid with the money he earned with his services as well, i.e. he could pay the carpenter and brick layer to build the mansion who each had one of their own because the money was there to pay for everything they could do for all of the others as well. Also keep in mind that at that time it took the blacksmith half a day to forge a hammer, this is something i can do in a in large quantity, in minutes each in my shop with the technology and production capacity we have today, so this should give everyone an idea of the potential of this now. This is a working economy, and as long as the currency supply is put into circulation to match the perpetual increase in production capacity which will be generated by there always being enough to pay for the full extent of what can be produced, it will simply keep growing exponentially and way beyond anything that anyone today could possibly imagine, as so far the only guarantee anyone has had is that there will always be less tomorrow than there was yesterday.

        In order to keep the money from buying power, the only possible way to do that is to have it under complete and absolute public control, where the population itself is responsible for electing the people who will manage it, and can vote them out of office if they don't manage it according to the will of the population. The reason we no longer have control over our political system is the simple fact that the currency has always been under private control and used by those private interests to buy power over our political system, so those who would tolerate a private currency for their fear of government have the cart in front of the horse as the private currency is what has created a government to be feared in the first place. If the law makers control the currency and the banks don't exist, then who is there left to influence the law makers except the people who elect them ?. Franklin and the colonies also loaned the colonial script to the population in exchange for low interest rates and used the interest they collected in lieu or taxes. This sounds extremely fair to me and if interest is to be charged, it must be public as this guarantees that it will be put back into circulation immediately, where it can continue to work for the benefit of the population, and if there is to be any form of banking and interest then it must be a public institution and must be non profit, as this is the only way that any form of economy can be sustained over the long term. Again, its simple common sense. My hope is the same as yours, that someday someday this planet has a population that is ever vigilante and therefore forever free and prosperous, and this is the only means that i can see to accomplish that.

        I'm 100 % in agreement with Ron Paul that we should allow competing currencies, and i think that each and every person should have the right to accept whatever form of payment they prefer in exchange for the work they do, and offer any form of payment that will be accepted as well, but as long as we continue to tolerate any form of private banking system and private interest on money we've accomplished nothing as gold and silver are what they used to establish their power in the first place, and then used Franklin's trick and created a private fiat currency which they loaned for interest, against the interest of the population in order to allow them to accumulate all of the countries wealth even faster, instead of creating and distributing it among the population to allow them to use their natural abilities to create wealth for themselves has Franklin had done.

        We do need to look at history though, and if you do, you will not find one single instance where hard currencies ever generated any form of great prosperity for the general population of any country and instead the result has generally been kings, queens, banks and tyrants hoarding all the gold and subjecting their respective populations to conditions of abject poverty and servitude. Alternately, the only thing which has ever generated any great form of prosperity for any population, or promoted any form of individual freedom, has been a public fiat currency with no private banking system, which was put into circulation according to the ability of the population to provide useful production and services. This is simple common sense as well, why limit our prosperity to the amount of some rare substance in short supply when we have the ability to create such a great abundance with our production capacity ?. Money in whatever form is not real, it exists by law or consensus and not by nature, and even hard currencies have an artificial value which is only good as long as law or consensus recognizes that value. Money in any form is simply an artificial means of exchange for which the only useful purpose is to allow a diverse range of people to trade with each other, thereby providing each of them with access to a greater range of goods and services than local barter, along with providing each of them access to a much wider range of people who can benefit from and purchase the goods and services they create themselves. The first to do this was Franklin and the colonies generating prosperity for the American population far beyond what had ever been experienced by any country in the world at the time, including England, the mother country. Unfortunately the second and last was Adolf Hitler, who's ambition was for power much more so than the benefit of his population, but we do need to think about this and what it accomplished. Hitler was elected to power in 1934, Germany was completely bankrupt, where people were literally starving in the streets, just as America is on the verge of becoming now, was at that time as well and would have remained so if the Britain and the Rothschild family, and the banks they established here, had not needed us to save them from Hitler. Within the space of 5 years, Hitler built this bankrupt starving country into a major power that almost conquered the world, even though they were outnumbered 30 to 1. How did he do it ?. Well that's the simplest thing in the world and again something that any 6 year old child should be able to figure out, he simply created a public currency, declared a value for it, and produced it in an amount sufficient to pay for the full extent of what Germany could produce. How did America recover from the 1930's depression, the banks simply printed money and put it into circulation to fund the war production to save them from Hitler, and its taken them this long to take it all out again with their interest schemes, its a simple thing. Germany's economic depression was manufactured by banks, our 1930's economic depression was manufactured by banks, and our current economic depression is manufactured by banks, their production capacity was there, our production capacity is here, as it was in the 1930's as well, and the only reason for any of them has an artificial lack of currency to pay for that production created by the private banks who controlled the currency. Despite the fact that 95 % of the production that was created by Hitler's currency went into war production to serve his power ambitions, the German people experienced prosperity greater than any they had ever experienced in history on the 5 % that was left, so this should give people an idea of the potential of doing this for the public benefit.

        For the socialists on here, this is something that each and every one of you needs to consider very carefully too. You seem to object to lack of medical care, hardship and poverty for the less fortunate among us, or at least you claim to, and I object to these things as well. What you are supporting though, will simply create hardship and poverty for everyone, along with the loss of any and all individual freedoms, and anything else that could possibly make a persons life any form of worthwhile and productive thing. The thing you need to consider, is that most people in this country are working for wages and what they get paid is always a small fraction of the value of what they produce, otherwise the companies they work for would not be in business. If we were to do this, I would greatly prefer the government would finance their operations by charging interest on loans of the public currency as opposed to funding their operations instead of just spending it into circulation, as this would give the population some control over what they did and the people paying for it would be the ones who got the benefit from the loans as well, so its a fair system as opposed to taxes which simply constitute involuntary servitude. How then will they put the currency we need into circulation in order to pay for the full extent of our production capacity ?. The only thing i can think if is to begin distributing a national dividend to each and every person in the country, above and beyond whatever they were able to earn. My guess is that this amount would come out to about $ 1,000.00 a month today, and as such be sufficient to pay for a person's basic living and would very quickly increase to several thousand a month and more as people like me figured out how to produce more given the means to pay for the full extent if the production we were capable of. We would have no poverty, and again the system is fair, as one person does not have to be taxed to pay another and everyone gets the same, from the riches to the poorest, and even the very poorest as well as the very laziest will still have the means to live, and before too long live very well also. People like myself who are in business and engaged in the useful production that this currency would be created to pay for would be getting filthy rich because absolutely everyone could afford to buy the cool shit that were able to build for them, and if your envy is so great that you rather subject yourselves and the entire population to abject poverty, and absolute power and control where you and they would become the property of the state and the banks that own it, in order to deny us this prosperity in exchange for our useful contribution, the go ahead and continue to be a socialist. For the capitalists among us, if your envy is so great, that you would deny the poorest among us the simple means to an adequate existence when you are receiving the same yourself, and where them having this means can be an increase to your own prosperity as well, then this would put you into the same category as the socialist. Since both philosophies are invented by banks and one is a means to the other, both have the same motivations as the banks have as well which are ENVY and POWER, neither of which have ever accomplished anything good in the entire course of human history and both of which are also the root cause of every evil which has ever existed in the entire course of human history as well.

        Why not instead simply let everyone be free to contribute their useful efforts in any manner that they choose, keep everything they earn in the process of doing so, free of any form of taxes or control over what they can do, and give everyone else extra on top of this to allow them to buy more of what the people who are doing the earning produce ? We have the production capacity to create this, why aren't we doing it ? Why do we tolerate the parasites who prevent this, and who create governments that tax away our earnings instead of simply providing us with our means of trade to establish and increase those earnings and our collective prosperity as oppose to destroying it as they do now ?. If anyone thinks this can't be done then just take the combined annual profits of every bank in America, the total annual national budget (loaned from the banks and taxed from the people, much of which is interest paid to the banks on something that belongs to us in the first place), and divide this per capita. Then multiply this amount x 10 in view of the fact that our actual production capacity would be as least this many times more than the money that is currently in circulation to pay for it.

        Lastly no system can ever be perfect, nothing ever is, and no doubt someone is going to come along and say that several of the Colonial governments in Franklin's time went in spending binges and inflated the currency by putting far more into circulation than their populations were capable of producing to match and this is true, it seems that most of them took the idea and created their own currencies independently and some managed it wisely while others did not. If we were to do this, i would like to see the government funding its operation with interest on loans to the population as opposed to spending the currency directly into circulation except through the hands of the people as this would give us greater control of what they did and ensure a fair distribution of the currency by the people themselves. Inflation can be controlled by continuing to inject currency until we see a small amount of inflation and then reducing that injection slightly until the production capacity catches up, but if not, what does it matter ? As long as a person isn't foolish enough to confuse an artificial means of exchange which is designed simply and only to facilitate trade with security, there is little harm done. Maximum production and prosperity has still been generated and if the numbers get too big we just drop a zero and keep going. For those who want to save and think they need money to establish security, they can buy gold, silver or diamonds or any other substance to which people attribute value but again this value is still artificial and as an engineer / manufacturer, i'd estimate the real value of gold to be around $ 20.00 / lb for its useful properties. For those who are really smart, why not do something like buy some land and build some rental properties that can generate income for you over the long term, or invest in a business engaged in some form of useful production for a return on the profits, or start your own business doing the same ? Why not establish your security by creating prosperity for others and in the process provide even more people with some of the things they need ? Sitting on a pile of money, or gold, silver or diamonds is of no benefit to anyone including yourself until you convert them into some form of useful asset that you can actually use, and you run the risk of not being able to do so if the money inflates, or people simply decide they don't want the gold, silver or diamonds anymore.

        For those who insist on doing this though, i'm sure there would be more than enough security companies springing up who would be willing to build a vault and store it for you for a fee, or you could deposit it for free in the public bank just as you do in the private ones today, without running the risk of the bank collapsing and taking your deposits with it. Alternately you can just buy a gun and fulfill your obligation to the Constitution by keeping the means to defend your own freedom and security along with that of your neighbors. Where i live we all have them, we all take care of each other and i could go away for a month and leave 100,000.00 on my dining room table and not worry about it too much as id know it would still be there when i got back. Then again, who would be foolish enough to run the risk of getting killed in a break and enter when they already have a full abundance of everything they need, and probably most of what they want as well ? Alternately, if America's population is not wise enough to act collectively and destroy it's banking system at this point then they will manage to establish the absolute power that they crave as they have everywhere else in the world by now. When they do so, it will be over our dead bodies as well and it will be expensive for them, and this is the only thing that has stopped them from doing so a long time ago already. Each and every one of us who considers themselves an American, and who values the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution, has the obligation to maintain the military capacity to pose that threat to the powers that would destroy them. Yesterday, today, and for all time to come.

        People do incredibly stupid things, for incredibly stupid reasons, simply and only because they have always been done that way and no one is willing to think outside that little box that has been defined for them by the people they have given the power to tell them what to do so they won't have to think themselves. It's long past the time that we started to do this and actually figure out how to make things work and make them work well and for everyone's benefit including our own, and if we don't do it soon we will have lost the chance to do so forever, and for each of you who has children, they will curse you for your carelessness and stupidity, and if they don't kill themselves to get free of the miserable existence you have left for them, then your grandchildren and great grandchildren will curse you as well, just as my generation hated and curse my parents generation where i came from. They could have done something about it when they had the chance, but they were too stupid and lazy to think and act, and they didn't, that's all that it takes.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • Thanks David. You're winning me over slowly. What you want is for people to be paid for what they actually contribute (at least mostly). And you are right, alot of it is common sense we understood as children. My father is a carpenter. In fact an excellent carpenter. The men at our church, even the other carpenters, wouldn't work on any repairs of the church without asking him what to do first. I remember clearly, I was 15, and all these men looking at my dad on how to fix a complicated leaking problem. Dad always let's other people talk first. So the guys were arguing and then they tenatively asked Dad what to do. He told them what he thought, they all wagged their heads and went and did actually what he say. I remember thinking at the time that my dad provided such a needed function for society. And yet how little he was paid for it. He built both our houses by himself as well. The first one about 25 years old now and still looks great. Know the new owner.

          I think that's when the apathy sets in for most people. You know something's screwed up with system, too complicated to understand (I was 15 and girls were the priority) and that's when people just start flowing with the system. Nobody else seems to understand and you let yourself think it's ok you don't.

          So thanks for the history lesson. I still am a little partial to gold (haha). It's just the alchemist in me. It just can't be manufactured. But as you said earlier actucally irrelevant. Just let there be competing currencies. But as a man against all things public, you're pulling me in that direction. Of course you understand it would take an awfully informed populace to keep your system from being corrupted. Do I think it's possible? Do I have that much faith in humanity that people will care enough ,to learn enough ,to take care of their own self-interest? To tell you the truth, yes actually. As long as the internet remains free people can learn from each other so much more easily. And I believe in watershed moments. Once enough people learn (say 5-10%) then their ideas permeate the society. You have definitely given me alot to chew over. Thanks.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • Often look for your comments on these pages. Just so you know you are making a difference.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • Hi Jim, and again thanks.

          I'm so glad that this is starting to make sense to you, and it is to many other people by now as well. You've made some very good and thought provoking statements in this reply as well.

          Your seeing the same thing i am now too, the only legitimate way to make money and the only legitimate form of business is to be engaged in something which provides some sort of tangible benefit (goods or services) which someone else can actually use or will simply want. Any form of business which does not do this (i.e. makes money by manipulating money, etc.), exists as a parasite on the backs of those providing the tangible goods and services, and is nothing short of simple theft, fraud, and a criminal practice. Things have simply reached the point now where the vast majority of everyone's productive effort is being consumed by these parasites and not going back into the system to feed those engaged in the useful production, and it is has reached the point where we simply can no longer eat fast enough to sustain both the parasites and ourselves, and if we are to survive then the parasites must destroyed within a very short time. I saw this coming when i immigrated here 10 years ago, simply due to the fact that pretty much everyone in our cities was working 3 1/2 weeks out of the month to pay mortgage interest on their inflated housing prices and it was obvious that the system couldn't sustain itself much longer. The collapse actually came 10 years sooner than i expected too so its happening fast. Short of mass action by the population, there is absolutely no question that America's death is imminent and inevitable.

          I like what you said in the second paragraph about the people thinking the system is too complicated for them to understand so they don't try, and this is exactly the problem too. In order for anything to actually work, especially an economy, it has to be an extremely simple thing, and the simple fact that they cannot understand it, should be an indication that something is extremely wrong. On my end, and i'm actually my own worst enemy for this as well, but i believe in quality production, and selling one thing to one person, one time. When i do the engineering on a project, the objective is always to come up with the simplest possible way to accomplish the desired function, and in doing so i'll generally come up with a machine which will perform extremely well and continue to do so for the rest of a persons lifetime. I'm sure your father spent his life doing this as well, and this was the reason why the other carpenters would come to him for advice because they knew what he came up with would work and would last. I loved what you said about him too and there's nothing i love in this world more than a good and useful person. I can certainly relate to him too as i just finished building a new home and shop for the business several years ago on some land that i bought and i did all of the construction myself as well, as this was the only way it was going to get done right and the way i wanted it. Between the structures, the plumbing, electrical and finishing it was a lot of work but the end result turned out beautifully and was more than worth the effort. Our corporations on the other hand, pay their engineers to complicate the living crap out of their products, thus ensuring that they will keep breaking down and creating problems and wear out completely within a very short time so that they will need replacing. Then they sell them for a profit of pennies on the dollar and use marketing schemes to impress people with the complex technology which lasts until they actually buy it and it starts breaking down and giving them problems. Then they apply political pressure with the money buys power thing to try and keep good technology off the market, and keep selling the same thing to the same person over and over and over again, when a person could simply pay twice as much once and have something for the rest of their lives rather than having to replace it every 5 years, one year, or every month as they do now, and then use the money the save to generate production of more good and useful things which they could have and keep as well. The reason our economic system is too complicated for people to understand is because our economic system consists simply and only of fraud, and is made complicated by the cheats and scam artists who perpetrate the fraud so that they can continue to steal without the people they are stealing from being aware of what is being done to them.

          I like your last statement too, several months ago, i simply saw the death of the single and only place left in the world where it was possible for a persons life to be a good and tolerable thing, and it seemed at the time that the general population was simply too stupid and careless to actually think and figure out what was going on and realize that something needed to be done in order to prevent their imminent destruction. Over the past few months though this seems to have been changing as well. The vast majority are still not able to think outside the box and imagine something that could work or the potential for themselves of establishing this, but things have reached the point where they realize something is extremely wrong and they will not survive if they don't do something. I think that if enough of us participate in this effort, and get some solutions in front of them, then it may be possible to organize them to act collectively in order to bring the solutions about as well and that's what i've been putting my efforts into on this thing, as of the solution is going to come it will have to be the population themselves that create it, by forcing the political system into compliance, as that is so far beyond our control now that any hope of doing it through the electoral process would seem beyond reason. I loved what you said about the 5 or 10 % of the population as well. and i believe that it was approximately 5 % of the population which actively participated in the American Revolution and who were the ones who brought it about as well, so just as you say, there is hope. I think if we can all keep working on this, within the next 1/2 year or so, we should have at least reached that 5 or 10 % mark where the ideas can begin to permeate society, we may be close to that now already, and all know that something needs to be done and a great many are beginning to realize what as well. I'm hoping that in the course of the next year, we can somehow manage to organize the mass economic rebellion that we need on order to bring about the solution, and i'm actually seeing some small hope of doing that too at this point.

          I understand your statement perfectly as being a man who is against all things public, and when it comes to any form of business or enterprise i am as well. No government has any business engaging in any form of business and the only way for any economy to function, and function efficiently is to let it be regulated by the natural laws of supply and demand. What everyone desperately needs to understand though, is that the currency which functions as that economies means or exchange is not a natural thing, and has to be supplied as a public service, and it's supply should not and cannot be form of business in itself as if it is, then the private interests engaged in the creation and supply of the currency will distribute it to their own benefit and as such the currency itself will destroy the natural laws of supply and demand, making both progressively less than they could be until there is no supply or demand left at all, which is exactly the point we are reaching now. If we don't use government to supply the few essential public services that we need in order to function and trade with each other in a free economy, then there would seem little point in having any form of government at all.

          One of the old German Kaisers made a statement many years ago, i don't remember which one or when, i just remember reading it someplace, but the statement was that "his only useful function, was to supply his population with a currency to enable them to trade with each other, and were it not for this, he would serve absolutely no useful purpose at all". If enough people can simply figure out that in order to establish and maintain a free, abundant, private, growing and healthy enterprise system, we need to establish government that will perform its only useful function and provide us with the public services which we need to facilitate that, then we will have it too. If this can be accomplished, we will have made money our servant instead of our master, and from that point on things can only keep getting better instead of worse, as they always have in the past, and since the only free man is a man without a master, we will have permanently secured our political as well as economic freedom in the process.

          Again, thanks Jim. This has turned into a great discussion and i guess were pretty much out of reply options by now too, i replied to my last in response to yours, but this is exactly the sort of information we need to get in front of the general population too so that they can begin to understand this as well. Again, i will ask that absolutely everyone reading this, to whom its making sense, copy paste and forward this entire conversation into emails and forward it to everyone on their list, and i'll ask everyone receiving the emails who is making sense of this to do the same, as i think this is probably one of the best discussions which has come up on here thus far. I think this is interesting enough to keep most people reading and by the time their done reading they will be thinking too.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        • Hi David,

          You stated...
          "In order to keep the money from buying power, the only possible way to do that is to have it under complete and absolute public control, where the population itself is responsible for electing the people who will manage it, and can vote them out of office if they don’t manage it according to the will of the population."

          My question...Would this be simmilar to how large corporations opperate??? where you have a group of board members - main stock holders - that put in place those they feel best qualified to run the company and when those positions do well they earn a bonus and when they fail they are given the axe by the board members. I hope I am not coming off TOO ignorant.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • Hi Machine;

          Well first of all, there's no such thing as an ignorant question when it comes to this, as it has only been twice in history that any society has existed without banks and both times the prosperity and economic might which were generated were completely beyond comprehension.

          Right now, the objective is a very simple thing, which is to take control of the currency, the public means of exchange which each and every one of us needs to trade with, away from the private interests who have used it to destroy us, and make it a public asset as it needs to be and should have always been, so that it can actually serve us instead of rule us, and actually benefit us and allow us to grow and prosper instead.

          In terms of managing the currency we already have the government department to do that which is the treasury, and id expect that they would be the ones responsible creating and distributing the currency. Instead of abrogating that responsibility to the Banks running the federal reserve as they currently do, and then collecting taxes to pay the banks, the treasury would be creating and distributing the money instead. Instead of us paying them, they would be paying us, so it would be a complete reversal of function to what it should have always been and needs to be. The treasury would definitely not be a business so any standard corporate structures wouldn't really be apply, but a public institution which would be run pretty much as any other government department is run. I guess if anyone were to be considered a stockholder it would be each and every person in American with each having an equal share of stock, and it would be through the electoral process that the people would put those in charge that they deemed best qualified to run it, the same as anything else.

          In terms of how the public currency was managed, i'm just one man, and i can can make suggestions, but the details of that would have to established by the population. First of all managing the system will be an extremely simple thing and as i stated in one of my previous, it simply is a matter of injecting currency into circulation until we see a small amount of inflation, maybe 2 %, and then holding off on any increase of that injection until the production capacity catches up and prices drop to where they were before. This would be an extremely simple, working, efficient and honest system, with absolutely no need for the complexity and the organization that is needed to maintain the theft and fraud we have today. Many of the private banks outlets we currently have now would probably end up functioning as branches of the treasury, maintaining accounts for the population as usual, and depositing the injections of new currency into them, and issuing loans of the public currency much as the banks do now except for the public benefit instead of profit, and probably end up keeping many of the employees the private banks have now as well.

          As i stated in my previous, what id like to see, is for the government to be restricted to financing their operations on whatever interest they charged on loans to the public in lieu of taxes, with them no longer having the power to tax, and then inject the the additional currency needed to make up for our economic growth directly into the hands of the public by equal distribution to everyone most likely on a monthly basis. This would give some measure of control over government spending as if they spent too much interest rates go up and if they spend little they will remain low and such a government is more likely to be re-elected as a result. If the people themselves spend the new currency into circulation it will ensure proper distribution through the natural laws of supply and demand. In the case of the American colonies and also when this was done by Hitler, i think most of the currency was spent directly into circulation by government and not through the population itself, and there would be a much greater potential for abuse this way, and it could upset the economic balance to something other than ideal. I guess the one thing we would have to figure out, is how to involve and finance the state and local governments as well and whether to finance them through interest collected on the federal level or through sales taxes etc as they do now (id love to see any form of property tax come to an end in the process, as once something is paid for it should be yours unconditionally, and this is a direct violation of a constitutional right), but i'll leave it to someone else to worry about that and once the threat we now face is dealt with and what we need to happen established, i'm sure this will be easily established.

          The thing to remember here though, is that regardless of how the currency gets into the system, once a dollar is in circulation, it will simply keep circulating and every time it changes hands something has to be done or built for it to purchase, so as long as it simply stays there, and more keeps being added as needed, instead of being removed by private banks in interest, it really doesn't matter too much how it gets there, as sooner or later it will generate prosperity across the board. I'd just like to see the initial issue of new currency in the hands of the people themselves. Right now government has unlimited spending power through forcible taxation, by taking money away from the people which they have legitimately earned and are entitled to keep. If they are allowed to spend the currency directly into circulation, they have still unlimited spending power to the point of creating inflation, to the extent where they could spend many times more than they spend today, and still allow everyone to keep every nickel of what they earn free from taxes. I don't think they should have the right or power to do that though, and id like to see everyone getting a national dividend of 1,000, then 2,000 then 5,000 a month above and beyond whatever they were able to earn, and let the people put the new currency into circulation themselves and let it generate exactly the business and production that they themselves create a demand for.

          I have a pretty good idea of what our production capacity could actually become given the means to pay for the full extent of what it could be, and the enormous economic growth we could generate by this and i think most people who are involved in providing any form of useful production or services could see this too, were they to acknowledge the possibility of it being so and don't be surprised if that dividend grows in excess of 10,000 a month before too long. I think we would also end up in a situation where a huge percentage Americans ended up owning extremely productive and profitable businesses, and we would end up with an extreme shortage of people to do the actual production, where competition for workers would drive the wages up instead of pressure from unions bankrupting the business which is only selling 1/10th. as much as it should be because only 1/10th of the people who would want what they produce can afford it (actually make that 1/1ooth as much in this economic mess our banks have created today, the 1/10th was before the crash a few years ago). I expect we would end up exporting revolution either directly or simply by economic effect and example, to places like Mexico, and probably eventually every other country in the world, where they would end up wanting to become American territories, with their populations getting richer than they have ever been before providing the ever increasing demand for labor to meet the production demand created by the extreme purchasing power in the hands of the American population and in the process expand the markets for our business to these areas as well.

          Am i, and all of the other people in America like me, from every manufacturing business, to every building contractor, to every independent tradesman and every farmer and anyone else performing any form of useful production or service capable of creating an extra couple of thousand dollars a month worth of really cool and useful stuff for every person in America today ? Of course we are, as long as they have the means to pay for it which only the banks have denied them thus far. Given the means to pay for absolutely anything that could possibly be wanted or needed that anyone can or could do or produce, will there be 1o times more of the population of America in business and doing these things independently in another 5 years as opposed to working jobs than there are today, of course there will. Could it get to the point where the majority of Americans are doing this and everyone getting rich beyond their wildest dreams in the process, with even the ones who did nothing getting rich as well, with us having to outsource by necessity most of the labor to other countries, or new US territories, because everyone here will be making way too much money owning a good and profitable business, or simply relaxing and raking in their share of the massive national dividend those doing this would have created for them to even want a job ? I think it might.

          If you read some of the statements of some of our founding fathers on the future that they envisioned for America, it seems that this is what they had in mind.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • David, Thank you for taking time to answer my question and further explain things. Would you mind if I copied your entire thread to a file for my own future reference. Again thank you for taking the time to thuroughly paint a clear picture, if I have any other questions I will find you.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • Machine absolutely, in fact i've been begging people repeatedly to copy paste any and all relevant discussions on here into emails and forward them to everyone on their email lists and ask them to forward them on.

          On here were pretty much preaching to the choir and if were actually going to have a chance to save ourselves from the inevitable and possibly make something like this happen we absolutely have to get things like this into circulation among the public so everyone can see them. Once we've done this long enough that enough are understanding then we can propose a course of action to bring it about, but it will first take repeated exposure for most to figure it out.

          Any use that anyone can make of things like this both toward realizing the potential of how things could be themselves, or getting it into the hands of more people so they can do the same is very good thing :)

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • The Declaration of Independence is the organic law of America and its first and most important tenet is "all men are created equal". Under this tenet no person or group of people, including some group called government, may ever initiate force or fraud against any other person or group of people. This is the basis of true freedom.
      All forms of Socialism, whether called Fascism, Marxism, Communism, Democracy, or any other name, are based upon the very opposite of freedom - the initiation of force. Oh, the proponents of whatever program will never say this. They will try to use emotional pleas, such as, it's for the protection of the children, or the elderly, or the sick. But regardless, the underlying basis of all Socialism is the initiation of force, or for the regulatory agencies, the threat of force.
      The Constitution was adopted to install a gov't based upon the tenet that "all men are created equal", so the federal gov't has no jurisdiction over a sovereign American. In addition, the Constitution only grants the federal gov't jurisdiction over foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians. The federal gov't has no jurisdiction over any intrastate commerce whatsoever due to the tenet that "all men are created equal".
      However, there have been powers behind the scenes working to gain control over all Americans since the ink dried on the Declaration of Independence.
      Just two years after the adoption of the Constitution, the bankers, under the lead of Alexander Hamilton, started to destroy American sovereignty.
      In the frontier it became common for the people to use alcohol as a medium of exchange. It worked well as the alcohol could be "gauged" to determine its "proof". So a pint of 80 proof alcohol would be a certain value, a quart of 100 proof would be a higher value, etc.
      The Act of Congress approved on March 3, 1791, initiated "internal duties" in the U.S. This Act caused the Whiskey Rebellion by placing a tax on stills and the stills' distillate. This is an unconstitutional tax as it lays a tax on an intrastate activity. Alexander Hamilton urged George Washington to quell the "rebellion". By calling the tax revolt as the Whiskey Rebellion, no one ever challenged the constitutionality of this Act of Congress. This Act stated that those charged with the collection of this tax were to be the same as those charged with collecting all the previous importing taxes - the customs. Alexander Hamilton wrote this Act of Congress. George Washington called out the militia to quell the "rebellion" and led the troops to Bedford, Pennsylvania. At that point Alexander Hamilton led the militia into western Pennsylvania and wrecked havoc on anyone who stood in his way. I know of no other time when the Secretary of the Treasury led a military campaign.
      The bankers forced the federal gov't into bankruptcy in the 1930's. This is evidenced in the law itself by the correlation between the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.): title 11 U.S.C., "Bankruptcy", is implemented by title 11 C.F.R., "Federal Elections". Our vote is now to elect a bankruptcy "administration".
      Bankrupting the federal gov't was not enough however. The bankers wanted to make the American people pay the interest on their counterfeit money loans to the gov't.
      Social Security was established in order to destroy American sovereignty. The "Form SS-5" is a federal employment form. After all only a federal employee is liable for federal employment taxes. You know the name of this federal employee - you've heard it a thousand times. It's the "taxpayer". "Taxpayer" is a legal term defined at 26 CFR 2.1-1(a)(5) as a member of the Merchant Marine - a federal employee. At 26 CFR 2.1-1(b) it states that this is the definition of the term wherever used in the Code and the regulations for all calculation of taxes.
      By checking the box labeled as "U.S. citizen" the applicant for a S.S.# has also given the gov't prima facie evidence that he has U.S. possession citizenship. "U.S. citizen" is also a legal term exemplified at 26 CFR 25.2501-1(c) as a person born in one of the States who then establishes a residence in a U.S. possession (Puerto Rico is used in the example from the CFR) and, further, acquires U.S. possession citizenship. This regulation then references back to 26 USC 2501(b) where it states that this is the definition of "citizen" "wherever used in this title". The "U.S. citizen" is the 14th Amendment citizen.
      The combination of the legal terms "taxpayer" and "U.S. citizen" is known as another legal term - the "U.S. resident".
      The U.S. possessions are treated as foreign countries in the Code, so a "U.S. citizen" would be a foreigner. A "U.S. resident" is a "U.S citizen" living in America - a foreigner.
      This is how the gov't is now proceeding. Most people feel that the gov't is ignoring the Constitution, however, its subterfuge evidences that the gov't is quite aware of its limited jurisdiction.
      The income tax is a tax on the collectors of "internal duties". It was created in the Act of Congress approved on August 5, 1861. All "U.S. residents" are receiving an undistributed dividend that includes the requisite income from the collection of importing duties within the U.S. possessions - this is why all "taxpayers" must file income tax returns.
      The ATF and the IRS are therefore part of the Customs Service - operating in foreign commerce.
      I have challenged the constitutionality of the Act of Congress approved on March 3, 1791, in federal court. The District Court failed to rule on it. I filed an interlocutory appeal and after 7 months the Appellate Court refused to accept the appeal. I am now appealing the District Court's final ruling. So far the Appellate Court, the District Court, the Dept of Justice are all conspiring against me in an attempt to deny me my right of appeal.
      This is just the latest in a long line of felonies committed by the gov't and the courts in order to keep the actual law out of the courts.
      Go to http://wp.me/pCW6e-3g to see evidence of the court tampering with court docket in order to avoid sitting in judicial review of my supplementary brief that challenged the sufficiency of the IRS indictment by using the term "resident" to bring in all of the elements of the crime.
      I have all of this and more on my Blog at LLSTULER.wordpress.com.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Calvin...

    I'm sorry...I am not understanding what your getting at. Are you saying we'd be better off if Obama WAS a Socialist and he was for socalism?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. The progressives know how.

    Control education which means get rid of the socialist teacher's union, gov't schools and progressive-socialist media by writing their sponsors to complain about bias over and over again. Money talks and socialists know this more that anyone else.

    Pehaps we should ALL read Saul D. Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" and fight fire with fire!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. We need to find a way to keep these psychopath from political office. How do we get rid of them? How do we keep psychopaths from power and money?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. We need to find a way to keep these psychopath from political office. How do we get rid of them? How do we keep psychopaths from power and money?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. I thought he was going to redistribute towards the low income! Not the rich!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  7. THANK YOU DR. PAUL for attempting to set the record straight on Nazism!! So many goons on youtube attempt to argue that the Nazis were NOT Socialists.

    "Nazism was Socialism"

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. THANK YOU DR. PAUL for attempting to set the record straight on Nazism!! So many goons on youtube attempt to argue that the Nazis were NOT Socialists.

    "Nazism was Socialism"

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  9. FOX sucks!!! Bush is a Fascist...Patriot Act..bank bailouts, stimulus, open borders, central banking..WARS!!!

    its tough to watch Ron on Fox, they are all about their team..Republican

    Ron Paul 2012

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. FOX sucks i cant stand the way they are being a "libertarian" point of view because they jumped on Ron Paul coat tails.Bush did the same things and they applaud their great leader

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  11. LOL yes

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Yes, Bush was (and is) a Statist Fascist like his father and grand father US senator Prescott Bush who helped fund the Nazis. The NAZI German National Socialist Workers Party, Communsits and Socialists are Statists.

    The Opposite of Statism is Individual Liberty. We need just enough gov't to "..provide for the common defense" and "PROMOTE the general welfare" (not provide welfare) by enforcing contract law and keeping us from stealing from or killing each other and NO MORE!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. I wish.

    Americans who think he is a socialism obviously have no idea much better off we'd be if they were right. Wealth is being redistributed upwards, into bigger and bigger pockets.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

    • I like how you put it "Wealth is being redistributed upwards".
      Wouldn't corporatist be a better description of Obama rather than socialist?
      Even if you look at the Obama's health-care system which make us force to buy insurance whether we like it or not is all for the insurance Co., pharmaceutical Co. and drug companies - certainly not for us.

      If Obama and his alike do what was done in the old Socialist Soviet Union then most of our educated doctors will leave for another country just as the Soviet doctors left Russia for Europe and the US in the 50s-90s which will lead us for paying higher insurance with third world countries health-care system.

      If any of these insurance Co., pharmaceutical Co. and drug companies do bad business, we still have to pay for their failure because than they will grow to big to fail.

      Obama is definitely a Corporatist

      RON PAUL 2012

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Ron Paul 2012

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  15. GlennBeckcares4u

    A majority of Americans don't know what a socialist is.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. Majority of Americans are ignorant

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. I have a degree in political science, and I can say for a fact that Obama is in favor of some socialist policies. He believes that every American should have access to affordable healthcare and that the previous laws, which forced hospitals to admit patients despite pay, was a catch-22. Obama believes that we need serious economic reform, so he is attempting to enhance regulations on Wall Street. Those ideas are socialist, but so are libraries, public schools, college loans, roads, etc.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. former communist countries Russia and China went on the way to capitalism and World #1 capitalist USA going straight to communism

    lesson here learned : Do not Judge , you will turn into your enemies ,

    retarded humans must learn how this matrix works

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. They think Obama is Socialist because Fox News demagogues like this guy told them so. -.-

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. The 55% people are ignorant and dont know what the word means.
    also, since when being a socialist is a bad thing. what if the 55% think it's good that he is a socialist.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


seven + 1 =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>